Radoslav Gaćinović



Institute for Political Studies


Participated in research projects

Academy of Criminalistic and Police Studies in Belgrade

Professor of post-graduate studies

Faculty of Law Sinergija, University in Bijeljina


Faculty of Diplomacy and Security in Belgrade


Military College for military-sociological and psychological studies and research in Belgrade

Research Associate

Faculty of Political Sciences, Zagreb University


Faculty of Law, Belgrade University



Faculty of Political Sciences, Zagreb University



Military Academy in Belgrade



Radoslav Gaćinović, PhD, is the Principal Research Fellow of the Institute for Political Studies, Chairman of the Institute’s Scientific Board and Editor-in-Chief of the journal: Politika nacionalne bezbednosti (National Security Policy). Author of numerous studies on security and terrorism, notably books: “Terorizam u političkoj i pravnoj teoriji” (Terrorism in Political and Legal Theory) (Medija Centar Odbrana, 2011), “Ugrožavanje kapaciteta bezbednosti države” (Threats to the Security Capacity of State” (Filip Višnjić, 2013), Antiterorizam (Anti-terrorism) (Službeni glasnik, 2015).



At the beginning of the 21st century, as before, security is the first and basic concern of the state, of modern interpretation of political theories and international relations. The establishment of national policies as a security policy implies thinking about creating special disciplines that will complete the necessity of the security philosophy. Starting from the previous definitions of the political system and the security system, they are understood as two separate systems primarily because their relationship and mutual influences could be observed, especially through the management that is realized in both systems. This does not negate one of the generally accepted findings of political theory: that the security system is, in a broader sense, an integral part of the political system, and in functional terms, its instrument. So, viewed from the political aspect, the essence of the security function could be expressed as a contribution to the binding nature of decisions and norms produced by the political system, i.e. security exists to ensure respect for decisions and norms of the political system in society. measure of coercion. In addition to this mediating role, security has a more explicit role for the political system: it is a source of support and support for the political system. Thus, its role would also refer to the protection of the institutions of the political system and ensuring their unhindered functioning. However, the security function, in addition to being oriented to the logic of the political system (ie the needs and requirements of that system), also serves the whole society, which arises from the understanding of the security function as a social function and security as a form of social control. The state has a protective function from the very beginning, regardless of whether we understand it as an independent function or as part of a unique function of the state.



Civil war is an armed conflict between political, national and other antagonistic social groups in one state for purpose of achievement of political and economic interests. Civil wars rarely end up with compromise and they are made as long as one side wins and established power or unless the peace is imposed by international community. That is why offence is strategy and tactics of each side. In material sense, civil war is an organized armed conflict which is similar or even equal to international conflict by its external features and it may have a form of frontal or guerrilla war. Hence, difference between civil and international conflict is not in the way of making war but in the nature of the war sides. Civil wars may have objective of changing existing political system or regime, secession of territory and its annexing to another state or creation of a separate independent state. Civil war that was led on territory of Yugoslavia was the war for eradication and creation of new states on ethnical basis. In other words, it was the war for the change of territorial sovereignty. Status (the state of affairs) of two conflicted sides in civil war may be equated if the rebelling side succeeds to gain recognition of the status of conflicted side by legal government. In the past civil wars used to be strictly an internal affair of one state. On several occasions the General Assembly of the United Nations underlined that internal conflicts were internal affairs of a state. However, from the Spanish Civil War in 1936 to the beginning of 21st century many civil wars used to be precedents or episodes of international conflicts. Internal conflicts may be also a consequence of indirect aggression. The General Assembly defined aggression while encompassing within this term also infringement of armed gangs and mercenaries with objective of provoking armed violence, disorder or uprising in the state. In this case the state has the right to take measures on the basis of its domestic legislation, but it may define these measures as self-defense as well on the basis of international law. In situation when the war is proclaimed to be international crime, it is less becoming logical that formal wars start with declaration of the war, as there is no state which would risk being accused as an aggressor by international community, but in this case some great powers tend to try to accomplish their goals under cover of provoking civil wars and interventions into internal affairs of a state. Greatest number of post-Second World War local wars had started as civil wars, but after foreign military interventions grew into international conflicts, f. e. Kongo, Vietnam, Lebanon, etc. It also happens that civil war is led alongside (in parallel to) to international war and it happens in case when a legal government makes war with rebelling forces and aggressors’ forces at the same time. However, it is often very difficult to understand whether one internal armed conflict may be considered to be civil war or only a common rebellion. International law has not got the criteria for differentiation of these two forms of conflict and so each internal conflict is observed separately on its own and estimation is usually made on the basis of the abovementioned criteria. For example, in practice they usually take into consideration the circumstances regarding intensity and duration of the armed conflicts, their territorial range, the range of engagement of forces, military organization of uprising, compliance of the rebels to their political elites (de facto the government), respect of the rules and customs of war, etc. These are elements for possible recognition of the rebels as the war making side.



