The paper reviews the evolution of the ideology and the path of creating the Albanian state in the Balkans, from the moment when it did not exist at all (during the Ottoman Empire) until today, when Albanians live in an internationally recognized state (the Republic of Albania) and in one self-proclaimed state (the so-called "Republic of Kosovo"). In that regard, this paper is based on two theses. According to the first, the focus of the original so-called state-building ideology about the need for all Albanians to live in one state, "Greater Albania", today is radically changed and diametrically opposed: "Kosovo Albanians" now do not want to join the Republic of Albania, but want an independent state - the so-called "Greater Kosovo", which would include parts of the territories of central Serbia, Montenegro, Northern Macedonia and Greece where Albanians live. The reason for the essential change of ideology is that the drug bosses of Albanian criminal clans that control the territory of Kosmet, and who were previously commanders of Albanian terrorist organizations, want their own "drug state", in which they would control all social flows and enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution. The second thesis on which this paper is based is that the attack on the Albanian mafia is at the same time a blow to the so-called quasi-statehood of the so-called Republic of Kosovo, i.e. on the levers of financial power, which is the backing for political power and international support for the so-called Republic of Kosovo.
National Security Strategy is a document of the highest strategic importance in one state that defines core values, interests, challenges, risks and threats to national security, as well as the organization of the national security system and national security policy in order to secure and achieve national interests. The Republic of Serbia defined its strategic priorities for the first time when it adopted the first National Security Strategy in 2009, and updated them in the new National Security Strategy adopted in 2019. An important part of the first Strategy was the concept of human security, which was indication that the Republic of Serbia formally considered the needs and values of an individual on an equal footing with the values of the state. This Strategy was deemed to be an expression of determination of the Republic of Serbia to create conditions for improving human security in economic, health, political and other aspects and through transparency, rule of law and responsibility. However, the new Strategy does not explicitly mention human security as a specific part of the integral concept of national security. Furthermore, it introduces several novelties that are in contrast with the prevailed human-centric mission of the previous strategy, and these novelties are focused towards territorial integrity, sovereignty and other state-centric issues. Bearing this in mind, the questions arising are: why this strategic turn was made and what are to be the implications of this change for human security. The main hypothesis is that the strategic turn to state-centrism instead of the human-centric approach promoted by the previous National Security Strategy was made because it corresponds to the global trend of revival of nationalism and sovereignty. However, this indisputably leaves room for criticism because people are the most important factor in the equation of integral national security and disregarding them in the national security strategies and policies can be problematized on multiple levels.
The monograph Contemporary Security Studies: An Introduction to methodological, research and theoretical foundations of security is the result of many years of comprehensive research of the phenomenon of security and the endangering of security and it is the outcome of the research effort aimed to prove the scientific character of the security field. The fact is that security in the Republic of Serbia is still not in the national nomenclature of scientific fields. Instead, it is claimed, with some reason, but far from having absolute right to it, by political scientists, jurists, soldiers, ecologists, and similar scientific and educational, and professional profiles. In spite of everything, the theory and practice of security have developed to the point of growing into an independent scientific field within the social and humanity sciences, and to a great extent within the natural and technical and technological sciences. Therefore, we expect security to be declared an independent scientific field within the social and humanity sciences, and this monograph to be one of the numerous and firm arguments in accomplishing that aim. Respecting the postulates of the methodology of scientific research, professional ethics in higher education and scientific and research activities, but also the standards of the Code of Ethics of Scientific and Research Work of the Academy of Criminalistic and Police Studies, it is our duty to briefly elaborate the history of this book. Specifically, the ideas for the texts on security, endangering of security, and the methodology of exploring security phenomena, have been taken from the traditional Belgrade Security School that has been developed for years in the Education and Research Centre of the Security Institute, the former (Service, Department of) State Security, in the Security Information Agency, at the Faculty of Security Studies, University of Belgrade (former Faculty of Civil Defence, before that, Faculty of National Defence), and in police education (the Secondary School of Interior Affairs in Sremska Kamenica, the College of Interior Affairs in Zemun, Police Academy in Belgrade, and the Academy of Criminalistics and Police Studies in Zemun). The presented scientific findings obtained scientific verification, to a smaller extent, by being published in the first and second edition of the course book National Security by the author Saša Mijaković PhD (Academy of Criminalistic and Police Studies, 2009, 2011). It was in the first three chapters of the course book (Methodological basis of national security, Security, and Endangering security), on around 100 pages. The development of scientific thought has led, over time, to the justified need for distancing the matter of the security basis/introduction to contemporary security studies from the matter of national security, and to intensive abstraction of the matter of the security basis in relation to the operationalized matter of the national security. The results of the distinction that refer to the basic categories of security are incorporated in this monograph. The scientific findings taken from the course book National Security (2009, 2011) constitute up to 30% of this monograph. Therefore, we strived to accomplish that Contemporary Security Studies: An Introduction to methodological, research and theoretical foundations of security meets all normative and ethic criteria of a new scientific publication, which was confirmed by the reviewers. Meanwhile, in the course book National Security (third edition, Academy of Criminalistic and Police Studies, Belgrade, 2015), these contents were, to a great extent, excluded and replaced by a new text. Finally, we were again honoured to have the publishing and copyrights remain in the hands of the Academy, to which we devoted our careers.
