Applying Model of Brand Equity in Higher Education Marketing Context

Background: The idea of brands is currently swiftly transferring from the market for goods to the market for services, giving rise to the service brand. Globalisation, the accelerated and increased development of service activities, and more rivalry in the provider\u27s market have all contributed to this. Objectives: The primary goal of this study is to empirically test the conceptual model in higher education to create a comparative study based on different contextual dimensions and better understand brand equity in higher education. Methods/Approach: A quantitative research method was applied. Using a questionnaire, which was sent to students by e-mail, the data were collected. The sample chosen targeted 250 actual (university students) in Slovenia. Results: Consumer traits and concepts related to the brand equity\u27s awareness dimension have no discernible influence on consumers\u27 perceptions of brand equity. Promotional actions intended to increase brand equity by increasing awareness were ineffective and had a favourable effect on the brand equity of the symbolic qualities. All service characteristics were discovered to be important. Price, excellent quality, and benefits all had a large and positive impact on brand equity. In conclusion, all financial factors had a substantial and favourable effect on brand equity. Conclusions: The research\u27s findings showed that the customer-based brand equity model might be used to create a competitive advantage in the higher education sector and to direct marketing efforts

BOLONJA I EVROPSKO VISOKO OBRAZOVANJE – IZJAVA, PROSTOR, PROCES

This article is the first part of a more extensive discussion on Bologna reforms in European higher education having taken place from adoption of Bologna Declaration onwards. For lack of space I have limited my treatment of Bologna process on the period to 2003 Berlin Ministerial Conference; the subsequent events concerning European Higher Education Area (EHEA), as well as implementation of its standards and guidelines (ESG) in Yugoslavia’s states – successors will be dealt with elsewhere. Subject of the first section is Bologna Declaration – a joint statement of 29 European Ministers competent for higher education, having become the inaugurating and main guiding document of the Bologna process. It is considered in its historical context – as an expression of post-Cold War euphoria and unabated belief into the bright future of a pacified and unified Europe, committed to democracy, respect for human rights and sustainable economic growth. Almost all signatory parties were members of European Union (EU) or candidates for its membership – a fact that decisively determined the spirit and letter of thus act. European process, a praiseworthy subject of Bologna Declaration’s introductory sentences, is a highly ambiguous term meaning either integration in EU and its expansion by adding new nations or convergent evolution of all European countries irrespective their EU membership. This ambiguity remains a permanent feature of Bologna process, as I’ve shown analysing content of Ministerial Conferences’ communiqués. It left an ineffaceable trace in institutional structure of EHEA, particularly in its relations with EU and Council of Europe (CE). Second section treats territorial expansion of EHEA by joining new members and its implications for character of the