Suchergebnisse

Dugo je vremena koncept suvereniteta smatran kamenom temeljcem domaćeg i međunarodnog prava te političke misli. Koncepcija suvereniteta blisko je povezana s koncepcijom države. Bilo je to »normalno« stanje države, u kojem ona ima vrhovnu ili konačnu vlast u unutarnjim političkim i pravnim pitanjima, a svojstvo neovisnosti prema drugim državama. Međunarodnu zajednicu činile su ravnopravne i neovisne države. Danas, na početku 21. stoljeća, koncept suvereniteta izložen je mnogim izazovima, od kojih je najznačajniji proces globalizacije koji je doveo do sve veće međupovezanosti ljudi širom svijeta vidljive na svim poljima: političkim, vojnim, ekonomskim, kulturnim i pravnim. U ovom radu usredotočit ćemo se na pitanje kako globalizacija utječe na državni suverenitet te da ti pregled argumenata korištenih u novijoj literaturi. ; The concept of sovereignty was for a long time considered as one of the cornerstones of national and international law, and of political thought. The concept of sovereignty was closely connected with the concept of the state. It was a »normal« situation of a country where it had supreme or final power in political and legal matters in its domestic affairs, while at the same time it was independent in relation to all other countries. The international community used to consist of equal and independent states. At the beginning of the 21st century, the concept of sovereignty is faced with many challenges, both in theory and in practice. What happens within a country's territory and to its inhabitants is now less a consequence of national politics than the result of international circumstances – the difference between internal and foreign affairs is becoming increasingly vague. Several processes are happening simultaneously: globalisation (the development of information and communication technology; increase in foreign investments, the development of multinational corporations, and strengthening of the international economic and trade organisations' role), the process of European integration, the development of international protection of human rights (the development of cogent rules of international law, humanitarian interventions, the role of transnational non- governmental organisations), and the phenomenon of »failed states«. All the above mentioned has created a need to redefine the concept of sovereignty.

Dugo je vremena koncept suvereniteta smatran kamenom temeljcem domaćeg i međunarodnog prava te političke misli. Koncepcija suvereniteta blisko je povezana s koncepcijom države. Bilo je to »normalno« stanje države, u kojem ona ima vrhovnu ili konačnu vlast u unutarnjim političkim i pravnim pitanjima, a svojstvo neovisnosti prema drugim državama. Međunarodnu zajednicu činile su ravnopravne i neovisne države. Danas, na početku 21. stoljeća, koncept suvereniteta izložen je mnogim izazovima, od kojih je najznačajniji proces globalizacije koji je doveo do sve veće međupovezanos- ti ljudi širom svijeta vidljive na svim poljima: političkim, vojnim, ekonomskim, kulturnim i pravnim. U ovom radu usredotočit ćemo se na pitanje kako globalizacija utječe na državni suverenitet te dati pregled argumenata korištenih u novijoj literaturi. ; The concept of sovereignty was for a long time considered as one of the corner- stones of national and international law, and of political thought. The concept of sovereignty was closely connected with the concept of the state. It was a »normal« situation of a country where it had supreme or final power in political and legal matters in its domestic affairs, while at the same time it was independent in relation to all other countries. The international community used to consist of equal and independent States. At the beginning of the 21st Century, the concept of sovereignty is faced with many challenges, both in theory and in practice. What happens within a country's territory and to its inhabitants is now less a consequence of national politics than the result of international circumstances - the difference between internal and foreign affairs is becoming increasingly vague. Several processes are happening simultaneously: globalisation (the development of information and communication technology; increase in foreign Investments, the development of multinational corporations, and strengthening of the international economic and trade organisations' role), the process of European integration, the development of international protection of human rights (the development of cogent rules of international law, humanitarian interventions, the role of transnational non/governmental organisations), and the phenomenon of »failed States«. All the above mentioned has created a need to redefine the concept of sovereignty.

