Police, Military and State Security Services

Serbia's police service, military and state secret service all played essential roles in enforcing and maintaining President Milošević’s nationalistic and authoritarian leadership up until 2000. The security services were essentially exempted from democratic control and thus operated without transparency or accountability, while the police force underwent structural and aesthetic militarization [1]. In the wake of civil and political democratization after the end of Milosevic's presidency in 2000,  security sector reform of the police, military and secret services is a major issue in order to ensure “a service for citizens with implementation of the law," that does "not safeguard interests of ruling elites as its primary function”[2].

 Justice and Institutional Security

Another major issue is the reform, demilitarization and democratization of state and government institutions in Serbia[3]. The existence of political elites acting for and under Milosevic as well as the lack of accountability and transparency, pervasive in all political and judicial institutions, are a continual threat and limitation to democracy and human rights [4]. SSR seeks to especially target widespread corruption in political elites through national judicial and public administration reforms [5].

Public Opinion

A key concern of SSR is to rebuild trust in the state and security sector as well as establish democratic values. Thus, public opinion and perception of the security sector in general is very important for the success of reforms. Moreover, another issue is the way in which both discourse in the general public and in political elites are exclusionary of specific regional and ethnic minorities, deeming Serbia’s state sovereignty to be under threat by these groups - especially Kosovo. “Kosovo Albanians and [their] national and international institutions […] are seen as the main enemies” of Serbia and its sovereignty, thus SSR focuses on establishing political relations and establishing army and police presence [7].

Human Rights

The Serbian state's inability to provide basic human rights to its citizens and especially to vulnerable and minority groups, is another major security concern as these perpetuate hatred and socio-ethnic division[8]. SSR is concerned with right-wing extremist violence towards minorities, corruption (state, political and individual) and national and international organized crime, as these are considered tangible threats to Serbia’s long-term stability[9]. Moreover, reform of the police force, military and state security services seeks to assure the end of systematic ethnic, political and sexual violence.

[1]Radovanovic, Gorana , et al. Context analysis of the security sector reform in Serbia 1989-2009. 

Belgrade: Belgrade Centre for Security Policy , 2011.

[2]Belgrade Centre for Security Policy. Belgrade Centre for Security Policy. 2018. 1 February 2019.

<http://www.bezbednost.org/National-Security/2495/Police.shtml>.

[3]Hadžić, Miroslav. "Achievements of Security Sector Reform in Serbia." Year: 2008 Security

Sector Reform: Achievements and Prospects. Belgrade: Centre for Civil-Military Relations, 2008. 174.

[4]SeCond Development Initiative Group. Country Assessment Report – Human Security SERBIA.

n.d.

[5]SeCond Development Initiative Group. Country Assessment Report – Human Security SERBIA.

n.d.

[6]SeCond Development Initiative Group. Country Assessment Report – Human Security SERBIA.

n.d.

[7]SeCond Development Initiative Group. Country Assessment Report – Human Security SERBIA.

n.d.

[8]SeCond Development Initiative Group. Country Assessment Report – Human Security SERBIA.

n.d.

[9]SeCond Development Initiative Group. Country Assessment Report – Human Security SERBIA.

n.d.

1. Serbian Armed Forces (SAF)
   1. Consists of the army, airforce, training command and guard for the Republic of Serbia. Has historically cooperated with KFOR under the Joint Implementation Commission (JIC) throughout the Kosovo conflict.[1]
2. The Belgrade Center for Security Policy (BCSP)
   1. An independent think tank that advocates for human, national, regional and international security. This organization focuses on security sector reform and security integration of Western Balkan states into the Euro-Atlantic community. Their work includes research, public advocacy, publications and education. [2]
3. Provincial Safety Council
   1. Advisory body within the system of the Republic of Serbia. Main competencies include: assessment of security situation, crime prevention, public awareness, and coordination of security institutions [3]
4. National Security Council
   1. Main competency is consideration of national security issues. Also coordinates and directs work of security services and advises government on security budgeting [4]
5. Defence and Security Committee of the National Assembly (DSC)
   1. Reviews issues related to the SAF and Serbian defense system in accordance with the law [5]
6. Anti-Corruption Agency of Serbia (ACAS)
   1. An independent, autonomous state authority with its main objective being the improvement and prevention of corruption in Serbia by cooperation with public authorities, the civil sector, media and the public.
7. Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA)
   1. An ethnically Albanian nationalist group that fought for the independence of Kosovo from Serbia in the 1990s. Following numerous conflict between the KLA and the SAF, the KLA would eventually transform into the Kosovo Protection Corps that was founded as a civilian emergency services organization in 1999.

