Autorica istražuje mogućnost da se pesimizam etablira kao relevantan pravac unutar teorije realizma međunarodnih odnosa u objašnjavanju kako prošlih, tako i budućih događaja u međunarodnoj politici. U radu se koristi metateorijska interpretativna metoda kako bi se iznijele neke od temeljnih niti vodilja misli pesimizma, pri čemu je fokus samo na klasičnom realizmu unutar realističke teorije, budući da su njezine postavke ujedno i temeljna izvorišta pesimizma. U prvom dijelu rada iznosi se temeljne odrednice i biti realizma i pesimizma, drugi dio se fokusira na intelektualnu pozadinu pesimistične misli u radovima Schopenhauera, Nietzschea i Freuda, a posljednji dio iznosi kritiku optimizma i temeljne opreke u poimanju koncepta vremena između pesimizma i optimizma, kao i implikacije koje pesimizam ima za međunarodne odnose. Pesimizam kao pravac unutar teorije realizma međunarodnih odnosa ima filozofsku snagu i jaku teorijsku pozadinu te može imati svoje mjesto unutar realističke teorije međunarodnih odnosa. ; The author evaluates the possibility of the concept of pessimism establishing itself as a relevant factor within the theory of realism in international relations, that is, for explaining past and future events in international politics. The approach applies the meta theoric interpretative method in order to expose some of the tenets of the leading pessimistic theories where the focus is on classical realism within the realistic theory, since its origins are also the fundamental origins of pessimism. The first part exposes the fundamental postulates and essence of realism and pessimism, while the second part focuses on the intellectual background of the pessimism thought found in the works of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Freud. The last part expose a criticism of optimism as well as the fundamental contradictions in understanding the concept of time between pessimism and optimism, as well as the implications of pessimism on international relations. Pessimism, as a part of the theory of realism in international ...
The article analyzes how the 16+1 Cooperation promotes the Chinese new type of international relations from four perspectives: firstly, the "16+1 Cooperation" insists on not rejecting third parties and promotes the idea of open and inclusive international cooperation; Secondly, the cooperation framework adheres to the principle of mutually-beneficial and win-win cooperation, and proposes to wisely handle differences and divergences; Thirdly, this framework never engages in zero-sum games, instead, it fully respects and closely watches the core interests and major concerns of the relevant parties; Fourthly, it is committed to creating a cooperative platform through consultation, to meet the interests of all. The article also makes an analysis of the challenges facing 16+1 Cooperation and gives some suggestions. ; The article analyzes how the 16+1 Cooperation promotes the Chinese new type of international relations from four perspectives: firstly, the "16+1 Cooperation" insists on not rejecting third parties and promotes the idea of open and inclusive international cooperation; Secondly, the cooperation framework adheres to the principle of mutually-beneficial and win-win cooperation, and proposes to wisely handle differences and divergences; Thirdly, this framework never engages in zero-sum games, instead, it fully respects and closely watches the core interests and major concerns of the relevant parties; Fourthly, it is committed to creating a cooperative platform through consultation, to meet the interests of all. The article also makes an analysis of the challenges facing 16+1 Cooperation and gives some suggestions.
