Positive Vibrations in the Region of Southeast Europe

Written by:  Mile Lasić, PhD, Philosophical Faculty of the University Mostar

 


 

 

I – EU-isation vs Europe-isation

I was, of course, honored by the invitation from Professor Radovan Vukadinović, Head of the Croatian Atlantic Council, to participate for the first time at the international scientific conference ‘Security in Southeast Europe’, which was held from June 29 to July 03 on a magical island, 12 nautical miles from Dubrovnik. ‘Šipan Meetings’ were promoting, I was told, the Euro-Atlantic idea throughout Southeast Europe, so this year, too, they featured besides English, Croatian and Serbian and Bosnian and Montenegrin and Macedonian and Albanian voices. Everything was almost like before when we lived together, except for the fact that Yugoslavia vanished in flames, in the arrogance and haughtiness of Balkan upstarts incapable to conceive themselves and the world around them while respecting a variety of identities and in harmony. When Professor Vukadinović invited me to participate in the work of a conference which deals with the so-called new strategic concept of NATO, I wondered.  What am I doing there? Of course, as professor of European integrations, diplomacy and international relations, I must know something about the most powerful military-political alliance in human history. I wrote about its history and problems on several occasions, including the NATO summit in Bucharest, or the one in Kehl/Strasbourg (see in the archive of Danas or Peščanik). I also wrote about NATO in my books (‘European Union…’ and ‘Painstaking Road to Political Modernity’), but I am more interested in EU’s difficult and complicated correlation with NATO, than NATO as such. I am simply convinced that the EU is something special and valuable and that NATO is primarily a military block, regardless of its efforts of nurturing a political dimension, as well. There may be a subconscious role of the fact that some of us who are older were raised to be proud of the so-called non-aligned position of SFRJ in international relations. However, I am realistic enough to know that West Balkan countries cannot reach the European Union without joining NATO, too. That is why I quoted to the ‘multipliers’ on the  Šipan island a famous metaphor by the late Zoran Đinđić, saying that if you must swallow some frogs, it is best to start with the biggest one. Unfortunately, Serbia and BiH learned nothing from Đinđić’s wisdom, and both countries are still struggling not only with objective contradictions, but also with fictive dilemmas. The chaos concerning Euro-Atlantic integrations is particularly evident in Serbia. There, it is insisted upon the membership in the EU and the lack of recognition of new realities about Kosovo; membership in one of NATO’s pre-accession programs (Partnership for Peace), but along with preserving an alleged neutral foreign-political and defensive position of Serbia!? In BiH, particularly in RS, Serbian dilemmas are being followed with great attention, but not everyone has realized yet that it is not realistic to expect the concord of RS when it comes to the BiH Euro-Atlantic concept without changes of the described situation in Serbia. As an independent intellectual and faculty professor, I pledge for the accession of the entire region of Southeast Europe to NATO, not because I am convinced in NATO’s peacefulness, but because I think that by doing so, we will all sooner arrive to a community which truly produces good vibrations in throughout Europe and the world, and that community is the European Union. Besides, relations between EU and NATO represent quite a sensitive subject, also due to the fact that EU is not abandoning the concept of developing a system of its own security, regardless of the Americans’ objections. According to my knowledge and belief, we will not be protected from our own potential madness (questioning borders etc) before joining (NATO) the EU, and only then will we abandon illusions about a special significance or omnipotence of the national state. I am not so certain that NATO brings peace anywhere, including the region of Southeast Europe, but I am convinced that it is the EU which brings peace and high civilization standards in the region of Southeast Europe. The European Union, namely, is a ‘peace project’, it produces security already due to the fact that it represents ‘something between’ a supranational and an interstate form of organization of sovereign states, which is a sui generis creation, whose strength is contained in what, at first glance, appears as its weakness – the phenomenon of divisible and transferable sovereignty and, consequential, a complex form of ‘governance beyond national state’.     I repeated at the Šipan meeting, like I am saying where ever I can, that the European Union already by itself represents an implicit polemic with ethnocrats and nationalists, in BiH and the region of Southeast Europe, because any serious understanding of the events in the EU shows a total misery of ethnocratic, provincial and ahistorical policies during the last two decades in the West Balkan region. Every comparative analysis, namely, shows that the strength of the EU is not only contained in the strong economy, but in the combination of maximal tolerance and observance of its members, as well as firm rules and mechanisms that render the EU a community capable of decision-making and self-reforming. In that way, the EU is all that BiH and the states of the West Balkans are not, and therefore its experiences, particularly the principle of subsidiarity, on one hand, and the principle of rational organization, on the other, could help everyone to take a step in the direction of rational organization as early as in the pre-accession phases in which they are currently. The existing model of organization of EU and administration within the EU, despite its imperfections, is perhaps the best thing that could have happened to it. Because the very fact that it is ‘something between’, neither a federation nor pure confederation, nor a mere alliance of national states, but also not a ‘super state’, but a new form of alliance of sovereign European states, in which they voluntarily transfer parts of their sovereignty to a supranational level is indeed that wisdom which was achieved based on the overall European political experience, both negative and positive. I also clarified that my ‘lobbying’ for accession of West Balkan countries to the European Union stems from realizing that, through this trans-ethnic, regional, and European accession, they would solve, both short- and long-term, their own and mutual problems which could not be the case without the ‘umbrella’ called the EU. In addition, I told the dear ‘multiplier’ that I am a completely independent person, independent from any EU-offices and funds, responsible only to my profession and my conscience, a convinced pro-European who easily deals with vilifications such as ‘Euro-uniate’. I tend, with de facto no support or compensation whatsoever from anyone, to break the piled up prejudice and phobias towards the EU in the areas I am active in, with weak hope that in the region of Southeast Europe, including BiH, far more young people will be soon familiar with Euro-Atlantic integrations then it is the case today…