[1] Serbian Armed Forces. “Serbian Armed Forces.” Serbian Armed Forces | Serbian Armed Forces,

www.vs.rs/en/units/serbian-armed-forces.

[2] “BCSP.” Bezbednost, www.bezbednost.org/BCSP/2001/Home.shtml.

[3] Petrović, N., et al. “Gender and Security Sector Reform in Serbia .” Belgrade Center for Security

Policy , 2010, pp. 36–39., doi:https://issat.dcaf.ch/download/4954/43684/2010 Gender and SSR in Serbia_EN.pdf.

[4]Petrović, N., et al. “Gender and Security Sector Reform in Serbia .” Belgrade Center for Security

Policy , 2010, pp. 36–39., doi:https://issat.dcaf.ch/download/4954/43684/2010 Gender and SSR in Serbia_EN.pdf.

[5] Petrović, N., et al. “Gender and Security Sector Reform in Serbia .” Belgrade Center for Security

Policy , 2010, pp. 36–39., doi:https://issat.dcaf.ch/download/4954/43684/2010 Gender and SSR in Serbia_EN.pdf.

[6] Petrović, N., et al. “Gender and Security Sector Reform in Serbia .” Belgrade Center for Security

Policy , 2010, pp. 36–39., doi:https://issat.dcaf.ch/download/4954/43684/2010 Gender and SSR in Serbia_EN.pdf.

[7] Petrović, N., et al. “Gender and Security Sector Reform in Serbia .” Belgrade Center for Security

Policy , 2010, pp. 36–39., doi:https://issat.dcaf.ch/download/4954/43684/2010 Gender and SSR in Serbia_EN.pdf.

1. UN Mission to Kosovo (UNMIK)
   1. UNMIK was established by the United Nations Security Council in 1999 to ensure peaceful and normalized living conditions for all individuals living in Kosovo prior to Kosovo’s independence from Serbia in 2008. Also promotes regional stability in the Western Balkans and works in parallel with the OSCE under the Security Council Resolution 1244. [1]
2. The Contact Group (US Russia UK France Germany Italy)
   1. An informal international council consisting of great power foreign ministers created in response to the 1990 conflict in Bosnia. This group consists of representatives from the U.S., Russia, France, Germany and Italy as well as several permanent members of the UN Security Council. This group has key interest in the UN led process determining the independence of Kosovo. The Contact Group mainly acts by releasing public statements on the conflict situation. [2]
3. Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)
   1. The OSCE Mission to Serbia focuses on assisting Serbia in building effective democratic institutions particularly government institutions, the media and civil society. They also strive to foster rule of law and reform the police force into a police service in Serbia. [3]
4. NATO
   1. Since the conclusion of the Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP) in 2015, NATO’s main work with Serbia has centered on supporting Serbian authorities in achieving their reform goals. Previously they deployed the NATO led Kosovo Force (KFOR) to provide security during the height of conflict and cooperated with Serbian armed forces in fostering stability in the region. They currently focus on providing advice and assistance to the reform and modernization of Serbia’s armed forces. [4]
5. European Union
   1. The EU Mission to Serbia has contributed significant financial contributions to the country in support of establishing rule of law, democratic reform and social development. [5]
6. UNCIVPOL
   1. The UN Civilian Police Force was established to foster law and order during the Kosovo conflict and played a key role in enforcing human rights. In their work, they focused mainly on establishing a domestic law enforcement. [6]

[1] “Mandate.” UNMIK, 17 Feb. 2016, unmik.unmissions.org/mandate.

[2] “The Contact Group .” U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of State, 2001-

2009.state.gov/p/eur/ci/kv/c13102.htm.

[3] “OSCE Mission to Serbia.” OSCE, www.osce.org/mission-to-serbia.

[4] Nato. “NATO's Relations with Serbia.” NATO Military Liaison Office Belgrade - NATO's Relations

with Serbia, NAPLES - Allied Joint Force Command, jfcnaples.nato.int/mlo_belgrade/about-mlo-belgrade/natos-relationship-with-serbia.

[5] “EU Delegation to Serbia.” EUD, EU Delegation to Serbia , europa.rs/?lang=en.

[6] Decker, D. Christopher. “Enforcing Human Rights: The Role of the UN Civilian Police in

Kosovo.” International Peacekeeping, vol. 13, no. 4, 2006, pp. 502–516., doi:10.1080/13533310600988747.