Globalizacija i povećana međunarodna međuovisnost pridonose tomu da se ponovno povećava interes utjecaja strukture međunarodnog sustava na međunarodne odnose. Međunarodni sustav od kraja Hladnog rata neprestano proživljava promjene. One se najviše odlikuju u političkim i sigurnosnim novitetima. U takvim je uvjetima struktura sustava postala glavnom odrednicom ponašanja država koje se, promatrajući ih kroz perspektivu strukturalnog realizma ili neorealizma, ponašaju isključivo u skladu s vlastitim interesima, u uvjetima anarhičnog sustava. S obzirom na geopolitički položaj te veličinu Hrvatskoj je izrazito bitno čvrsto članstvo unutar NATO-saveza i Europske Unije. Kontekst razvoja sigurnosti i obrane time postaje više usmjeren na činjenicu da se zemlje članice saveza obvezuju pomagati jedna drugoj u slučaju pojave ugroze, te se time jača stabilnost nacionalne sigurnosti potrebne da se omoguće dugoročni mir i stabilnost u zemlji, ali i u susjedstvu. Kao središnji i konstantan fenomen u proučavanju međunarodnih odnosa, savezi nastaju jer su vlade svih razvijenih država svjesne da su dio jednog većeg entiteta u međunarodnoj politici u kojoj, prema postavkama neorealističke škole među-narodnih odnosa, postoje prijetnje koje su uzroci stvaranja saveza. ; Globalisation and increased international interdependence have contributed to the fact that once again the interest of the impact on the structure of the international system to international relations is increased. The international system, since the end of the Cold War, is constantly going through changes. They are the most distinguished in political and security innovations. In such circumstances, the structure of the system has become the main determinant of behaviour of states that, looking through the perspective of structural realism or neorealism, act solely pursuing their own interest, in terms of an anarchic system. Given the geopolitical position and size of the country, it is extremely important for Croatia to have a firm membership within the NATO and the European Union. The context of development of security and defence thus becomes more focused on the fact that the member states of the alliance commit to assist each other in case of threats, so the stability of national security needed to enable long-term peace and stability in the country, but also the neighbourhood, is strengthened. As a central and constant phenomenon in the study of international relations, alliances are formed because the governments of all developed countries are aware that they are part of a larger entity in international politics, in which, according to the neorealist school of international relations, there are threats that cause creating alliances.
Hans J. Morgenthau, utemeljitelj realističke teorije međunarodne politike četrdesetih godina 20. stoljeća, donedavno se smatrao pozitivističkim teoretičarom "tvrde" politike moći u međunarodnoj politici. No sve veći akademski interes za njegovo djelo posljednjih godina pokazao je kako je riječ o kompleksnom misliocu koji je ponajprije teoretičar politike. U ovome rada autor prikazuje Morgenthauovu političku teoriju i njezine temeljne pojmove u trima razdobljima njihova razvoja: do Drugoga svjetskog rata, od kraja rata do šezdesetih godina i poslije šezdesetih. Posebno se osvrćući na glavne studije iz svakoga od tih razdoblja, autor nastoji dokazati da je svrha Morgenthauove teorije međunarodne politike bio pokušaj da se politika i političko konstituiraju kao odgovor na duboku društvenu i političku krizu modernog Zapada. Njegova realistička teorija međunarodne politike nije samo akademski pothvat nego i svojevrstan politički projekt. ; Hans J. Morgenthau, who founded realist theory of international politics in the 1940s, has until recently been considered a positivist theorist of crude power politics in international relations. However, in recent years, with rising academic interest for his works, Morgenthau has been seen as a complex thinker and primarily a political theorist. This article aims to show Morgenthau's political theory and its fundamental concepts that run through the three periods of his writing: up to the Second World War, during the post-war period, and in the 1960s. With a special overview of the pivotal studies from each of the above periods, this article will show that the purpose of Morgenthau's theory of international politics is an attempt at constructing politics and the political as an answer to the deep social and political crisis of the modern West. His realist theory of international politics is not just an academic endeavor but also a political project of sorts.
Ovaj članak prvo izlaže teorije koje zagovaraju koncentraciju moći. Na području političke filozofije to je Hobbesova teorija koja zagovara koncentraciju moći u rukama monarha, zasnovanu na pravu, kako bi se spriječio povratak u prirodno stanje. Na području teorija o međunarodnim odnosima to je teorija nadmoći koja tvrdi da nadmoć jedne države smanjuje vjerojatnost izbijanja ratova. Obje teorije, de facto, idu u prilog američkoj hegemoniji jer iz njih proizlazi to da ta hegemonija nije samo u interesu SAD-a, nego i u interesu svjetskog mira. Međutim ovaj članak tvrdi da je sustav ravnoteže i kontrole (checks and balances) važan ne samo unutar države nego i u međunarodnim odnosima. ; This article first presents theories that justify the concentration of power. In the field of political philosophy, Hobbes's theory argues in favor of the concentration of power in the hand of a monarch in order to prevent the state of nature. In the field of theories of international relations, power preponderance theory argues that power preponderance of one country prevents international wars. Consequently, both theories justify American hegemony, arguing that hegemony does not only serve the best interest of the USA, but also the interest of world peace. However, this article claims that checks and balances are important not just in domestic politics but in international relations as well.