In first days of the Independent State of Croatia first leaders of the ustashe formations and main cooperators of Ante Pavelic, the ministers Mile Budak, MilovanZanic and MirkoPuk exclaimed the standpoint of their state toward Serbian Orthodox Christians. On June 6, 1941 in Krizevci during the Ustashe Assembly which had started with the Mass, Mile Budak talked about the extermination of the Christian Orthodoxy. Mile Budak used the fact that the assembly was started with the mass to claim that the state of the ustashe was “Christian state”. On this occasion he exclaimed: … Our state is the state of two religious denominations – the Roman Catholic and Muslim ones”. He spoke against the Orthodox Christian Serbs defining them as “intruders” and “enemies of Croatian people”, declaring that “the Serbs moved the foundation stone of the Christian Orthodoxy from the east to the west at the expense of Roman Catholicism” and that “God Willing their foundation stone will disappear from the Croatian state, as it was prohibited to place the borderline stones on other people’s plowed fields”. Today in 21st century in the archives there are documents which prove planned deportations, conversions into the Roman Catholicism and liquidations of the Serbs on the territory of the Independent State of Croatia, among which in particular stand out two acts of Ante Pavelic’s “ministries”, proving the violence by which such conversions into the Roman Catholicism were executed. On June 30th 1941 the Ustashe government brought an act-document No. 48468/41 about the conversion from the Christian Orthodoxy into the Roman Catholicism, which proved that it was declared as “the state politics” and not as the act achieved by the cannons, as they could not provide for fast massive conversions into the Roman Catholicism. In this document it was written that the conversion of the Orthodox Christians into Greek Catholic ritual (which was closer to the Orthodox Christians) was not desirable thing to do, and it was insisted that the Orthodox Christians had to be converted exclusively into the Roman Catholic ritual. The converts had to enclose the confirmation on their “personal chastity” “in agreement with the Ustashe concentration camps and tabors” and also inform “the Ministry of Justice and Respect to God”. In this act-document it was written that such document was prohibited to be issued, with some exceptional cases allowed, to “the Christian Orthodox priests, merchants, rich artisans and peasants and intellectuals in general”… This fact indicates that this was political violence executed by terrorist methods, that the people were differentiated and that it was determined in advance he was to be converted into the Roman Catholicism and who was to be liquidated or deported from the state. In this context there was a great role of robbery, as in particular the rich people were determined to be liquidated or deported, so that they were robbed of their property. The intellectuals were also determined for the liquidations. The other act-document was the document issued on July 14th 1941 by “the Ministry of Jurisdiction” to “the Bishop Ordinariats of the Independent State of Croatia”: “We are asking from the Respected Ordinariat to confidently inform all parish offices about the conversion of the Orthodox Christians into the Roman Catholic church. Under no means the Orthodox Christians will be allowed to convert into the Greek Catholic church. The Croatian government’s intention is not to allow the Orthodox Christian priests, teachers and in general intellectuals and members of rich class of merchants, artisans and peasants the conversion due to possible later acts related to them and in order not to cause any possible discomfort to the faith and reputation of the Roman Catholicism… Lower and poor Christian Orthodox masses were allowed to be converted into the Roman Catholicism after they go through education about the Roman Catholic truths. In case that the formerly mentioned people still insist to be converted themselves, they had to be in some appropriate way kept in catechumenate  or to be banished in some other way.” From the tone of this document it is possible to realize what kind of the cooperation there existed between the hierarchical top people in the Roman Catholic church in Croatia and the Ustashe government. They totally confidently agreed on the methods of liquidation of the Christian Orthodoxy and so the Ustashe government sat up the limits for the conversions in accord with the Roman Catholic church in Croatia for purpose of providing to the Ustashe government an easier way for implementation of further methods designed for cruel liquidations of the Serbs in Croatia.


European Concept of the Young Bosnia Movement

This paper is also an attempt to light up dimensions of depth of the political, social and economic factors in Bosnia and Herzegovina to the extent they encouraged members of the Young Bosnia movement (Mlada Bosna) to a decisive action. And indeed, to which extent did the assassination result from the social and political circumstances which were prevailing in a country where members of Young Bosnia were born and raised. The Young Bosnia members found their inspiration for the revolutionary action in similar youth organizations formed amongst the unfree nations of Europe since 1831. Through their activities they persistently propagated: the philosophy of nationalism and democratic political doctrines, building of national consciousness, creation of cult of national energy, work on the creation of modern national culture based on believes that national culture cannot be without national society, and national society cannot be without national state.


Phenomenology of Modern Terrorism

This paper focuses on conceptual definition of modern terrorism and scientific problems related to the trajectory (development) of generally acceptable definition of terrorism. In this paper, in addition to the conceptual definitions of terrorism, the author proposes his own definition of terrorism. The author has given special attention to the motives of the perpetrators of modern terrorism, offering his postulate that each type of terrorism is politically motivated. In addition to the analysis of the concept and definition of terrorism, the concepts and definitions of terror and guerrilla are also presented in this paper. Definitions of terrorism given by famous theorists are also critically analyzed, particularly academic and administrative definitions of terrorism, with the emphasis on administrative, or fiat definitions. In the conclusion of the paper the author emphasizes great challenges facing the international security system of today, specifically the problems of preservation of integral security of citizens and protection of citizens from the emerging controlled political violence - terrorism.