“All setbacks, as well as progress, in the security sector reform are the inevitable result of conflicting internal political processes and tensions in Serbia” [1]

Post-Authoritarian Heritage

Pavlovic and Antonic point to the issue of Serbia’s “post-authoritarian heritage”: the lack of “necessary pre-requisites for the general democratic consolidation” and for security sector reform[2]. Overall low economic stability, years of a socio-politically oppressive communist dictatorship and a history of violent conflict concerning Kosovo and state sovereignty, all challenge the effectiveness of democratic reforms in term of actual institutional changes and targeting uneven economic development.

Parallelism of Processes

In post-conflict zones such as Serbia, “parallelism of processes” are a major challenge for SSR[3].  While these are all “directed towards the same goal (institutional reform and development of a consolidated democratic system),” they can also undermine their actual success through being, to some extent, mutually exclusive[4]. In times of widespread systematic, political and institutional change, processes may overlap or exclude each other - this may weaken the drive for assuring the completion of reforms of new political elites in the long-run[5].

Public Opinion

Considering Serbia's past zones of conflict and previous authoritarian leadership, public opinion generally perceives the state as both the provider of security but also the major source of insecurity. Security services, whether police, army or state security, are seen as “politicized instruments of those in power” - operating in secrecy as “a fist of the regime”[6]. Changing this opinion and ensuring depolitization of the security sector is thus a major barrier to successful reform.

[1]Hadžić, Miroslav. "Bilans reforme sektora bezbednosti Srbije ." Godišnjak reforme sektora

bezbednosti u Srbiji. Beograd: Centar za civil- no-vojne odnose, 2009. 19-27.

[2]Pavlovic, Antonic and Antonic Slobodan. Konsolidacija demokratskih ustanova u Srbiji posle

2000. Belgrad: godine, 2007

[3]Lišanin, Mladen. "Security Sector Reform in the Post-Authoritarian Environment." Western

Balkan Security Observer(2010): 115.

[4]Lišanin, Mladen. "Security Sector Reform in the Post-Authoritarian Environment." Western

Balkan Security Observer(2010): 115.

[5]Lišanin, Mladen. "Security Sector Reform in the Post-Authoritarian Environment." Western

Balkan Security Observer(2010): 115.

[6]Ćoragić, Denis. "Are Security and Intelligence Services in Serbia Politicized?" Western Balkans

Security Observer(2010): 115.

Despite promising initial efforts of Security Sector Reform (SSR) in Serbia, too many factors diminished the success of the SSR implementation over the long run. Powerful actors who had economic and political power to gain, were not in favour of strong regulations on the private security sector. This in turn, along with a history of abusive power by the security services and police of the nation, weakened the trust the people had toward the security sector. Attempts of politicising the security services was also largely overlooked, heightening the suspicion of the Serbian people.

A major setback of the security sector reform in Serbia has been the lack of legal regulation of the private sector. The presence of private sector companies (PSC’s) in Serbia have been in an upward trend, and it is estimated that there are 47,000 weapons in the possession of legal entities which have been regulated [1]. However, the nation remains the only post-socialist state (excluding Czech Republic) to have not properly regulated the sector, even years after the democratization transformation of the state [2]. Steps were taken in order to pass a draft law in 2003, however it was withdrawn from the parliament, without an explanation being publicly made [3]. It is in the mutual interest of the various actors including, political parties, private companies, and security services, to generate their profits and political strength from the private security sector of the nation [4]. Therefore, there is a presence of inefficacy of the judiciary, leading to crime and corruption. Furthermore, the adoption of laws regulating the private sector will not overcome all the existing interests of the powerful actors, and hence, economic reforms for the security services and police are needed to create truly impactful progression of the private security sector.

The lack of transparency between the state and the people of Serbia prevents the level of trust that is needed for successful SSR. Since 2003, the legislative regulations of the Serbian government have shifted toward more depoliticization [5]. A few laws were enacted to limit and regulate the power of the security services, as is custom with other modern democracies and security sectors. However, given the history of the Serbian security services like the police and state security as inflictors of insecurity by abusing their power, the public has not bought into the reform [6]. Hence, the negative public opinion toward the security sector has been a major drawback for SSR in the country, the belief being “Serbian public still largely believes that security services are politicised instruments of those in power, used, under the veil of secrecy, to support narrow political interests” [7]. Suspicion was raised over the Parliamentary Committee for Defense and Security, when no inquiry committee was put into place in order to investigate allegations of inter-party scandals targeting reform process politicisation [8]. The depoliticization of security services is vital in shifting the public opinion of the Serbian people into trusting the services, and hence, the focus should be to instill a General Inspector who would raise the effectiveness of the Parliamentary Committee for Defense and Security [9]. The presence of a General inspector can help persuade the people that abuse of power is not occurring behind the scenes for the benefit of powerful actors.