Utemeljen na polazištima kritički orijentiranih sigurnosnih studija i studija terorizma, rad propituje metodološke, epistemološke pa i ontološke aspekte fenomena državnog terorizma. Tvrdi se kako je državni terorizam sustavno zanemareno područje znanja o terorizmu, iako je empirijski vrlo evidentan fenomen. U prvom dijelu rada propituje se klasična i suvremena politološka, sociološka, pravna i filozofska misao važna za razumijevanje države, sigurnosti, terorizma i državnog terorizma. Počevši od Weberove definicije države kao nositeljice monopola na nasilje i njegova koncepta razlikovanja vladavine (Herrschaft) i sile (Macht) tvrdi se da monopol na silu ne podrazumijeva korištenje svakog oblika sile i da država ne može biti ekskulpirana u situacijama kada koristi silu koja ima sva obilježja terorizma. Upravo za ključnim obilježjima terorizma traga se u drugom dijelu rada gdje se analizira postojeće znanje o terorizmu i državnom terorizmu. Na temelju postojećih definicija koje čine bazu od ukupno 373 definicije, sadržajnom i frekvencijskom analizom, dolazi se do operacionalne definicije terorizma i državnog terorizma. Izlučenih šest konstitutivnih elemenata terorizma ukazali su da je državni terorizam organizirana upotreba sile i nasilja ili prijetnja upotrebom nasilja kojom se posredstvom intencionalnog širenja straha odnosno terora, a na temelju anticipiranih reakcija širih psiholoških učinaka, nastoje ostvariti politički ciljevi, a kojega provodi i/ili sponzorira država. U fokusiranoj studiji s mnogo slučajeva u trećem dijelu analizira se državni terorizam na empirijskim primjerima dvadeset i jedne države (N=21). Slučajevi su selektirani na stogodišnjem dijakronijskom kontinuumu, počevši od 1914. godine i sarajevskog atentata na austro-ugarskog prijestolonasljednika Franju Ferdinanda pa do recentnih primjera protuterorističkih politika. Kroz povijesnu perspektivu, komparativnom metodom uz primjenu dizajna najrazličitijih slučajeva, potvrđena je polazna pretpostavka: terorizam jest ciljno racionalno sredstvo za postizanje političkih ciljeva država i njegova je pojavnost neovisna o tipu političkog režima. Kvalitativna i kvantitativna obilježja državnog terorizma nerijetko se razlikuju kako između tako i unutar triju poduzoraka (režima), no usprkos kontekstualnim razlikama, može se utvrditi da je u totalitarnim režimima državni terorizmu ekstremnih razmjera i predstavlja važnu polugu vladavine, dok je u autoritarnima, a napose u demokratskima riječ o fokusiranijem državnom nasilju, najčešće sa specifičnim oblicima djelovanja. ; The basis of this doctoral work rests on the fact that the state terrorism is ignored in the context of mainstream security and terrorism knowledge. Security studies as well as rapidly growing terrorism studies are predominantly focused on non-state terrorism. Critical voices which indicating the importance of the state terrorism phenomenon have emerged in the mid-1990s. Based on the starting points of critically oriented security studies and terrorism studies, this work analyzes the methodological, epistemological and even ontological aspects of the phenomenon of state terrorism. It is argued that the state terrorism is systematically neglected area of knowledge, although it is very evident phenomenon. In the first part of this doctoral work the classical and the contemporary political, social, philosophical thought and jurisprudence important for the understanding of the state security, terrorism and state terrorism have been examined. Max Weber's concept of the state and difference between legitimate domination (Herrschaft) and coercive power (Macht) in the exercise of sovereign state functions is at the center of theoretical discussions. We claim that this distinction remained outside of much Western scholarship. Their concepts are based on logic of what the state and its relations to society should be not what it is. In contrast to this mainstream normative oriented model we examine the empirical reality which is laden of state terrorism examples. Therefore, the second part of this work is dedicated to analysis of existing knowledge about terrorism and state terrorism. The emphasis is on the definitions of terrorism, so for this purpose the database of 373 terrorism definitions was constructed. Definitions collected from the scientific and academic sources, the expert sources, the available official sources of various institutions and organizations, news, etc. were subjected to content and frequency analysis. Those analyses indicated six key elements used for defining state terrorism, which is relevant to the selection of empirical cases. It is found that the state terrorism is the use of organized force and violence or threat to use violence as a means of intentional spreading fear and terror based on the anticipated reactions of broader psychological effects which seeks to achieve political objectives and which is conducted and/or sponsored by the state. It is not an ideology, but the strategy and tactic that can be used by all, including the states. Despite the fact that the most of the definitios are actor-neutral and that their contents coincide, there is no unified definition. According to such understanding, the third part is a focused study with a lot of cases (N=21) where the unit of analysis was state terrorism and analytical sub-units were states (cases) selected from the one century time span (1914th-2014th) complemented with the most recent cases (until the end of 2016th). Thus, it is a diachronic analysis (cross-historical