 

 

This was all commonplace, familiar to all those who seriously deal with the European Union at universities, specialized government or nongovernmental organizations and elsewhere. But, how much of all this was understood and accepted by those who hold power, i.e. the Balkan political elite? Little or nothing have they accepted, and what they understood was under extortion and with the policy of  ‘carrot and whip’, one might say. This, of course, does not apply for Croatia where – since  Sanader was ‘removed’ – there are turbo changes going on in the process of  accession to the EU, which causes the Europeisation of domestic politics, as well as tiny Montenegro which had formed the Ministry of European Integrations, led by university professor Gordana Đurović.  A Ministry of European Integrations exists in Kosovo, as well, but it is nothing more than make-up in a situation where Kosovo is a protectorate at least as much as BiH is a semi-protectorate of the international community. However, political elites in all other West Balkan countries have in common an insincere, i.e.  ‘half-hearted’, conception in their approach to European integrations and with hope that everything will remain as it was, regardless of the formal accession to the European Union. That means that the EU must not drop neither the carrot, nor the stick, or batter said – whip – from its hands…  Versed scientists and experts on European integrations in the nongovernmental sector (and rare ones in the government sector) speak about the phenomenon of vertical and horizontal understanding of the process of association the EU in the West Balkan countries. Executive Director of the Fund for an Open Society in Serbia Jadranka Jelinčić, for example, writes very inspiringly about the ‘EU-isation versus Europeisation’ (see www.helsinki.org.rs). The term ‘EUisation’ is used for the vertical process of ’formally-legal  accession’ which narrows down to fulfilling conditions and commitments from the: a) Feasibility Study; b) Stabilization and Association Agreement; c)  candidacy; d) membership negotiation, and e) membership. This form of accession is essentially about ‘convergention of policies’, ‘harmonizing legislature’ and ‘political integration’, which, when we look at it, is nothing but fulfilling the ‘Copenhagen criteria’. By the way, internally, in the European Union, no one speaks about only four criteria for accession to the EU (three political-economic ‘Copenhagen’ and one subsequent, administrative – ‘Madrid’), but also about indicators and proof, i.e. monitoring and control of accepted commitments. One could, therefore, interpret this as  presence of a fifth criterion (providing proof about fulfilling accepted commitments) and a sixth one, ensuring the conditions for European institutions for monitoring and control…In West Balkan countries, ’EUisation’ has become acceptable for almost all segments of the political scene, including ruling echelons which usually see it as a necessary evil for acquiring status in relations with the EU, which enables using means from pre-accession  assistance.  There must be a mention of IPA funds at this point – namely, countries which do not have candidate status use only two out of five components, while candidate countries use all five components, i.e. funds.  So ‘EU-isation’ is nothing but a starting political project which can be supported by all liberal politicians – pro-Europeans, but also notorious anti-Europeans, ethnocrats and notorious right-wingers, because they are counting on getting some petty money from EU funds and that such  an adjustment can help them rise to power, or stay in power.  It’s quite a different situation with the so-called horizontal accession to the EU, with ‘Europeisation’ which calls for numerous and in-depth internal reforms, a Europeisation of the entire domestic politics.  Essentially this has to do with speeding up the ‘belated transition’ and/or corrections of its deviation, which influences consolidation of democracy and creating conditions for sustainable development. There is a necessity for the logic of European integrations to finally start functioning in the West Balkan countries, too; namely, principles of rule of law. Everyone familiar with European integrations knows that through this process, the accession to the EU ceases to be (just) a part of foreign affairs of a country and turns, step by step, into interior affairs of the acceding county. A related statement by Jadranka Jelinčić: ’European standards and norms should be primarily understood  as guidelines and some sort of ’recipes’ whose observance and creative embedding in the sum of domestic policies leads as a rule to optimal local development results, which then simultaneously enables a harmonized development of the European Union, understood as a unitary economic and increasingly political space capable of acting united and participating in global processes in the interest of every individual member and the Union as a whole …  Persons with such an understanding of accession of West Balkan countries to the European Union are fully aware that this also represents a belated civilization step of the Balkan societies to the direction of normal societies, in which legal norms function, so the creation of a functional rule of law, along with issues of sustainable development (this will be discussed at the very end) are considered to be the very essence of Euro-Atlantic accession. In view of that, we must take into consideration ‘EU-isation’ – but as a precondition for in-depth, horizontal integration and not as an empty goal. Of course, horizontal politico-legal, social and economic process of accession or ‘Europeisation; of domestic policies can be achieved only by incorrupt elites and free citizens. There is too little of them in all West Balkan countries, so therefore all West Balkan countries, except for Croatia (and partly Montenegro) are just grumpy participants of ‘EU-isation’.  All this leads to a natural conclusion, that constitutional, legal and political reforms are necessary in all Southeast European countries, particularly in BiH, because as early as in the process of accession to the EU, the functioning of rule of law must be ensured, starting with independent judiciary and so forth, in order to stop corruption and crime, followed with fully independent work of all regulatory and control bodies in the state, as well as unobstructed activity of  institutions which contribute to processes of ’political deliberation’, including media, civic associations etc.