The Belt and Road Initiative proclaimed by President Xi in 2013, a strategy developed by the Chinese government, is very important to China but is not confined to China. In order for the initiative to be successful it needs to be embraced by the countries on the terrestrial and maritime route indicated in the plan. In the late 1980s Deng Xiaoping proposed to integrate Socialism with Chinese Characteristics (Zhongguo Tese Shehui Zhuyi,中国特色社国主国) into global capitalism and in the 1990s the Jiang Zemin leadership initiated the Going out policy (Zouchuqu Zhanlue, 走出去国略) – the current Belt and Road Initiative is China's continuation in implementing those policies into actual deeds. China's accession to WTO in 2001 marked China's full integration into the global economy and since then the People's Republic of China (PRC) has become the largest trading partner for more than 180 countries. The Xi-Li administration has been extremely proactive since it was established in 2012; from that year on, Chinese behavior in international affairs has gained an ever-growing role as a forger of economic and diplomatic ties between countries. The primary example of this behavior is the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). As every serious foreign policy plan, the BRI is an accumulation of various other initiatives. For example, the cooperation mechanism "16+1", with which the PRC has approached Central and Eastern European Countries (CEEC), can be integrated under the BRI. This paper analizes the "16+1" China-CEEC cooperation mechanism in the context of the bigger BRI initiative, and tries to comprehend the economic and political factors intertwined with its implementation. ; The Belt and Road Initiative proclaimed by President Xi in 2013, a strategy developed by the Chinese government, is very important to China but is not confined to China. In order for the initiative to be successful it needs to be embraced by the countries on the terrestrial and maritime route indicated in the plan. In the late 1980s Deng Xiaoping proposed to integrate Socialism with Chinese Characteristics (Zhongguo Tese Shehui Zhuyi,中国特色社国主国) into global capitalism and in the 1990s the Jiang Zemin leadership initiated the Going out policy (Zouchuqu Zhanlue, 走出去国略) – the current Belt and Road Initiative is China's continuation in implementing those policies into actual deeds. China's accession to WTO in 2001 marked China's full integration into the global economy and since then the People's Republic of China (PRC) has become the largest trading partner for more than 180 countries. The Xi-Li administration has been extremely proactive since it was established in 2012; from that year on, Chinese behavior in international affairs has gained an ever-growing role as a forger of economic and diplomatic ties between countries. The primary example of this behavior is the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). As every serious foreign policy plan, the BRI is an accumulation of various other initiatives. For example, the cooperation mechanism "16+1", with which the PRC has approached Central and Eastern European Countries (CEEC), can be integrated under the BRI. This paper analizes the "16+1" China-CEEC cooperation mechanism in the context of the bigger BRI initiative, and tries to comprehend the economic and political factors intertwined with its implementation.

Globalizacija geoprostornih podataka i referentnih geodetskih okvira je potreba za cjelokupni razvoj kako nacionalnih ekonomija tako i ekonomije na svjetskoj razini. Sukladno potrebama definiranja općeg geodetskog referentnog okvira, 2015. godine, Ujedinjene nacije na svojoj Generalnoj skupštini usvojile su rezoluciju "Globalni geodetski referentni okvir za održivi razvoj (Global Geodetic Reference Frame for Sustainable Development - GGRF)". Članice Europske unije (EU) rješavaju taj problem donošenjem zajedničkih direktiva, preporuka i drugih akata, kako bi se prilagodili nacionalni zakoni država članica. Bosna i Hercegovina i njoj susjedne države, koje nisu članice EU donijele su odgovarajuće zakonske propise i odluke kako bi se prilagodile globalizaciji prostornih podataka i referentnih okvira. Stoga je i Federalna uprava za geodetske i imovinsko-pravne poslove (FGU) poduzela određene aktivnosti u cilju uspostavljanja novih geodetskih referentnih okvira kroz promjenu zakonske regulative, obnovu i uspostavu novih referentnih sustava i izvođenja mjerenja. U članku će biti riječi o postojećem geodetskom referentnom okviru i aktivnostima FGU na uvođenju novih geodetskih datuma i kartografske projekcije u Federaciji Bosne i Hercegovine. ; The globalization of geospatial data and geodetic reference frames is important for the overall development of both national and global economies. In accordance with the needs for defining a general geodetic reference frame, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the resolution "Global Geodetic Reference Frame for Sustainable Development (GGRF)" in 2015. The European Union member states have addressed the issue by adopting joint directives, recommendations and other acts to adapt national laws. Bosnia and Herzegovina and its neighboring countries, non-EU member states, have enacted appropriate legislation and decisions to adapt to the globalization of spatial data and reference frames. Therefore, the Federal Administration for Geodetic and Property Affairs (FGU) has undertaken certain activities in order to establish a new geodetic reference frame through changes in legislation, renewal and establishment of new reference systems and measurements. The paper will discuss the existing geodetic reference frame and the activities of the FGU on the introduction of new geodetic datums and map projections in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FBiH).

