Fulltext search in archive

One of the longest conflicts in Latin-American history ended in 2016 when then Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos signed a peace agreement with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the largest guerrilla movement in Colombia. His predecessor, the current senator Álvaro Uribe, opposed the peace agreement, believing that an offensive against the guerrillas was the right approach. This article shows how these two Colombian presidents framed guerillas and what strategies and expressions were used in their presidential speeches. The main argument is that the conciliatory discourse of President Santos helped to finally achieve peace. The research paper uses a comparative method and the concept of framing.

Partisan and paramilitary groups operating on Colombian soil have been representing a serious regional security threat for the last fifty years. The most successful attempt to conclude a peace treaty between the government and the insurgents is represented by the peace process that took place between 2012-2016. This process resulted in the agreement between the colombian government and the guerilla group Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia - Ejército del Pueblo. This paper deals with the dynamics of the of the peace processes between the government and guerilla groups and analyzes the factors contributing to the escalation and deescalation of the conflict and factors that enabled or on the contrary disabled a successful demobilization of the insurgents. The analysis of the demobilization uncovered a number of factors indicating a contradictory acting of both sides of the conflict. While the adversaries were negotiating the peace agreement, in the same time they were violating the previous agreements. Such behaviour was caused mainly due to the absence of a strong sponsor.

The issue of terrorism is becoming increasingly important on the level of social, economic, political and security. The threat of terrorism affects at the same time, societal and cultural events. Professional and academic discussion addresses the causes and possible consequences of this phenomenon. To understand the implications of terrorism, it is necessary to look at this issue from the perspective of terms of its financing. This review study aims to define the term financing of terrorism on the one hand, but also to identify possible sources of financing of terrorism, including the most used payment methods by terrorist organizations. This study also leads a discussion on the efforts and effectiveness of the various authorities in the fight for detecting terrorism, especially in relation to the detection of its financial flows. The study also defines the possible pitfalls in the fight against terrorism and detecting its sources of financing and attempts to outline possible alternatives while increasing success in this fight.

The aim of this article is to provide comparison of the main indicators of military power among the individual EU countries, between the EU in total and the U.S., and the comparison of the world's biggest military powers. Current evolvement of changes in military power indicates the shift of the centre of gravity aiming prevailingly eastward towards raising and growing economical powers. Due to the differences of various input data, multiple information sources used for comparison are significantly different. In addition, it is difficult to get them for some isolated countries, the results of which are sometimes only estimated. The study also includes information on the main importers and exporters of the military equipment, as well as the estimation of future trends.

The article analyzes several key conclusions of US National Intelligence Council's study "Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds", published in December 2012. Primarily it focuses on: the diffusion of global power influencing political, economic and security development on both global and regional scales; rising importance of the Asia-Pacific region for global economy and security; Sino-American security relations; the role that the United States and Europe should be played in the changing geopolitical reality. The conclusions offer the author's own interpretation of certain development trajectories, based on his earlier published monographs, studies and articles.

The key term in this article is "war economy" It is used to describe the contingencies undertaken by the state to mobilise its economy for war production. Often confused term "resource conflicts" needs explaining. First, there are raw materials, mineral resources (diamonds, precious metals). Another group of resources are critical items, water supplies, and fertile lands. This article concentrates on conflicts provoked by the abundance of natural sources, not by their insufficiency. Their driving motive is "greed-based" model (the effort to take over the control over lands, crude oils). Another model is "grievance-based" model, based upon the feeling of hate, having its roots in e.g. underprivileged position of certain part of population) tied with worsening economy). "War economy" got a new meaning. It moved far away from Clauzewitz's paradigm, the sense of such war is in itself, the war is protracted, it is war for war's sake.

The article is focused on issue of hybridisation of Al Qai'da in Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), in North Africa, and its implications for European countries. The process of hybridisation is being conceived as growing nexus and convergence between violent non-state actors, while these processes could be in this case identified mainly in issues of use of kidnappings and secondary also reported involvement of AQIM in regional smuggling, mainly drugs, activities through Sahel and Saharan region to Europe. Regarding GSPC background, AQIM could be in long term theoretically able to re-establish its financial and supporting networks in Europe via cooperation with organized crime, which were largely disrupted after major crackdowns by security forces between 2004-2007. Event though a direct Al Qai'da attack in Europe is-according to the author-excluded, the purpose of this article to draw our attention to an eventuality of rebirth of European operation network of AQIM operational predecessor, i.e. GSPC.

The subject of this comprehensive study: the main features of global risk society can be embodied by ecology crises, global financial crises, threat of terrorism. The article is presented as a report to military community and audience, with the underlying focus on terrorism. The author is mapping the global future in the first two decades of this century. As a small country we must pay attention to the developments in the worlds leading powers: the U.S., China, Russia, last but not least, within the EU. Those themes also present individual headings of this study. He treats energy, demography, peace, security, good neighbourly relations, cooperation between states that are most desirable goals we want to reach. In a way, as the main actor of worlds security situation till 2020 is identified Islamist terrorism (radical Islamists, Al Qaeda). At the end Mr. Balabán recalls the former "Security Policy of the Czech Republic" released ten years ago, reminding us the necessity to be prepared for the worst scenarios.