II – Process of Learning Democracy in Southeast Europe

The Southeast European Cooperation Process (SEECP) and Regional Cooperation Council (RCC) as an instrument of that cooperation, were at the center of my presentation on the island of Šipan. These were, namely, the first articulated responses by the EU and the world to the breakup of Yugoslavia and the following Balkan and European crisis.
The adoption of these important strategies was preceded by numerous controversial debates about the ‘Project Southeast Europe’. To illustrate, I will here mention only the initiative by respected Hungarian writer György Konrad, on the occasion of accepting the Charlemagne Prize in Aachen in May  2001, because he spoke very meaningful about the necessity to form a ‘roof alliance’ by the name of ‘Southeast Europe’. I will also mention a very indicating assessment from that period in the leading German daily ‘Süddeutsche Zeitung’, stating that ‘nationalism is merely a cursed reflex of the past, caused by lack of economic perspective, so the limits of one’s own possibilities lead to obsessions with national borders’. SZ concluded that there is no solution for the Balkan ‘with long-term effect’ without patience and money, i.e. outside the ‘process of learning democracy and guaranteed protection of minority rights’.    
So, for ten years now the Europeans are clear that they need to turn the page in countries of Southeast Europe or the ‘West Balkan’, and try to move things from a standstill with a regional approach. This new strategy implied support to the functioning of the newly formed states on the principles of a free market and rule of law, as well as stopping processes of further fragmentation of the Balkans. Solutions were aplenty in a robust combination of measures of regional and European integrations, whereby a major difficulty was caused by the fact that it was not easy to understand and accept by Southeast European or West Balkan countries that glorifying the principle of national sovereignty, or relying in the omnipotence of state sovereignty, cannot offer one’s own or regional stability, which was and remains a precondition for European integrations. 
Our scientists and respectable nongovernmental organizations have, too, understood what it was all about immediately, but almost ten years had to pass for the lessons and messages of the Stabilization and Association Agreement and the Stability Pact for Southeast Europe to be somewhat seriously understood in the governmental sector. Until as late as spring 2010, little was done out of conviction in the necessity of reforms, or ‘Europeisation’, and almost everything under extortion, or ‘EUisation’. What I called ‘Josipovic’s snowball’ in a different context, however, is rolling, luckily, finally and unstoppable in the space of Southeast Europe or West Balkan. Who could have imagined that signing agreements between Croatia and Serbia on such issues as military or judiciary cooperation would happen so quickly.