Bologna process. I’ve followed a gradual separation of EU and EHEA with admitting nations having all more protracted perspectives of EU membership, until Russia – a nation having no intention to enter EU – has become a full participant into the Bologna process. It is suggested that European frontiers, outlined by the Bologna membership, are too diffuse, indefinite, geographically unconvincing and historically and culturally untenable. Third section, the most detailed one, has discussed the internal makeup of the Bologna process, its self-proclaimed goals and measure of its achievements seen through the eyes of actors themselves. These aims have included, among others, the introducing of three-cycle studies program and corresponding framework of qualifications; introducing of European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) as a simple, uniform and confident way for assessing and measuring the learning outcomes in higher education accepted by all nations included in EHEA; acceptance of ESG for an objective, confident and transparent assurance of quality in higher education. The achievement of these aims is to lead to recognition of degrees and qualifications in entire EHEA, enhanced mobility of students and teaching staff and improved attractiveness and competitiveness of EHEA in the international scales.Ovaj članak predstavlja prvi deo obimnije rasprave o bolonjskim reformama u evropskom visokom obrazovanju, koje se odvijaju od usvajanja Bolonjske deklaracije nadalje. Zbog nedostatka prostora izlaganje o Bolonjskom procesu ograničio sam na razdoblje do berlinske ministarske konferencije 2003. godine. Tema ovog rada jeste Bolonjska deklaracija – zajednička izjava 29 evropskih ministara zaduženih za visoko obrazovanje, koja je postala početni i glavni usmeravajući dokument Bolonjskog procesa. Ona se posmatra u svom istorijskom kontekstu – kao izraz euforije nastale završetkom hladnog rata i neublažene vere u svetlu budućnost jedne umirene i ujedinjene Evrope posvećene demokratiji, poštovanju ljudskih prava i održivom privrednom rastu. Drugi odeljak razmatra teritorijalno širenje Evropskog visokoobrazovnog područja primanjem novih država – članica i njegove implikacije na karakter Bolonjskog procesa. Pratio sam postupno razdvajanje EU i Evropskog visokoobrazovnog područja izazvano prmanjem država sa sve udaljenijom perspektivom članstva u EU, sve dok i Rusija – zemlja koja uopšte nema nameru da uđe u EU – nije postala punopravni sudionik Bolonjskog procesa. Treći odeljak, sa najvećim brojem pojedinosti, razmatra unutrašnji sastav Bolonjskog procesa, njegove samoproklamovane ciljeve i meru njihovog ostvarenja, viđenu očima samih aktera. Ovi ciljevi obuhvataju, pored ostalog, uvođenje programa studija zasnovanog na tri ciklusa i njemu primerene nomenklature stručnih kvalifikacija; uvođenje Evropskog sistema prenošenja i sabiranja bodova kao jednostavnog, jednoobraznog i pouzdanog načina za procenu i merenje rezultata učenja prihvaćenog u svim državama unutar Evropskog visokoobrazovnog područja; prihvatanje evropskih standarda i smernica za objektivnu, pouzdanu i transparentnu kontrolu kvaliteta u visokom obrazovanju. Postizanje ovih ciljeva treba da vodi priznavanju diploma i kvalifikacija na celokupnom Evropskom visokoobrazovnom području, većoj pokretljivosti studenata i nastavnog osoblja, te povećanoj privlačnosti i konkurentnosti Evropskog visokoobrazovnog područja u međunarodnim razmerama