Pri analizi dvaju suprotstavljenih narativa povezanih s temom uspostave vojske Europske unije (EU) u europskom medijskom i političkom prostoru u ovome radu upotrebljava se teorija sekrutizacije te se temeljem analize diskursa i javnog mnijenja dokazuje da suprotstavljeni narativi ispunjavaju uvjete da ih prema definiciji Kopenhagenske škole svedemo pod pojam sekuritizacije. Prema autorima Kopenhagenske škole, sekuritizacija je govorni čin kojim provoditelj sekuritizacije do tada nepolitizirani odnosno politizirani predmet debate prikazuje kao egzistencijalnu prijetnju prema referentnom objektu koja zahtijeva hitne mjere. Prvi narativ koji rad analizira je neizvjesna sigurnosna situacija u Europi i oko nje koja bi mogla prerasti u egzistencijalnu prijetnju društvu Europske unije i europskom identitetu zbog nepostojanja vojske Unije. Drugi, tome oprečni narativ pak interpretira uspostavu vojske Europske unije kao egzistencijalnu prijetnju NATO savezu i suverenitetu država članica Unije. Rad postavlja pitanje je li sekuritizacija upotrebljiva poluga u nastojanju provođenja odnosno blokiranja čvršće intergracije EU na području obrane. Analizom diskursa glavnih aktera, provoditelja sekuritizacije i sigurnosnih strategija EU, Velike Britanije i Sjedinjenih Američkih Država te analizom prihvaćanja narativa od strane publike, rad zaključuje da su ti oba narativa činovi sekuritizacije. Prvi narativ, sekuritiziran od strane europskih federalista na čelu s predsjednikom Europske komisije Jean-Claudeom Junckerom, kao referentne objekte koji se pod hitno moraju zaštiti postavlja društvo EU i europski identitet. Egzistencijalna prijetnja referentnim objektima dolazi od ruske politike, ali i neizvjesne sigurnosne situacije u neposrednom susjedstvu EU-a. Ovaj narativ kao rješenje nameće uspostavu vojske EU-a. Drugi narativ, sekuritiziran od strane euroskeptika, NATO saveza te političkih elita Velike Britanije, SAD-a i Rusije, kao referentne objekte koji se pod hitno moraju zaštititi postavlja suverenitet država članica EU i opstanak NATO saveza koji se nalaze u egzistencijalnoj prijetnji od strane uspostave vojske Europske unije, čija bi uspostava oduzela nacionalne vojske tj. suverenitet država članica u području obrane, a postojanje NATO saveza učinilo izlišnim ; The thesis proves that around the establishment of the European Union army, we can infer two opposing narratives in European Union's media and political space and that both meet the conditions to be called a securitization. The first narrative (positive securitization) that the thesis analyses argues that the precarious the security situation in and around Europe could become an existential threat to the society of European Union (EU) and European identity because of the paucity of the EU army. The second narrative (negative securitization) that the thesis analyses interprets the establishment of the EU army as an existential threat to the North Atlantic Alliance (NATO) and the sovereignty of EU member states. Securitization is defined through the Theory of Securitisation by the scientists belonging to Copenhagen School (Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver and Jaap de Wilde) as a speech act by which an actor (securitizing actor) presents a specific issue, until then only politicised in the political or public space, as an existential threat to the referent object that requires extraordinary measures. For a speech act to be an act of securitization and not just an attempt of securitisation, public (or a target group) needs to accept the speech as such. Thus, the Theory of Securitization affirms that the chosen narratives are acts of securitizations through discourse analysis and public opinion analysis. Elements of securitization are before mentioned securitization actor, referent object and public, as well as functional actors, which indirectly affect security decisions by lobbing or directing the securitization actors, and context, as a speech act cannot be an independent factor in the securitization process but is dependent on historical, political, societal, economic, geographic, and other variables. The principal difference between Theory of Securitisation and the mainstream security theories: Traditional Security Studies (TSS) and Critical Security Studies (CSS), is that Theory of Securitization is not concerned if the issue that a speech act wants to present as a security issue, really is a security issue, but how a speech act presents the issue as a security issue. Unlike the Theory of Securitisation, TSS is a realistic security theory that examines is the issue a real security threat while CSS is a constructive security theory that examines the reality of security threat. Both, TSS and CSS, analyze already present security threat, while Theory of Securitisation analyses the creation of the security threat. Positive securitisation, the precarious security situation in and around Europe that could become an existential threat to the society of the EU because of the paucity of the EU army, is securitised by European federalists headed by European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and HR/VP Federica Mogherini. Referent objects that are in urgent need of protection are the EU society and the European identity (values and principles) that are in the existential threat of Russia and uncertain security situation in the immediate neighbourhood of the EU. As a solution for the existential threat, securitising actors impose the establishment of the EU army. Functional actors of positive securitisation are stakeholders in the European defence industry who have a purely economic reason for the backing of positive securitisation, and European elite which advocates the federalisation of the European Union. The prime public, core target group, for the positive securitisation should be the Heads of 28 EU member states who make decisions concerning Common Security Defence Policy (CSDP). As the decisions concerning CSDP must be unanimous, and some member states, mostly United Kingdom (UK), steadily use the instrument of veto to block further development of the CSDP, the thesis assumes that the securitising actors of positive securitisation decided to