Regional cooperation will remain, of course, equally important in the future, because regional stability, as a key precondition for any kind of progress in the direction of Euro-Atlantic integrations, will depend on the will for mutual cooperation and integration among neighbors, in all areas where it is possible. In the meantime, European Union countries have particularly supported measures by individual states directed at economic cooperation and regional trade, which meant the establishing of a free trade regime, i.e. harmonization of the authorized agencies’ work in individual Balkan states or their entities. Regional cooperation, as precondition for faster accession of Southeast Europe or West Balkan countries to the European Union, does not exclude an individual criterion for evaluating efforts by each individual country on its road to the EU. This is shown in the convincingly positive example of the Republic Croatia which will be in the EU as soon as tomorrow, and the negative example of BiH, whose elites have made a great effort to keep BiH on the tail of the European regatta in the region of Southeast Europe…
As a side effect of good vibrations, anno domini 2010, in the region of Southeast Europe or West Balkan – and against the will of the main political actors – slowly but surely a ‘culture of peace’ is being born, a term I am borrowing from my colleague from the Sarajevo Faculty of Political Sciences Nerzuk Ćurak. The term ‘culture of peace’ still has to be theoretically thought out, and then implement in the Southeast European region’s life. ‘Advocates of regional ideology, which is nothing but a permanent production of culture of peace in Balkan countries’ social practice, are facing an enormous theoretical task – to relegate, without any awe, nationalistic deviations which under the disguise of false concern for national sovereignty, oppose the post-Yugoslav or, better said, non-Yugoslav identity of Southeast Europe, Dr. Ćurak wrote in his inspiring essay ‘Can a Region be Homeland’, also published on the E-novine portal. ‘If West Balkan, that small Balkan of great nationalisms, is excluded from the European postmodern paradise long-term, the region will swap the logic of peace for a logic of violence. We will return to the darkness of irrational nationalism as a disturbing form of negative determinism’, Ćurak warned reasonably. A possible solution is a steady building of the Southeast European region ’in which former fellows, divided by nationalism and estranged, will be able to live together in a less burdened historical context, in order to later become part of a great unified Europe’. And they will do that as independent states of the Southeast European region, Dr. Ćurak, concludes – not as autarkic, self-sufficient states, but as states which posses true inner will for overall regional cooperation and not necessarily institutionalized trans-border, regional synthesis. Colleague Ćurak is convinced that such development would be good and in the interest of all citizens of Southeast Europe. That explains his key message: ‘For us who believe in the possibility of a region as a non-state space of human freedom. For us who want state borders to connect rather than keep apart. For us who want to replace the darkness of the Balkan inn with a scarce light (but still light) of unified Europe. In which our countries live too, sovereignly and proudly. Shone by light. Let us turn on the light.’                                            Processes of adjusting and preparation for admission to the EU in all Southeast European Countries, including BiH, should be in touch with all that has happened in the half-century history or is happening in the European Union today. That is understood in the almost entire region of Southeast Europe, but not in BiH. My criticism, and criticism by other scientists and publicists, are in vain if expert voices of reason and rationality in the ranks of BiH political elites are obstructed and BiH remains buried in ethnic, entity and district-cantonal irrational divisions which make it one of the most expensive and inefficient countries in the world.To further illustrate: At one point, Sarajevo Faculty of Political Sciences professor Dr. Mirko Pejanović, warned in vain that unavoidable constitutional changes and further political development in BiH should have a double strategic goal – internal integration and integration into the EU. According to Pejanović’s comparative analyses, all West European countries have, in the second half of the 20th century, undertaken a comprehensive reform of local and regional self-government, on the grounds of the European Charter of Local Self-Government, so therefore EU countries have, as a rule, local, regional and central state government structure. However, Dr. Pejanović states that regions are closed geographical, historical, cultural and economic units, in which public affairs or a part thereof are performed, in following areas: spatial planning, health care, development of transportation and economic infrastructure, environment protection  and managing of natural resources. Region Assembly, as the highest self-government organ, is elected by the citizens in free elections. Regions have become bearers of social and economic development of their area, as well as of trans-border and inter-regional