The barriers to fulfilling key fundamentals of the SSR model have held back the implementation of security sector reform in Serbia. There has been a lack of transparency regarding security planning information [10], between powerful actors invested in the security sector and the people of Serbia. Furthermore, democratic accountability and oversight being effective governance of the security sector [11], not met because of the insufficient regulations governing the private security sector. An inability to meet these norms and principles of the model has largely held back the progression of the SSR process. Despite efforts made after the democratic transformation of Serbia in 2000 to enact laws and regulations, depoliticising the private security sector and security services, the nation has largely struggled to create effective and long-lasting reform. The SSR implementation in Serbia similar to many other global examples, experienced an initial rapid growth in the SSR normative framework, followed by poor enforcement and practise of the policies [12]. The nation must overcome these barriers through enacting proper reform, and effective enforcement of the regulations.

[1] Petrović, N., et al. “Reserved Domains as Obstacles to Adopting the Law on Private Security

Sector.” Belgrade Center for Security Policy, (2010), pp. 36–39.

[2] Petrović, N., et al. “Reserved Domains as Obstacles to Adopting the Law on Private Security

Sector.” Belgrade Center for Security Policy, (2010), pp. 36–39.

[3] Petrović, N., et al. “Reserved Domains as Obstacles to Adopting the Law on Private Security

Sector.” Belgrade Center for Security Policy, (2010), pp. 36–39.

[4] Petrović, N., et al. “Reserved Domains as Obstacles to Adopting the Law on Private Security

Sector.” Belgrade Center for Security Policy, (2010), pp. 36–39.

[5] Ćoragić, Denis. "Are Security and Intelligence Services in Serbia Politicized?" Western

Balkans Security Observer, (2010), pp. 29-39.

[6] Ćoragić, Denis. "Are Security and Intelligence Services in Serbia Politicized?" Western

Balkans Security Observer, (2010), pp. 29-39.

[7] Ćoragić, Denis. "Are Security and Intelligence Services in Serbia Politicized?" Western

Balkans Security Observer, (2010), pp. 29-39.

[8] Ćoragić, Denis. "Are Security and Intelligence Services in Serbia Politicized?" Western

Balkans Security Observer, (2010), pp. 29-39.

[9] Ćoragić, Denis. "Are Security and Intelligence Services in Serbia Politicized?" Western

Balkans Security Observer, (2010), pp. 29-39.

[10] Sedra, Mark., et al. “Security Sector Reform 101: Understanding the Concept, Charting

Trends and Identifying Challenges.” Security Sector Reform Resource Centre, (2010), pp. 1-23.

[11] Sedra, Mark., et al. “Security Sector Reform 101: Understanding the Concept, Charting

Trends and Identifying Challenges.” Security Sector Reform Resource Centre, (2010), pp. 1-23.

[12] Sedra, Mark., et al. “Security Sector Reform 101: Understanding the Concept, Charting

Trends and Identifying Challenges.” Security Sector Reform Resource Centre, (2010), pp. 1-23.

The Citizens’ Opinion of the Police in Serbia in 2018 - Public Opinion Survey conducted by Belgrade Centre for Security Policy (2018)  http://www.bezbednost.org/All-publications/6887/The-Citizens-Opinion-of-the-Police-in-Serbia.shtml

Belgrade Centre for Security Policy Resources - Library of resources and publications on SSR in Serbia http://www.bezbednost.org/BCSP/2429/Publications.shtml/nav_start=

NATO's Relationship with Serbia - Military Liaison Office Belgrade / NATO MLO (2015) https://jfcnaples.nato.int/mlo_belgrade/about-mlo-belgrade/natos-relationship-with-serbia

Policing the Economic Transition in Serbia: An assessment of the Serbian Police Service's capacities to fight economic crime - OSCE Report by Reto Brunhart and Novak Gajić (2005) https://web.archive.org/web/20081207005707/http://www.osce.org/publications/fry/2005/02/18263_551_en.pdf

Corruption in Serbia: Bribery as Experienced by the Population - United Nations Office On Drugs and Crime (2011) https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/corruption/Serbia_corruption_report_web.pdf