expand the target group for their securitisation onto European Union society as a whole. Reasons behind the expansion of the target public, which thus makes the whole society of the European Union a the public is a pressure onto the Heads of EU member states since the citizens of the EU have a very favourable opinion about the further development of the CSDP and mostly positive opinion regarding the establishment of the EU army. Negative securitisation, which interprets the establishment of the EU army as an existential a threat to the NATO and the sovereignty of EU member states, is a complex form of securitisation. Instead of one securitising actor or one group of securitising actors with the same motive (European federalist with Juncker as champion in positive securitisation), negative securitisation is securitised by several securitising actors without the leading champion with sometimes the same and sometimes different motives: Eurosceptics, NATO, decision-makers in the United Kingdom, the United States (US) and Russia. Furthermore, negative securitisation accumulates the referent objects that are in urgent need of protection: the sovereignty of the EU member states and the survival of the NATO alliance. The only element of the negative securitisation that is unambiguous is the existential threat from the establishment of the EU army whose establishment would take away the national armies, i.e. the sovereignty of the EU member states and made the NATO alliance vulnerable. Hence, for the sake of simplicity of understanding the elements of negative securitisation and their synergy, the thesis uses the Classical Security Complex Theory (CSCT) for the proper consideration of the patterns of the security connections. Using discourse analysis of the speech acts and official documents the thesis shows how the decision-makers in the US (regardless of their political affiliation) securitise the establishment of the EU army as an existential threat to NATO and future of Atlantic security cooperation. Same is evident with the NATO as a securitising actor. The decision-makers in the UK (mostly conservatives) securitise the establishment of the EU army and further development of CSDP as an existential threat to the national sovereignty of EU member states. Russia too securitises the establishment of the EU army as an existential threat to the national sovereignty of EU member states but does the deed backstage financially supporting nationalist and Eurosceptic EU parties and via cyber-attacks and disinformation campaign. Functional actors of negative securitisation are stakeholders in the non-EU defence industry and other industries which prosper due to unstable global security situation, private military organisations, non-independent think thanks, etc. The public for the negative securitisation is the Eurosceptic part of the EU society, but the core target group are the citizens of the UK. Securitising actors of the negative securitisation narrowed the public of their securitisation for the same reason why the securitising actors of the positive securitisation broaden theirs – decisions concerning CSDP must be unanimous. Consequently, the securitising actors of the negative securitisation to be successful in their securitisation need to persuade only citizens of the UK that their narrative is correct. As already mentioned, the Theory of Securitisation analyses the creation of the security threat, so very important for the understanding of the results of discourse analysis is the context behind the construction of the securitisation. In the case of the securitisations analysed in the thesis, the contexts of both narratives have foundations in the conflict between neorealist and neoliberal doctrines in foreign politics, different security strategies of the countries, and change in a global security system, as well as historical, political, societal, economic, geographic and other variables. No EU member state can be a superpower on its own in today's world. This notion and aim to hinder the possibility of another armed conflict in Europe prompted the creation of the Union. After more than 60 years of enlargement and integration, the EU is an economic superpower. Nevertheless, to protect its economic superiority as well as to impose its doctrine in foreign politics and expand its multilateral security strategy, the EU needs to be and defence union. This idea is not a new one but exists and was attempted to be implemented from the beginning of the EU existence. The securitising actors of the positive securitisation believe that with the establishment of the EU army, the EU can keep the US hegemony in the global security system and the Russian renewal of bloc-system aspirations under control. Some securitising actors of the positive securitisation also believe that the further integration of the EU is necessary to prevent the disintegration. Above all, is the strong desire of the EU elite for the federation of the EU. Expectedly, not least because of the postulate of the security dilemma, the US and Russia are afraid of the military-strong EU which could change the current global security system, while the UK believes that with the strengthening of the EU its military and political strength will wane or disappear. As the UK is the EU member state and its citizens are the most Eurosceptic the public in the EU, both and the US and Russia focused most of their securitisation's efforts toward the UK's citizens. The US also uses the UK as a tool of disruption in the EU – it's right to veto decisions about the further development of CSDP, integration of the EU in the defence field and the establishment of the EU army. The thesis hypothesises that the two opposed narratives that the thesis considers to be securitisations have generated the status quo in the development of CSDP. Through the discourse analysis of speech acts and the official documents of securitising actors of both narratives as well as analysis of the acceptance of narratives by the audience (public opinion analysis), the thesis positively answers the research question: Is the securitisation theory usable the instrument in the effort to implement/block more effective EU integration?