Contemporary security studies have opened the field for a multitude of new terms and concepts. Professional language enrichment of contemporary security studies has been a logical consequence of the expansion of their research fields, which occurs in response to emerging security threats and challenges, as well as to new subjects and objects of security studies and practices. The newly established post-Cold War era in security studies has been featured by calling in question the dominant state-centric understanding of the concept of security, which brings about the deepening of the concept to the individual level of analysis. In addition to the well-established terms as state security and national security, in contemporary security studies discourse there has been emerging terms that refer to the security dynamics that takes place on an individual level such as individual security, personal security and human security. However, in the academics' writings these terms and concepts are often vaguely defined, and used in academics' and public discourse in different ways, sometimes as synonyms, while in some cases the same terms are used with different meanings, which inevitably leads to a certain terminological imprecision. Variations in definition of terms and guidelines such as human security, individual security and personal security in domestic and foreign scholars' papers point to the lack of universality and their fluid nature. These variations are partly considered to be the consequence of the complexity of these new concepts, but they also may be caused by too much latitude in interpretation of their meaning. This deprives these concepts of the stable and common meaning and poses an obstacle for their use in common academic discourse. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to find some standards in the use of these concepts and to link them with the dominant and prevailing meanings that are attached to them in academic use. In order to give an answer to the question of whether are they different concepts or the multiplication of the same concept, the meanings of the term individual security will firstly be presented when considered as a level of analysis in security studies, and then when it is considered as part of a broader political concept of human security. ; Savremene studije bezbednosti otvorile su polje za mnoštvo novih termina i koncepata. Obogaćivanje jezika savremenih studija bezbednosti logična je posledica širenja njihovog istraživačkog polja, koje nastaje kao odgovor akademske zajednice na novonastale bezbednosne izazove i pretnje, kao i nove subjekte i objekte studija i prakse bezbednosti. Posthladnoratovski period u studijama bezbednosti obeležen je i preispitivanjem dominantnog državocentričnog shvatanja pojma bezbednosti koje je rezultiralo produbljivanjem pojma i njegovom širenju ka individualnom nivou analize. Pored termina državna i nacionalna bezbednost, u diskursu savremenih studija bezbednosti javljaju se termini kao što su individualna bezbednost, lična bezbednost, bezbednost pojedinca i ljudska bezbednost. Međutim, u literaturi su ovi termini često nejasno određeni, pa se u akademskom diskursu koriste na različite načine. Nedoslednost u definisanju pojmova kao što su ljudska bezbednost, individualna bezbednost i lična (personalna) bezbednost kod domaćih i stranih autora neminovno ukazuje na njihovu fluidnu prirodu i nedovoljnu preciznost. Ona je posledica složenosti ovih novonastalih pojmova, ali i slobode u interpretaciji njihovih značenja koja sprečava da se sadržaj ovih pojmova učvrsti i postane deo zajedničkog, ustaljenog akademskog diskursa. Stoga, cilj rada je da ukaže na pravilnosti u upotrebi navedenih pojmova i poveže ih sa dominantnim, preovlađujućim značenjem za koje se u akademskoj upotrebi najčešće vezuju. Kako bi se dao odgovor na pitanje da li se radi o različitim pojmovima ili multiplikaciji istog pojma, u radu će se najprije izložiti sama upotreba termina individualna bezbednost, kao nivoa analize u studijama bezbednosti, a potom njegova upotreba kao dela jednog šireg političkog koncepta kakva je ljudska bezbednost.
Abstract Police experience occupational stress in two categories: operational (i.e. long hours, shift work, crime scenes) and organizational (e.g. favouritism, bureaucratic red tape) stress. High occupational stress may harm officers' health perceptions, decreasing individual policing capacity. This study surveyed the relationship between operational and organizational stress and perceived health among 1,220 Serbian police officers (female = 232 [19%]; mean age 39.1 ± 8.4 years). Participants answered a single general health question, a 20-question operational police stress questionnaire, and a 20-question organizational police stress questionnaire. Perceived health was negatively associated with operational and organizational stress. Moderate negative associations were found between age and health and obesity status and health. When age groups were analysed separately, older officers with good or great health reported lower operational and organizational stress levels. These results suggest that better-perceived health may be protective against stress for police officers.