ISI I ANALIZA CITIRANOSTI NAUČNIH ČASOPISA – POREKLO, NAMENA I OSNOVNA NAČELA

This article is attributed to ISI and its role in the process of the scientific journals’ evaluation. The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) was founded by Eugene Garfield in 1960. It was acquired by Thomson Scientific & Healthcare in 1992, became known as Thomson ISI and now as Thomson Scientific. It is a component of the multi-billion dollar Thomson Reuters Corporation. The Master Journal List includes all journal titles covered in Scientific products. The evaluation process consists of evaluation of many criteria such as, Basic Journal Publishing Standards (including Timeliness of publication, adherence to International Editorial Conventions, English Language Bibliographic Information (including English article titles, keywords, author abstracts, and cited references). Thomson Reuters also examines the journal’s Editorial Content, the International Diversity of it authors and editors. Citation Analysis using Thomson Reuters data is applied to determine the journal’s citation history and/or the citation history of its authors and editors.Ovaj članak posvećen je Institutu za informisanje u nauci i njegovoj ulozi u procesu vrednovanja naučnih časopisa. Institut za informisanje u nauci osnovao je Judžin Garfild 1960. godine. Od 1992. godine nalazi se u vlasništvu firme Thomson Scientific & Healthcare i poznat je najpre kao Thomson ISI a danas kao Thomson Scientific. Institut je sastavni deo multimilijarderske korporacije Thomson Reuters Corporation. Spisak vodećih naučnih časopisa obuhvata sve časopise koji se prate u bazama podataka koji vodi Institut. Evaluacioni proces sastoji se iz procene ispunjenosti mnogih kriterija, poput Osnovnih uređivačkih standarda za časopise (koji uključuju redovnost izlaženja publikacije, poštovanje međunarodnih konvencija koje se odnose na izdavanje publikacija, kao i poštovanje bibliografskih standarda za engleski jezik, što obuhvata prevod naslova priloga, autorovog apstrakta, ključnih reči i pozivanja na druge autore na engleski jezik). Institut takođe vrši procenu autora čiji su radovi zastupljeni, kao i sastava uređivačkog odbora – i to kako sa stanovišta citiranosti dotičnih autora tako i sa gledišta zastupljenosti autora iz više država, čime se posredno meri međunarodni značaj publikacije. Analiza citiranosti časopisa i autora vrši se na osnovu podataka sadržanih u bazama koje servisira Institut

Amerika i Rim – ima li osnova za analogiju?

