Abstract ▼

The forty-fifth US president, unlike most of his predecessors, has no experience in political decision-making. Nevertheless, Trump’s behavior from the big business can help find patterns of his decision making. The two-and-a-half-year presidential term, however, provides convincing insights into how he makes decisions. Although he likes to make decisions and thinks he does it well, President Donald Trump actually spends very little time preparing for the most difficult decisions. In most cases, the president decides beforehand on instinct, and then actually just seeks justification and support for the decision already made. On the other hand, over-reliance on the closest circle of associates and not delving into the details and several aspects of the problem provides a too big opportunity for miscalculations and wrong decisions. In this mix of micromanagement and macromanagement, Trump’s model is most reminiscent of a competitive decision-making model, while in terms of control and involvement in the political process, his management style can be characterized by a Magistrate/Delegator combination; while when it comes to leader sensitivity to the context, we see Trump as the “Maverick”.

Abstract ▼

Although the agreement of different theoretical approaches regarding the role and importance of power in world politics can easily be reached, when it comes to its definition even elementary consensus is lacking. In this paper, we analyze theoretical interpretations of power given by David Lake, which in its conceptual scope and explanation of international order deviates from the established theoretical tracks in the field of IR. We focus on the concept of authority as a form of international power, which is one of the fundamental pillars of Lake\'s theory of hierarchy in international relations. Comparing the content of Lake\'s concept of authority with different theoretical interpretations of international power, primarily those that preceded it, we emphasized the theoretical advantages of Lake\'s interpretation of the structure of the international system. We conclude that Lake’s theory can be characterized as \"non-canonical\" rethinking of world politics to some extent. The relation of superiority and subordination, which does not rest on coercion, nor fear of force, but on voluntary consent, forms the backbone of Lake\'s theory, and at the same time represents its most recognizable and controversial part. Subjugation to the force is often read as a dark chapter of human history, a chapter that humanity seemingly scornfully closed after the rise and success of the anti-colonial movement in the second half of the twentieth century. In this context, Lake\'s study indicates that reality is something completely different. Former colonies still agree to a subordinate position in order to benefit from it, but today voluntarily. By analyzing his concept of authority and comparing it to other conceptions of power, we tried to explain Lake\'s view on world politics, and why his findings on authority, subordination, superiority and international hierarchies in the field of economics and security represent unavoidable theoretical destinations for every scholar interested in the study of contemporary international relations.

Abstract ▼

The path of Bosnia and Herzegovina towards NATO membership began after its entry into the Partnership for Peace in November 2006. In just a few years, Bosnia and Herzegovina has achieved an intensive dialogue with NATO (2008) and the launch of negotiations on the Membership Action Plan (2010), which was however activated in December 2018. In the meantime, there have come to a discord between the key internal political factors in Bosnia and Herzegovina and particularly clear distinction between the Bosniak and Croat elites that unequivocally support NATO membership, and representatives of Serbs at the state level and the Republic of Srpska who are currently against it. Moreover, in October 2017, the National Assembly of the Republic of Srpska took a stand by which it proclaimed the military neutrality of this entity and in that regard insisted on consultations with the neighboring state – the Republic of Serbia. However, in March 2018, the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina adopted a five-year strategic foreign policy document which stipulates that NATO membership is one of its foreign policy foundations. This document only added to the confusion regarding BiH’s membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Following the general elections held in October 2018, this issue has now posed a specific problem over the formation of the Council of Ministers. Neighbors of Bosnia and Herzegovina – Serbia, Croatia and Montenegro have different opinions concerning the possibility of membership of this country in NATO. Accordingly, Croatia declaratively expresses support and emphasizes its interest in integrating BiH into NATO to prevent cross-border security challenges. Serbian officials are quite restrained about BiH’s entry into NATO, saying that this should be the result of the compromise of the elites of the three constituent nations. The global race between the United States and the Russian Federation represents a turning point in terms of BiH’s membership in NATO. The United States strongly supports this process, believing that it will secure the post-conflict Western Balkans project, while Russia retains the explicit position that any new enlargement poses a problem for its security.

Abstract ▼

The paper analyzes the development and perspectives of the European military naval industry. Since the EU is increasingly engaged in maritime military operations in the framework of the Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP), this field of industry is becoming increasingly important for the functioning of the EU as a strategic actor. Like other military industry sectors (military aeronautics and electronics, land industry), the naval military industry has undergone significant changes since the Cold War and the process of “banalization” that has affected it. The purpose of this paper is to answer the question to what extent this field of industry is “Europeanized”, i.e., whether we can discuss about the “banalization” of the European naval industry, and what consequences these processes have on the national sovereignty of the EU Member States. In order to answer these questions, the paper will first consider the process of “banalization” of the European military industry. Then, the analysis will focus on the naval military industry sector. The author highlights the fragmentation of this industry and its “national capture”. Finally, in the third part of the paper, the perspectives of the development of this industry are discussed. It is argued that the European naval military industry is not yet “Europeanized” and that EU member states continue to favor national producers. However, in the light of new initiatives implemented in the field of development of the EU military equipment market, the military industry as a whole, and therefore the naval military industry, is moving towards increasing homogenization and Europeanization.