analysis). Since the selected cases differ in several relevant independent variables (social, economic, geographic, cultural) the comparative analysis is based on the most different systems research designs. The basic criterion of comparison was the regime (totalitarian, authoritarian and democratic) in accordance with the tipology of Juan Linz. The main aim of such typology and case selection was to test the general thesis: terrorism is an integral instrument of state action that occurs in all types of political regimes and which states used/use as a form of rational choice to achieve their goals. The third part includes political and sociological analysis of primary and secondary sources for each case (state). The analysis of state terrorism included Italy during Mussolini, Nazi Germany, Lenin and Stalin Russia/Soviet Union, communist Poland, Mao Zednog's China, North Korea regime and Idi Amin's Uganda as a totalitarian regimes. The second group of states are, according to Linz proposal, authoritarian regimes. Here is a Serbian example of state sponsored terrorism in Sarajevo 1914 and assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Another example is Yugoslavia from the mid of 1960 even if it is not purely clear is it predominantly totalitarian or authoritarian regime. Other examples are the rule of Francisco Franco in Spain, death squad in Argentina, Gaddafi's Libya, the rule of Shah Reza Pahlavi in Iran and Suadi Arabia sponsoring of terrorism. Within a democratic cluster the United States of America, Israel, United Kingdom, France, Russian Federation, modern Turkey and Macedonia were analysed. The main findings in turn suggest that the state terrorism was/is practiced in totalitarian, authoritarian and democratic systems, was/is used in war or peace, was/is used by the rich and the poor countries of different cultural, political, economic, geographic and other features. In other words, terrorism is an universal form of state action, but the specific context of each of the analyzed cases does not provide the right to generalize or compare countries according to the basic independent variables - the type of regime. Divided societies and various social cleavages like political (ideological), ethnic, cultural, language, religious, economic and other are evident in the most of the internal state terrorism cases. Although the contexts of countries are quite heterogeneous, in each case analyzed rationality is a common feature of state terrorism. Statet are trying to achieve political goals in the most effective way, what is decisively for using a specific form of violence or threats of violence that we call terrorism. Although it is one of the most frequently used terms in the social sciences, it is evident that terrorism is not conceptually cleared. It is deeply socially constructed concept which depends on a variety of interests. This also affects the contemporary counterterrorism policy. Within the science and policy, terrorism is predominantly viewed as a war and/or criminal. Terrorism is not treated as a phenomenon that is generated from the political area and counterterrorism policies do not target the real causes of terrorism. The perspective of terrorism as a war and crime which is imposed by politics that cooperates with science, leads to a spiral of violence. Illegal and immoral state counterterrorism actions lead to the even more brutal reactions of non-state groups. This trend is especially noticeable from September 9/11 when the "war on terror" started. From this moment it is especially evident that in the name of national security, the degradation of democratic values and endangering human rights and civil liberties have begun. This is best reflected in the new security policies, counterterrorism laws and the state of emergency institute. Also, the democratic deficits are obvious in the examples of interventions in other countries. Illegal character of the war in Iraq shows that international law is not a guarantee nor law nor justice. Those are some contemporary examples of state illegal actions which could be classified as state terrorism in democratic states, but the history is full of state terrorism evidence. Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes in the 20th century, as well as some actual examples, suggesting that the scientific community is biased and ignores the important historical facts as well as contemporary trends. By securitization of terrorism concept, the state harnessed science to its own interest – first of all creating counterterrorism policies. Instrumented science can act only within the limits defined by the state. The main characteristic of the joint state and scientific activity is hypocrisy where identical phenomena do not have identical names. State and science are taking a morally superior position, so state terrorist actions are called "necessary security measures", and terrorism as a pejorative term is reserved only for non-state actors. Further scientific and political ignoring of state terrorism topic, denying a unique definition of terrorism, refusing the recognition of state crimes that fall into the category of terrorism and insistence on counterterrorism as war strategy only feeds the modern evil of non-state terrorism. As long as there is not a change of paradigm in which the force will be firmly under the auspices of the law and policy of double standards will not exist, it is not realistic to expect that the state will eliminate the problem of contemporary non-state terrorism.