It is one of the common places of the current anti-American thinking that the American imperialism can be compared with the Roman policy in Mediterranean basin in the period of Roman Republic’s territorial expansion. In the other hand, the champions and adherents of America’s leadership in the contemporary world like to draw an analogy between the civilizing influence of Rome in Antiquity and that of America today. The purpose of this article is to explore what is the historical foundation of the said analogy. The proposed research must necessarily be not only incomplete, but fragmentary: a comprehensive answer needs decades of meticulous studies. Author consciously limits his ambition only to the most important, outstanding and conspicuous traits of the explored analogy. He also try to take into account both similarities and differences between two historical phenomena divided by two millennia of uninterrupted historical experience. The oversight of differences leads us to fatalistic conviction that the human history is “the eternal return of the same”; the denial of sim01ilarities would destroy the possibility of understanding the past and its relevance for future generations. There are three possible felds of comparison between USA and Roman Republic: - their respective cultural backgrounds, the content and extent of the links tying the Roman and American cultures with the older and stronger cultures that created them, the Greek and Western European cultures respectively; - the constitutional forms of USA and Roman Republic and possible Roman influences on the American constitution-makers, and - The foreign policy of USA and Roman Republic and the role played by them in their respective worlds. The oriigins of distinct American civilization can be compared with the progressive development of the Ancient Rome. In both cases, the material, economic, political and military supremacy of USA and Rome owes much to the achievements of an older and spiritually stronger culture. But the direction into which the American and Roman cultures have moved is quite different: while Rome had been undergone ever increasing Hellenization, the rift that culturally separate America and West Europe becomes wider with years. Besides, the original position of two cultures are not identical: American culture had begun its development in the colonial era as an integral part of the early modern European culture, but Rome was a distinct, non-Hellenic, even “barbaric” culture in the frst centuries of her history However, the considerable similarity in the respective cultural positions of Rome and America must not be overseen. Both peoples have an ambiguious attitude towards their teachers: they simultaneously despise their political and military ineffectiveness and admire their arts or use their sciences. The constitutional forms of USA are very far from the Roman Republic’s institutions. First of all, USA is a federation; Roman Republic was, despite a considerable degree of municipal autonomy, a unitary state. All American political and legal traditions are founded on the Anglo-Saxon legacy, very diferent from the legal reasoning rooted at the concepts and standards of Roman law, common to the European countries except Britain. If there are some traces of Roman influences in the USA Constitution, they must be attributed to the gen eral intellectual atmosphere of 18th century, to the period of Classicism in art and literature, as well as to the rationalist re-evaluation of the Classical Antiquity’s political heritage. When the founding fathers had written American Constitution, Roman Republic was the only example of a republican government transcending the city-stste’s framework. It is rather Polypus’ interpretation of the Roman Constitution’s mixed nature balancing the advantages and shortcomings of a monarchy, aristocracy and democracy, than the real, historical and empirical form of Roman government, which had inspired the American state-makers. Roman political and legal ideas were leaving a deeper and more permanent imprint on the subsequent French Revolution and Napoleon’s Code civil. Finally, the foreign policies have given the most fruitful, perhaps the only real basis for drawing the analogy between USA and Roman Republic. In order to make this analogy possible, the author has previously tried to defne the “world” in which Rome had played the role comparable with that of USA in the shrinking and the globalized world of today; He fnds that the respective processes of Mediterranean’s Hellenization and Romanization have fundamentally analogous causes and consequences with that of contemporary globalization. Rome, it is true, didn’t have an isolationist phase in her foreign policy; the Republic’s; noninvolvement in the main currents of Mediterranean international politics was not the result of her deliberate determination to remain untouched by conflicts devastating the surrounding countries, feature that characterized the USA foreign policy from Washington’s Farewell Address to the Spanish-American War in 1898. The era of World Wars have found is incomplete Roman counterpart in the First and Second Punic wars, although no Punic War had relative dimensions (in respect to the extent of Ancient Mediterranean) that can be compared with the Second World War. But American global involvement in the post-1945 world has an undeniable Roman parallel in Republic’s conquests after