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.

Ovaj rad ispituje hipotezu prema kojoj je vanjsko djelovanje EU (koje prema Lisabonskom ugovoru kao važećem ugovornom okviru EU objedinjuje vanjske odnose EU kao zbirni naziv za eksternalizirane unutarnje politike EU i vanjsku politiku EU) neuspješno na Mediteranu zbog nekonzistentnosti u vanjskopolitičkom procesu, i zbog nekoherentnosti u sadržaju/ciljevima triju mediteranskih politika EU (Euro-mediteransko partnerstvo - EMP, Europska susjedska politika – ENP i Unija za Mediteran - UFM). U tom smislu prvi cilj disertacije je pokazati razloge neuspjeha vanjskog djelovanja EU spram mediteranske regije, a drugi je ukazati na šire implikacije tog neuspjeha za ambicije EU kao globalnog aktera. Korištene istraživačke metode analiza sadržaja primarnih i tercijarnih izvora podataka u kombinaciji sa diskurzivnom analizom primarnih i sekundarnih izvora, potvrdile su sljedeće. Vanjsko djelovanje EU spram mediteranske regije je neuspješno kroz sve tri faze vanjskopolitičkog procesa. (1) U fazi formuliranja mediteranskih politika zbog neusklađenosti/nekonzistentnosti između institucija EU (Europskog vijeća i Europske komisije) u definiranju mediteranske regije kao strukturnog konteksta mediteranskih politika EU, svrhe EMP-a i prioriteta EMP-a i ENP-a. (2) U fazi odlučivanja/usvajanja mediteranskih politika EU zbog nekompatibilnost/nekoherentnost ciljeva vanjske politike EU i većeg broja eksternaliziranih unutarnjih politika EU između EMP, ENP i UFM, pri čemu je najveća nekoherentnost postojala u razdoblju od 2004.-2008. između EMP i ENP po pitanju vanjske politike, JHA, trgovine i energetike, a od 2009. stanje se između trenutno aktivnih ENP i UFM nije bitno promijenilo jer su ostale nekoherentne vanjska politika, JHA i energetika, dok trgovinska politika nije sastavni dio UFM-a. (3) U fazi implementiranja mediteranskih politika EU zbog neusklađenosti/nekonzistentnosti u bilateralnoj implementaciji multilateralnih instrumenata mediteranskih politika EU na vanjskopolitičkom području i u JHA od strane južno-mediteranskih partnera unatoč činjenici da su ove instrumente zajednički usvojili sa državama članicama EU. Nekonzistentnost u vanjskopolitičkom procesu i nekoherentnost u sadržaju/ciljevima između triju mediteranskih politika EU slabe mogućnosti EU (shvaćene kao sposobnost formuliranja, usvajanja i implementiranja politika). Ove mogućnosti zajedno sa neiskorištenim prilikama (shvaćenima kao prilike za suradnju EU kako sa južno-mediteranskim partnerima kroz uzimanje u obzir i njihovih interesa, te sa drugim regionalizirajućim akterima koji jednako kao EU djeluju u mediteranskoj regiji) kao dva analizirana elementa akterstva EU, pokazuju da je EU tek (regionalni) akter u nastajanju i da još uvijek ne može bez problema koji proizlaze iz njezine kompleksne prirode pretendirati na ulogu vanjskopolitičkog aktera u globalnim razmjerima. ; This paper examines the hypothesis that EU external action (which, according to the Lisbon Treaty as the relevant EU framework agreement, encompasses EU external relations as a collective term for externalized EU internal policies and EU foreign policy) has been unsuccessful in the Mediterranean region due to the inconsistency of the foreign policy process and incoherence of the aims of three EU Mediterranean policies (Euro-Mediterranean Partnership–EMP, European Neighborhood Policy–ENP, and Union for the Mediterranean–UFM). In that context, the first objective of this dissertation is to provide the reasons as to why the EU external action has failed in the Mediterranean region. Secondly, it will point at the wider implications of this failure in terms of EU aspirations to be a global actor. Research methods used in empirical analysis that included content analysis of primary and tertiary sources, combined with discourse analysis of primary and secondary sources, has resulted in the following. EU external action in the Mediterranean region has been unsuccessful in all three stages of the foreign policy process. (1) In the stage of formulating Mediterranean policies due to inconsistency between EU institutions in defining the Mediterranean region as a structural context of EU Mediterranean policies, EMP's purpose and EMP's and ENP's priorities. (2) In the decision making