cooperation through trans-state regions, which are formed in border areas of several states. That is why the European Union established the region assembly as well as structural funds for supporting less developed regions within European states, and especially the regions with obsolete industry and agricultural regions, Dr. Pejanović concluded. This intervention by Pejanović, too, was a futile pledge for BiH to accept the «Euroregion concept», which, beside its natural and geographically-historical reality, also stands for self-sufficiency in the economic and social sphere. On this occasion, Pejanović introduced four regions, which existed as such a few years after World War II (Banjaluka, Sarajevo, Tuzla and Mostar regions), and sub-regions like Zenica, Travnik, Bihać, Doboj and Brčko. Let us also remind of Pejanović’s exact warning: «Only economically strong and economically self-sufficient regions can be partners to European countries’ regions and can count on the funds of European structural funds for faster development of regions…». This has always been a very sensitive political question, not only in the crazed post-Dayton BiH. An additional problem lies in the fact that this concept is essentially a blatant negation of the ethno-nationalistic concept of the internal organization of BiH and that this is very well known among dominant ethno-political elites, both ones who swear on RS, as well as those who enjoy the benefits of the ‘Federation’. Therefore, chances for application are slim to none. The Republic of Srpska entity still remains a centralized creation, with Banjaluka at its center, a city that is seemingly flourishing, and marginal regions which are truly dying (it is enough to spend a day in Eastern Herzegovina, especially in the once very developed Trebinje, in order to be assured of this sad fact), while the Federation entity is nothing but an inefficient and over- expensive conglomerate of ten quasi-states, an ideal atmosphere for the non-functioning of rule of law. Add to that the separate nature of the Brčko District and the story is ‘perfect’…   
Bosnia and Herzegovina has too long been hostage to anti-European strivings of her first neighbors but, luckily, everything has changed in the surroundings. Unfortunately, not in BiH itself, so it could happen that BiH – along with Serbia – becomes the main obstacle of the entire Southeastern European region’s road to Euro-Atlantic integrations.  Excluding Croatia (and Montenegro), there is again talk in Europe about a ”regional” rather than an individual approach (see, for example, what French politicologist Jacques Rupnikhas to say about this). Because all of that, I will conclude this story by quoting an important introduction from the latest issue of the ”Helsinki Charter”, a bimonthly by the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia, whose periodical associate I still remain. In the ‘Helsinki Charter’ bimonthly (issue 139-140), Chairwoman Sonja Biserko, said in her essay ‘Balkan Mosaic Cannot be Assembled without Bosnia’ (see helsinki.org.rs): ‘…Opening of a European perspective for all Balkan countries has mobilized the region’s political elites, and the agreement on association and NATO partnership (for some, already membership) has established a framework, i.e. a security and political construction which needs to be filled with content. The fact that the framework was established is very important, especially since Serbia is in it, too. It has helped strengthen the European perspective of Balkan countries. However, the next phase will be slow and will depend on the inner potential of each individual country, the horizontal Europeisation, i.e. the inclusion of the society in the changes of the value system. In order to speed up the second phase, it is necessary to close territorial, i.e. state issues of Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina. The main factor of obstruction is Serbia, because it is not ready to give up its aspirations which do not only harm these countries, but Serbia itself. When it comes to Kosovo, its full independence will be accelerated after the International Court of Justice adopts its opinion. The wave of recognition will continue, and the territorial consolidation of Kosovo will accelerate. However, the problem of Bosnia still remains open due to lack of political will to approach the problem from a moral point of view, too. Bosnia was and still is a moral issue for Europe. It is high time for the international community to take a stand toward crime, committed against Bosnia and the Bosniak people. It is immoral that Srebrenica is in the Serbian entity and that murderers and persecutors are walking freely on its streets. After Women of Srebrenica disappear, that city will be not only a city of the dead, but a dead city. Therefore, the Declaration of the European Parliament represents a significant document which returns to Srebrenica in an attempt to prevent the crime from being forgotten. Finally, Europe treats that crime as its moral responsibility. Revitalization of Bosnia is possible only by marginalizing the ethnic principle which needs to remain where the essential interest of every people is being defended, as was the case with people’s councils in the assembly of former Yugoslavia. Some of those solutions should not be dismissed…’