Second Punic War. The author traces these parallels both in its political and economic causes and in its ideological justifcations.Jedno od opštih mesta savremenog antiameričkog mišljenja predstavlja stav da se američki imperijalizam može uporediti sa rimskom politikom u basenu Sredozemlja u razdoblju teritorijalnog širenja Rimske Republike. S druge strane, zastupnici i pristalice vodeće uloge Amerike u savremenom svetu želeli bi da povuku analogiju između civilizatorskog uticaja Rima u antici i sličnog uticaja Amerike danas. Ovim člankom želim da istražim istorijsku osnovu pomenute analogije. Takvo istraživanje nužno mora biti ne samo nepotpuno već i fragmentarno: sveobuhvatni odgovor na ovo pitanje zahtevao bi čitave decenije strpljivog proučavanja. Pisac svesno ograničava svoju ambiciju samo na najvažnije, najistaknutije i najupadljivije odlike analogije koja je predmet istraživanja. On takođe nastoji da uzme u obzir kako sličnosti, tako i razlike između dve istorijske pojave koje razdvaja dva milenija neprekinutog istorijskog iskustva. Previđanje razlika dovodi do fatalističkog uverenja da je ljudska istorija «večiti povratak istog»; poricanje sličnosti uništilo bi pak samu mogućnost razumevanja prošlosti i dovelo u pitanje njenu relevantnost za budući naraštaj. Postoje tri moguća područja u kojima se može vršiti poređenje između SAD i Rmske Republike: - kulturna pozadina rimske, odnosno američke civilizacije, sadržaj i obim veza što te civilizacije spajaju sa starijim i snažnijim kulturama koje su ih stvorile, grčkom, odnosno zapadnoevropskom kulturom; - oblici državnog uređenja SAD i Rimske Republike i mogući rimski uticaji na američke ustavotvorce; - spoljna politika SAD i Rimske Republike, te uloga koju su igrale u svom okruženju. Poreklo posebne američke civilizacije može se uporediti sa postupnim razvojem starog Rima. U oba slučaja SAD, odnosno Rim, duguju svoju materijalnu, privrednu, političku i vojnu nadmoć u velikoj meri dostignućima jedne starije i duhovno jače kulture. Ali pravac kretanja američke i rimske kulture je sasvim različit: dok je Rim prolazio kroz sve veću helenizaciju, jaz koji u kulturnom pogledu odvaja Ameriku od zapadne Evrope tokom godina postaje sve veći. Pored toga ishodište ove dve kulture nije istovetno: američka kultura započela je da se razvija u kolonijalnom razdoblju kao integralni deo ranomoderne evropske kulture, dok je Rim bio posebna, nehelenska, čak «varvarska» kultura u prvim vekovima svoje istorije. Međutim, ne sme se prevideti znatna sličnost u kulturnom položaju Rima i Amerike. Oba naroda gajila su dvosmislen stav prema svojim učiteljima: oni su istovremeno prezirali političku i vojnu nedelotvornost naroda na koje su se ugledali, ali su se istovremeno divili njihovoj umetnosti i koristili njihovu nauku. Oblici državnog uređenja SAD veoma se razlikuju od ustanova Rimske Republike. Pre svega, SAD su federacija; Rimska Republika je uprkos znatnoj meri municipalne autonomije, bila unitarna država. Sve američke političke i pravne tradicije zasnovane su na anglosaksonskom nasleđu, znatno drugačijem od načina pravnog mišljenja koje leži u osnovi pojmova i standarda rimskog prava, svojstvenog evropskim zemljama sem Britanije. Ako je bilo nekih tragova rimskog uticaja koji se mogu otkriti u američkom Ustavu, takvi tragovi moraju se pripisati opštoj intelektualnoj atmosferi XVIII veka, dobu klasicizma u metnosti i književnosti, kao i racionalističkog prevrednovanja političke zaostavštine klasične antike. Kada su osnivači SAD pisali američki Ustav, Rimska Republika bila je jedini primer države sa republikanskim uređenjem koja je prelazila okvire grada – države.Američke državotvorce nadahnula je više Polibijeva interpretacija mešovite prirode rimskog državnog uređenja, koje dovodi u ravnotežu prednosti i nedostatke monarhije, aristokratije i demokratije, nego stvarna, istorijska i empirijska forma rimske države. Rimske političke i pravne predstave ostavljale su dublji i trajniji trag na potonjem režimu Francuske revolucije i u Napoleonovom Code civil. Najzad, spoljna politika pruža najplodonosniju, možda jedinu stvarnu osnovu na kojoj se mogu povlačiti analogije između SAD i Rimske Republike. Da bi omogućio takve analogije, pisac je prethodno pokušao da defniše «svet» u kojem je Rim igrao ulogu sličnu ulozi SAD u današnjem svetu koji se ubrzano smanjuje i globalizuje. On nalazi da procesi najpre helenizacije a zatim i romanizacije Sredozemlja imaju uzroke i posledice koji su u osnovi analogni uzrocima i posledicama savremene globalizacije. Istina, Rim nije imao izolacionističku fazu u svojoj spoljnoj politici; neuplitanje Republike u glavne tokove međunarodne politike u Sredozemlju nije bilo proizvod njene svesne odluke da ostane po strain od sukoba koji su razarali okolne zemlje, što je odlika koja karakteriše američku spoljnu politiku od Vašingtonove Oproštajne poslanice do špansko – američkog rata 1898. godine. Razdoblje svetskih ratova nalazi nepotpunu rimsku paralelu u I i II punskom ratu, mada punski ratovi nisu imali relativne razmere (u odnosu na veličinu antičkog Sredozemlja) koje bi se mogle uporediti sa II svetskim ratom. Ali američko globalno angažovanje u svetskim poslovima posle 1945. godine ima neporecivu rimsku paralelu u osvajanjima koja je izvršila Republika posle II punskog rata. Pisac prati kako političke i ekonomske uzroke tako i ideološka opravdanja tih analognih spoljnjopolitičkih pricesa