Država Izrael u svijetu je prepoznata po višetisućljetnoj židovskoj tradiciji i povijesti. Osim bogate kulture, prožete bliskoistočnim elementima, ali i onima doseljenika iz raznih zapadnih zemalja, Izrael uživa poseban imidž na međunarodnoj pozornici. Taj pak imidž ovisi o više faktora – s jedne strane Izrael predstavlja multikulturalnu zemlju poželjnu kao turističku destinaciju ili pak zemlju za ekonomske i tehnološke inovacije, dok s druge Izrael biva predstavljen u negativnom kontekstu kao vojnička država koja guši prava manjina, posebice arapske. Negativan imidž utječe na Izrael, kao i na svaku drugu državu. Međutim, diplomatskim aktivnostima i raznim projektima ta slika pokušava se iz dana u dan poboljšati. Suradnja između diplomatskih službenika i konzultanata odnosa s javnošću ima za cilj što efektivniju promociju Izraela. Iako je percepcija Izraela ponekad izrazito polarizirana, u poslovnom svijetu taj faktor ne utječe na njegovo gospodarstvo. Baš suprotno, za vrijeme sukoba ili ratnih kriza, izraelski BDP je rastao, a sve to zahvaljujući imidžu vrijednih i upornih ljudi koji uživa židovska populacija u ekonomskom svijetu. U političkom kontekstu, Izrael druge države dijeli na prijateljske, odnosno neprijateljske. Kod prijateljskih, većinom zapadnjačkih država, uživa veliku potporu i u vojnom i u gospodarskom smislu te negativno pisanje svjetski poznatih medija ne utječe na tu potporu. Ovaj rad istražuje strategije međunarodnih odnosa s javnošću i diplomacije Države Izrael kao brenda u međunarodnoj zajednici. Kroz kratak povijesni pregled predstavlja se razvoj metoda kojima se izgrađuje imidž Izraela na međunarodnoj pozornici, a stručnjaci i diplomati daju praktičan uvid u funkcioniranje javne diplomacije i odnosa s javnošću na razini jedne države. ; The State of Israel is renowed worldwide for its millenial Jewish tradition and history. Besides its rich culture, infused with Middle Eastern and Western flavours, Israel nurtures a distinctive image in the international arena. The image is influenced by ...
This paper has two objectives. Firstly, I would like to introduce the conceptual framework for foreign policy analysis: the so-called role theory. In order for us to explain & understand the foreign policies of nation-states, the role theory focuses on the reasoning of national political elites, their understanding of the international system & the perceived role of their own states within this larger system. I will introduce the concepts of the role theory, its epistemological underpinning & the most important analytical applications of it. Secondly, I intend to make a contribution to the discussions about the application of social constructivism (as an IR theory) to foreign policy analysis. Thanks to its metatheoretical assumptions & conceptual outfit, the role theory is an appropriate candidate for bridging the gap between constructivist IR theory & FPA. Adapted from the source document.
The paper analyzes the link between Kant's 'Perpetual peace' and the democratic peace paradigm with which contemporary International Relations are being interpreted. In doing so, the monadic and dyadic versions of liberal theory of democratic peace are explained through the institutional-structural and cultural-normative models. The theory of democratic peace is critically analyzed, with emphasis on the causal relationship between the independent variable, the democratic regime, and the dependent variable, peace. Empirical studies of cases in which the crises among democratic states have not resulted in war are also questioned, which brings into doubt the causal logic of the theory itself. In critical thought about the democratic peace theory, special emphasis is placed on the realistic interpretation of causes that are believed to contribute to democratic peace, as well as on the existence of the so-called 'democratic war'. There exist a number of factors explaining this foreign policy behavior of democracies and their hiding behind the theses of the theory of democratic peace. An example is the position of power that democracy occupies in International Relations, with which, aside from liberal dependent variables, realistic variables must be taken into account as well, such as the concentration of power, economic interdependence and national interest. Adapted from the source document.