 

 

I fully agree with the last bit. I will issue a certain objection when it comes to her use of the Anglo-Saxon syntagm ’nation building’ ’in the case of Bosnia’. I am one of those who would prefer it if good-willed people and par excellence friends of our country, as is Sonja Biserko, both in ‘the case of Serbia’ and in ‘the case of Bosnia’ (BiH, actually) would use the syntagm ‘nation building’ with more care, given the fact that in other cultures it does not mean ‘the building of a nation’ but ‘the building of a state’. Sonja Biserko surely knows the difference between those syntagms, so it is possible that she uses the term ‘nation building’ as a termninus tehnicus and in the meaning of ‘state building’. Doesn’t all of her activity concerning both Serbia and BiH illustrate the necessity of building a normal and functional state of Serbia (or BiH), rather than the denying of any other already formed nation in Serbia or BiH. This is what Sonja Biserko said: ‘Nation-building of Bosnia must be placed on new grounds where the citizen is the focal point. The Bosnian Serbs must be helped with liberating themselves of the exclusive responsibility for genocide planted on them by Belgrade, since this issue puts a permanent wall between them and the Bosniaks… In assembling the Balkan mosaic, Bosnia comes last. The space where it was created is the biggest mistake. It would be useful if Europe would admit some of its misconceptions and mistakes. That will help the region to take a stand toward the recent past with more responsibility.’            
We all must renounce our own mistakes and misconceptions, in BiH, in the region of Southeast Europe, and in the European Union, I would add. Lack of care or petty political games with such dangerous ideologically-political construction as the building of a ‘state Bosniak nation’, must not be allowed in BiH. Three nations in BiH and many other nations (national minorities) have already been formed, so it is necessary to build a BiH based on rule of law which would tolerate all its diversities, rather than inventing constructions which would break against anyone’s head…
My dear friend Sonja Biserko ‘whips’ the Serbian political elite for the same reason I do it to BiH elites – so that they finally start doing the job for which they are (over)paid. However, her principally correct judgment about the ‘marginalizing of the ethnical principle’ must be objected by adding that in complex societies, such as Serbia and BiH, the ’ethnic principle’ is yet to be learned, without being absolutized by the majority as a special right of the majority over the minority, as the case is today. To fear that its marginalizing – in a situation of a total division of BiH, but Serbia, as well – could be as dangerous as its hypostasing. There is a necessity of finding a ’middle solution’ which would observe both individual and collective rights and freedoms of all individuals and all collectives. It is difficult, but not undoable. There are societies in Europe – Swiss, for example – which function excellently despite their multi-ethnicity. It wouldn’t hurt, too, to remember the story of ’territorial human rights’ (György Konrad) and sustainable ‘euro-regions’, and add that in such regions all rights for minorities of different colors would have to be ensured, on the grounds of reciprocity. So, whatever I ask for myself or my ethnic or other community from others, I must be capable to ensure to others, to all minorities, who are different based on ethnicity, religion, world view or gender…

A B S T R A C T

As an independent intellectual and faculty professor, I pledge for the accession of the entire region of Southeast Europe to NATO, not because I am convinced in NATO’s peacefulness, but because I think that by doing so, we will all sooner arrive to a community which truly produces good vibrations in throughout Europe and the world, and that community is the European Union. Besides, relations between EU and NATO represent quite a sensitive subject, also due to the fact that EU is not abandoning the concept of developing a system of its own security, regardless of the Americans’ objections. 
According to my knowledge and belief, we will not be protected from our own potential madness (questioning borders etc) before joining (NATO) the EU, and only then will we abandon illusions about a special significance or omnipotence of the national state. I am not so certain that NATO brings peace anywhere, including the region of Southeast Europe, but I am convinced that it is the EU which brings peace and high civilization standards in the region of Southeast Europe. The European Union, namely, is a ‘peace project’, it produces security already due to the fact that it represents ‘something between’ a supranational and an interstate form of organization of sovereign states, which is a sui generis creation, whose strength is contained in what, at first glance, appears as its weakness – the phenomenon of divisible and transferable sovereignty and, consequential, a complex form of ‘governance beyond national state’.

Key words: complicated correlation between NATO and European Union, NATO membership precondition for EU membership; ‘EUisation’ vs ‘Europeisation’, regional cooperation as precondition of security in Southeast Europe and accession to the EU …                           


Mostar, February 20th 2011

Komentari

komentara