USPON I PAD IVANA IVANOVIĆA

Book review: Prof. Jovica Trkulja Ph.D, RISE AND FALL OF IVAN IVANOVICPrikaz knjige:Prof. dr Jovica TrkuljaUSPON I PAD IVANA IVANOVIĆ

NAORUŽANA DEMOKRATIJA I KONTROLA DRŽANJA ORUŽJA U SAD

The author comments on US Supreme Court’s decision in the case MCDONALD ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ET AL, relying on the press agencies’ news, text of the Court’s ruling, as well as on the notorious facts from America’s social and ideological history. In the first part of this work he suggested that considered ruling is only an episode, a relatively insignificant one, in drawn out contest between liberals ad conservatives in US political and intelectual establisment, struggle that neither begins nor ends with this decision. In spite of efforts the supporters of „rifgt to arms“ are making to stress the landsliding importance of the Supreme Court’s dicision for legal informing, establishing and consolidating the right to bear personal fiearms, the author views it in a wider perspective of continuing tensions between Obama administration and conservative Republicans-led opposition. The said ruling may be understood as a reminder to President that there is yet a strong conservative majority in Supreme Court playing a role of counterweight to his liberal policies. The second part of this text deals with the wording and justification of ruling itself. It has more to do with American federalism embodied in respective powers of federal, state and local governments than with the constitutionality of measures providing for posession of arms control. It is becouse Supreme Court had already determined the true meaning of Second Amendment to US Constitution in its decision in case District of Columbia v. Heller, 554, interpreting it in a sense that its provisions confirm the individual right to posess the personal firearms as a constitutionally guaranteed right. By this example the author endeavors to illustrate different legal techniques of Anglo-Saxon and Continental law in making the consututonality and legality a real and efficient social force. The final part of this contribution traces the social and ideological background of present Supreme Court’s decision. It postulates the deeply-rooted traditions of „armed democracy“ – condition in which the majority of adult male population have posessed personal firearms as necessary prrequisit of self.maintenance in chaotic social environment of Wild West – in American historical consciousness, outlining its emergence in the colonail past, its role in shaping American democratic institutions in a pre-urban and preindustrial civilization, its transformation into a conservaive ideological complex in the postCivil War era and its place in social landscape od contemporary America. In conclusion, author proves that the opponents of the stircter firearms’ control fail to show that mass posession of personal firearms favors anti-criminal policies.Autor komentariše presudu Vrhovnog suda SAD u slučaju MCDONALD ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ET AL, oslanjajući se na agencijske vesti, tekst presude Vrhovnog suda i opštepoznate činjenice iz socijalne i ideološke istorije Amerike. U prvom delu svog rada on ukazuje da je razmatrana presuda samo jedna epizoda, i to relativno beznačajna, u produženom odmeravanju snaga između liberala i konzervativaca u vodećim krugovima američkog političkog i intelektualnog života, borbi koja niti počinje niti se završava ovom presudom. Uprkos nastojanjima pristalica „prava na oružje“ da naglase prekretnički značaj presude Vrhovnog suda za ustanovljenje, učvršćivanje i pravno uobličenje prava na držanje ličnog oružja, autor ovu presudu sagledava u široj perspektivi trajne napetosti između Obamine administracije i konzervativne republikanske opozicije. Rečena presuda može se shvatiti kao upozorenje Predsedniku da u Vrhovnom sudu još postoji snažna konzervativna većina spremna da igra ulogu protivteže njegovoj liberalnoj politici. Drugi deo teksta bavi se formulacijom i obrazloženjem same presude. Ona ima više veze sa američkim fedrativnim uređenjem i načinom na koji se ono ispoljava kroz ovlašćenja saveznih, državnih i lokalnih vlasti nego sa ustavnošću mera koje predviđaju kontrolu posedovanja oružja. To je posledica činjenice da je Vrhovni sud već utvrdio pravo značenje Drugog amandmana na Ustav SAD svojom presudom u slučaju District of Columbia v. Heller, 554; sud je ovaj amandman tumačio u smislu da njegove odredbe potvrđuju pravo građana na posedovanje ličnog vatrenog oružja kao Ustavom garantovano pravo. Ovim primerom autor nastoji da ilustruje različite pravne tehnike kojima se služi anglosaksonsko i kontinentalno pravo u pokušaju da od ustavnosti i zakonitosti načine stvarnu i delotvornu društvenu snagu. Poslednji deo ovog priloga traga za društvenom i ideološkom pozadinom predmetne presude Vrhovnog suda. On pretpostavlja postojanje duboko ukorenjenih tradicija „naoružane demokratije“ – stanja u kojem većina odraslog muškog stanovništva poseduje lično vatreno oružje kao nužan preduslov samoodržanja u haotičnoj društvenoj sredini Divljeg Zapada – u američkoj istorijskoj svesti, ocrtavši njen nastanak u kolonijalnoj prošlosti, njenu ulogu u oblikovanju američkih demokratskih ustanova u okviru jedne predurbane i preindustrijske civilizacije, njen preobražaj u konzervativni ideološki kompleks nakon završetka Američkog građanskog rata i njeno mesto u društvenom pejzažu savremene Amerike. Zaključujući izlaganje, autor dokazuje kako protivnici strože kontrole vatrenog oružja ne uspevaju pokazati da masovno posedovanje ličnog vatrenog oružja pogoduje borbi protiv kriminala

