Abstract ▼

The subject of this article is the relation between hegemony and the world order in which hegemony (understood as leadership of a certain country or group of countries through the consent of others), and not a mere change of balance of power, represents a key for the change of the world order (understood as establishing a new leadership and rules in the world). This means that changes in the distribution of power do not necessarily mean the change of the existing world order, i.e. leadership and rules of conduct in international relations, but that this requires counter-hegemony too, which can be described as the collapse of the foundations on which the existing consent for leadership and the world order is based upon and creation of the foundations of a new world order. This means a criticism of the existing liberal-democratic paradigm, its crisis and establishing of a new paradigm of international relations, as well as the attitude towards the domestic affairs of the countries. Just as the engagement of the United States after the World War II and then after the Cold War represented the establishment and expansion of American hegemony, the activities of Russia and China today can be best understood and seen through the concept of counter-hegemony. It includes three elements: the desire for reform of those international institutions that still maintain US hegemony and/or the creation of new ones in which there is no US participation; working with elements of civil society such as non-governmental organizations, scientific and other expert organizations, the media and churches; as well as the prevalence of different principles regulating international relations (multipolarity and noninterference in domestic affairs instead of global leadership and interventionism under the guise of responsibility to protect and democracy promotion). We approach this issue within the framework of neo-Marxist, precisely neGramscian, theoretical perspective on international relations, and use literature review and content analysis as research methods.

Abstract ▼

The paper analyses how the (mis)use of the concept of international society in the context of the US and other Western countries` foreign policies legitimises an alleged defensive role of the interventionist imperial policy towards rogue, weak and failed states, as well as towards various non-state actors who contest the universality of liberal order. The starting assumption is that the asymmetric character of armed conflicts in the late 20th and early 21st century – combined with notions of international society, democratic peace, and world division into the “civilised” (liberal) centre and “uncivilised” periphery – has conditioned the planning and waging wars as disciplinary tools of the Western imperial control policy which is asserted over planetary periphery. The analysis focuses on several indicators which reveal how the methodology of the policing, the criminal justice system and the penalty system is embedded into the ontology of military interventions pursued by the United States, alone or within ad hoc coalitions with other Western and/or regional powers. The author concludes that war as a social practice lost in the early 21st century its traditional ontological features by assuming the structural characteristics of crime control policy, which caused the disruption of the ethical framework in the discursive and practical treatment of hostile states and their soldiers and non-state actors.

Abstract ▼

The phrase the postmodern military comes from a theoretical concept whose creator was American military sociologist Charles Moskos. His idea was to observe, analyze and conceptualize the role of the military in society and state, after the end of the Cold War. The period since the Cold War until today Moskos named as \"postmodern\". During this time, the new world order and power balance created a security constellation with specific features. The collapse of communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, the bipolar division of the world, the different physiognomy of war and security threats, marked the new geopolitical context. In these conditions, NATO as one of the most important political-military alliances was challenged to create a response to new security threats with the asymmetric character. As a result, NATO adapted its capacities and function through an intensive process of reform and modernization. The Alliance became more attractive for many states which were not members, especially because they could not rely on their individual efforts in the complex security environment. From the perspective of these states, integration in NATO could provide them support, protection, and also an improvement for their armies. One of the main points in integrations was to adopt standards which were related to the modernization of military. Through modernization and its implementation, one of the main tasks was to reduce forces, making them more adaptable and capable to face with potential threats. Bearing in mind that the Republic of Croatia and the Republic of Albania are one of the first states in the Western Balkans that have become NATO members, they are considered as reference research facilities. By analyzing their strategic and doctrinal documents, the obtained insight leads us to the next conclusions. From a theoretical point of view, creating postmodern armies with all characteristics that Charles Moskos attributes in his theory are compatible with the armies of the states which are the members of NATO. Based on this thesis, the application of Charles`s theoretical concept was justified. Also, the results have confirmed the general hypothesis which refers to the fact that the geopolitical circumstances, in an indirect way through the adaptation and integration processes in the NATO Alliance, have influenced the creation of a postmodern military in the way that Moskos represents. A wider political dimension is reflected in the commitment of Croatian and Albanian defense policies to the peaceful and defensive goals, such as international peace and stability.