stage of EU Mediterranean policies due to the incoherence of aims of EU's foreign policy and many EU's externalized internal policies between EMP, ENP and UFM, whereby this incoherence was most prominent between 2004-2008 regarding foreign policy issues, JHA, trade and energy between EMP and ENP. Since 2009, the situation concerning the currently effective ENP and UFM has not changed significantly, since foreign policy, JHA and energy policy have remained incoherent, while trade policy is not part of the UFM. (3) In the implementation stage of EU Mediterranean policies due to the inconsistency in bilateral implementation of multilateral instruments of EU Mediterranean policies in the foreign policy field, and in the JHA from the side of south-Mediterranean partners, despite the fact that they have adopted these instruments jointly with EU Member States. Inconsistency of the foreign policy process and incoherence of the aims between the three EU Mediterranean policies are weakening the EU capabilities (the ability to formulate, adopt and implement policies). These together with unutilized opportunities (for cooperation with south Mediterranean partners through taking into consideration their interests, and interests of other regionalization actors in the Mediterranean region) as the two analyzed elements of EU actorness, are demonstrating that the EU is still an emerging (regional) actor that is yet unable to assume the role of a foreign policy actor on a global level due to its complex nature.

Tema disertacije je analiza djelovanja putem pravnopolitičkih mehanizama međunarodne zajednice, a prvenstveno misleći Europske ekonomske zajednice (kasnije Europske unije) na sprječavanje sukoba i postizanje mira na prostoru bivše Jugoslavije u vremenu od 1990. g., tj. od trenutaka prvih znakova početaka krize, pa sve do kraja oružanih sukoba/ratova 1995. g. i potpisivanja Daytonskog mirovnog sporazuma. Upravo vrijeme prvih znakova krize i početaka prvih oružanih sukoba na prostoru bivše Jugoslavije bilo je vrijeme kada je Europska ekonomska zajednica stvarala Zajedničku vanjsku i sigurnosnu politiku. Ujedno jugoslavenska kriza odvijala se paralelno s stvaranja nove ujedinjene Europe koja se našla pred izazovom dokazivanja uloge regionalnog i globalnog igrača u kreiranju svjetske politike, te u dokazivanju mogućnosti samostalnog rješavanja eventualnih sukoba na svom teritoriju bez upliva politike Sjedinjenih Američkih Država. Jugoslavenska kriza reflektirana kasnije kroz oružane sukobe i ratove predstavlja je test institucionalnom sistemu dotadašnje i buduće ujedinjene Europe, te je ista bila indikator, smjernica institucijskom razvoju Europske ekonomske zajednice, a uslijed same činenice nemogućnosti implementacija usvojenih politika/odluka kojima bi rješila krizu i spriječila sukobe. Oružani sukobi/ratovi i sama kriza na prostoru bivše Jugoslavije s vremenom je bila u suprotnosti s duhom buduće ujedinjene Europe nakon pada Berlinskog zida, a nemogućnost uporabe rješenja za kraj krize, oružanih sukoba i postizanje mira povlačilo je za sobom i pitanje održivosti takve zajednice. Prekrajanje granica silom od strane lokalnih politika na području bivše Jugoslavije s ciljem osiguranja življenja jednog naroda u jednoj državi bili su u suprotnosti s načelom uti possidetis iuris i vladavinom prava na koje se u stvaranju suvremene Europe nakon II. Svjetskog rata ista pozivala. Upravo kroz navedeno načelo međunarodnog prava, Europska ekonomska zajednica, a i kasnije Europske unija, kao i svi ostali dionici međunarodne zajednice uključeni u sprječavanju sukoba i postizanje mira na prostoru bivše Jugoslavije svojim pravnopolitičkim mehanizmima navedeno načelo koje predstavljalo razloge/polazište svih oružanih sukoba na prostoru bivše Jugoslavije nisu znale i mogle zaštiti. Činjenica djelovanja međunarodne zajednice, prvenstveno Europske ekonomske zajednice/Europske unije u skladu s izvorima europskog i međunarodnog javnog prava, te koristeći pravnopolitičke mehanizme koji su upravo proizlazili iz navedenih izvora, a bez mogućnosti fizičke, stvarne primjene istih prema onima na koje se odnosilo, kao i neaktivnost u angažiranju od početaka sukoba od strane Sjedinjenih Američkih Država, stvarali su subjektivni dojam da ne postoji politička volja oko temeljnih pitanja ključnih