VENECIJANSKA KOMISIJA I NJENO BAVLJENJE SRBIJOM

This contribution is on the Venice Commission, its mission, functions, composition, funding and procedure. In the latter part of text the rather abstract provisions of its Statute are illustrated by the elementary data on its proceedings in some cases involving Serbia. The Venice Commission, officially dubbed European Commission for Democracy through Law, is an advisory body to Council of Europe, although from its founding in 1990 it have been able to include states – non members also. Its original task was to help the democratic transition in the ex-Communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe providing them with legal expertise and advisory help useful for development of a democratic nation’s legal and political institutions. Accordingly, its founders were conceiving it as a temporary, ad hoc body with limited term of its office. But it soon became clear that development of democratic institutions was a continuous process having no definite time framework: moreover, it was evidenced that this process is by no means limited spatially also on the „new democracies“ in the East, but it concerns the states with much longer traditions in working democratic bodies and more firmly established rule of law. After only two years, the Venice Commission had become a permanent body of CE. All founding states were members of CE, but they included three distinct groups regarding the working of their democratic institutions: a)states with firmly rooted, developed, routinely workable and stabilized democratic institutions (France, Sweden); b) states that made a successful transition from an authoritarian into a democratic order in relatively recent past (Spain, Portugal, Greece) and c) states yet faced with lack of efficient democratic institutions and/or troubled internal condition (Turkey, Cyprus). States from all these groups have had a lot of its own highly specific experiences in framing and working democratic institutions and legal guarantees for them to offer to and share with the nascent East European democracies. Occasions in which the Venice Commission had dealt with questions relating Serbia may be grouped into three separated wholes: a) protection of the human rights in Kosovo; b) legal guarantees of State Union Serbia and Montenegro to protection of human and minority rights, and c)reforming the legal system of Serbia as an independent state.Ovaj se prilog odnosi na Venecijansku komisiju, njenu misiju, zadatke, sastav, način fnansiranja i postupak pred njom. U drugom delu teksta pomalo apstraktne odredbe njenog Statuta ilustrovane su osnovnim podacima o njenom radu u nekim slučajevima vezanim za Srbiju. Venecijanska komisija, čiji je zvaničan naziv Evropska komisija za demokratiju posredstvom prava, predstavlja savetodavni organ Saveta Evrope, mada je od samog njenog osnivanja 1990. godine bilo moguće da u njenom radu učestvuju i države koje nisu pristupile Savetu Evrope. Prvobitni joj je zadatak bio da potpomogne demokratsku tranziciju ranije socijalističkih zemalja srednje i istočne Evrope, pružajući im stručnu pravnu pomoć i savetodavne usluge korisne za razvoj pravnih i političkih ustanova demokratske države. Shodno tome, njeni osnivači zamišljali su je kao jedan privremen, ad hoc organ sa vremenski ograničenim mandatom. Ali ubrzo je postalo jasno da je razvoj demokratskih ustanova kontinuiran proces bez precizno određenog vremenskog okvira; štaviše, pokazalo se da taj proces nije ni prostorno ograničen samo na „nove demokratije“ na Istoku, već se tiče i država sa mnogo dužom tradicijom funkcionisanja demokratskih organa vlasti i sa čvršće ukorenjenom vladavinom prava. Nakon samo dve godine rada Venecijanska komisija postala je stalni organ Saveta Evrope.Sve države – osnivači Komisije bile su članice Saveta Evrope, ali se one s obzirom na funkcionisanje svojih demokratskih ustanova mogu podeliti na tri posebne grupe: a)države sa razvijenim, čvrsto ukorenjenim i stabilizovanim demokratskim ustanovama koje rutinski funkcionišu (Francuska, Švedska); b)države koje su u relativno bliskoj prošlosti izvršile uspešan prelaz iz autoritarnog u demokratski poredak (Španija, Portugalija, Grčka), i c) države koje se još bore s nedovoljnom delotvornošću svojih demokratskih ustanova i/ ili nesređenim unutrašnjim odnosima (Turska, Kipar). Države iz sve tri grupe imale su mnoga specifčna iskustva u stvaranju i funkcionisanju demokratskih ustanova, kao i u stvaranju pravnih garantija za njihov rad, koja su mogle ponuditi isočnoevropskim demokratijama u povoju i podeliti ih sa njima. Povodi u kojima se Venecijanska komisija bavila pitanjima vezanim za Srbiju mogu se podeliti u tri zasebne celine: a) zaštita ljudskih prava na Kosovu; b)pravne garantije Državne zajednice Srbije i Crne Gore zaštiti ljudskih i manjinskih prava, kao i c) reforma pravnog sistema Srbije kao samostalne države