za sprječavanje sukoba i postizanje mira, kao ni volja zaštite međunarodnog prava na prostoru bivše Jugoslavije. Upravo željom za globalnom dominacijom u novom svjetskom poretku, kao i činjenica dokazivanja Europi da ne može samostalno upravljati i rješavati krize na svom području, Sjedinjene Američke Države preuzele su aktivnu ulogu u rješavanju krize koristeći pravnopolitičke mehanizme u skladu s odredbama međunarodnog javnog prava, čime su spriječile daljnje sukobe/ratove i postigle mir. Političkom reaktivacijom u odnosu na prostor bivše Jugoslavije, Sjedinjene Američke Države jasno su dokazale svoju političku dominaciju u rješavanju i "upravljanju krizom" na tlu Europe, a ujedno su očuvale svoj i kredibilitet NATO-a i same Europske unije. ; The topic of this dissertation is the analysis of acting through legal and political mechanisms of an international community, namely the actions the European Economic Community (later known as the European Union) had undertaken to prevent conflicts and achieve peace on the territory of the former Yugoslavia from 1990 and the first signs of a crisis up to the end of the armed conflicts/wars in 1995 and the signing of the Dayton Peace Agreement. Just when the first signs of the crisis and the first armed conflicts began to appear in the former Yugoslavia, the European Economic Community created the Common Foreign and Security Policy. Also, the Yugoslav crisis took place in parallel with the creation of a new united Europe that faced the challenge of proving to be a regional and global force in the creation of the world policy, as well as proving its ability to independently resolve possible conflicts within its territory without interference from the policy of the United States. The Yugoslav crisis, later manifested in armed conflicts and wars, was a test of the institutional system of the former and future united Europe, a guideline for the institutional development of the European Economic Community, and an indicator of the inability to implement the adopted policies/decisions that would resolve the crisis and prevent conflicts. Armed conflicts/wars and the crisis in the former Yugoslavia were eventually contrary to the spirit of the future united Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the inability to find a solution to end the crisis and armed conflicts, as well as to achieve peace, raised the issue of sustainability of such a community. Redrawing the borders perforce by the local policies in the former Yugoslavia with the aim to ensure the settlement of one nation in one state was contrary to the principle of uti possidetis iuris and the rule of law relied upon by the modern Europe after World War II. The European Economic Community, and later the European Union, as well as all the other members of the international community engaged in conflict prevention and achieving peace in the former Yugoslavia, did not know how to use their legal and political mechanisms to protect the aforesaid principle which represented the reasons/starting point for all the armed conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. The action of the international community, primarily the European Economic Community/European Union in line with the sources of European and international public law, using the legal and political mechanisms stemming from the aforesaid sources, without the possibility of their actual implementation, as well as the USA's decision not to engage in the conflict from the beginning, created a subjective impression that there is no political will to tackle issues crucial for conflict prevention, achieving peace, and protecting international law in the former Yugoslavia. It was the desire for global domination in the new world order and the desire to show Europe the independence in managing and addressing the crises in its territory that enabled the USA to take an active role in addressing the crisis by using legal and political mechanisms in line with international public law provisions, which prevented further conflicts/wars and ensured peace. Political reactivation in the former Yugoslavia enabled the USA to clearly demonstrate its political domination in "crisis management" in Europe, whilst preserving its own credibility as well as the credibility of NATO and the European Union.