Constitutional Reform of Serbian Judiciary - Marina Matic (2018) http://www.bezbednost.org/All-publications/6761/Constitutional-reform-of-Serbian-judiciary.shtml

Human Rights in Serbia 2018 - Belgrade Center for Human Rights (2018) http://www.bgcentar.org.rs/bgcentar/eng-lat/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Human-Rights-in-Serbia-2018.pdf

Draft of the Law on Military Intelligence Agency and Military Security Agency - Brief review by Predrag Petrovic (2009) http://www.bezbednost.org/All-publications/4179/A-brief-review-of-the-Draft-of-the-Law-on-the.shtml

Police Reform in Serbia: Towards the Creation of a Modern and Accountable Police Force - Law Enforcement Department OSCE Mission to Serbia and Montenegro (2004) https://www.osce.org/serbia/18310?download=true

Western Balkan Pulse for Police Integrity and Trust (POINTPULSE) - Belgrade Centre for Security Policy (Bojan Elek , Gorana Radovanovic, Sasa Djordjevic) (2015) http://bezbednost.org/All-projects/5711/Western-Balkans-Pulse-for-Police-Integrity-and.shtml

Lišanin, M. (2010). Security Sector Reform in the Post-Authoritarian Environment. Western       

Balkan Security Observer, 115.

Lišanin focuses on the effect of the post-authoritarian context on the efficiency and success of the security sector process. She criticizes, that while there are obvious barriers and conflict that arise in reforming a post-authoritarian security sector, the context itself was not fully used enough to its advantage, nor where the disadvantages connected to this authoritarian and conflict environment removed to the extent necessary to make SSR sustainable. The author's work is primarily theoretical, highlighting the Serbia's unique parallelism of processes that need to be overcome by Security Sector Reform - this notion is featured in the barriers to successful reform. 

Center for Euro-Atlantic Studies. (2012, November). For a More Dynamic Reform of the Security

Sector in Serbia. Retrieved from The Central and Eastern European Online Library: https://www-ceeol-com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/search/viewpdf?id=545370

The Center for Euro-Atlantic Studies uses quantitative data gathered from a poll about the perception of the security sector in Serbia on the governmental and civil society level, to evaluate the success of SSR and recommend further reforms. Most importantly, the study finds that most respondents continue to perceive the private security sector as a threat to citizens and the state. Moreover, Serbia's National Security Strategy and Defense Strategy are found to be considered inadequate documents by Serbians. On the basis of these findings, the CEAS recommends further reform of the security sector: urgent regulation of the private security sector, further EU integration, continuous work but not accession with the NATO and new strategic documentation for all policy areas. By evaluating citizen's opinions, the study and analysis of findings provide a very comprehensive picture of major obstacles of SSR in 2012 - it dampens the perception of the reform’s successes. 

Ćoragić, D. (2010). Are Security and Intelligence Services in Serbia Politicized? Western Balkans

Security Observer, 115.

In this article, Ćoragić evaluates whether the Serbian security services should still be considered as a highly politicized entity that serves the narrow interest of a small political elite. Most of the Serbian general public continues to perceive the state's security services this way. While the author comes to the conclusion that, Serbia’s security service has undergone vast depoliticization, Ćoragić points to how this process, just like the rest of Serbia's security sector reform and democratization, is far from implemented. This paper helps clarify the importance of public opinion in barriers to reform as civil society is highly aware of this lack of implementation. However it lacks specific quantitive research, which would have been valuable to analyze the effects of public opinion more closely.

Gardner, A.-M. (2008, July). Beyond Standards before Status: Democratic Governance and Non-State

Actors. Retrieved from Cambridge University Press: https://www-jstor org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/stable/pdf/40212488.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A02feb0fb82ee22c37debbd67a2c3096e

Gardner examines the relationship between self-determination claims of sub-state actors that have internalized internationally respected norms of democratization and the willingness of the international community to support such self-governance. Her concluding argument assumes that the international community is more likely to support self-determination of groups that have internalized human rights and liberal democratic norms - the essential notions of democratic governance. However, as local standards of legitimacy may not coincide with these international standards, this can pose a serious issue when applied to the success of security sector reform in post-authoritarian states. Gardner’s work is not specific to Serbia and thus has its limitations, but she looks closely at Kosovo and thus provides a general sense of issues that SSR has to overcome and foreign actors need to consider.

Radovanovic, G., Radoman, J., Petrovic, P., & Popovic, D. (2011). Context analysis of the security

sector reform in Serbia 1989-2009. Belgrade: Belgrade Centre for Security Policy .

This in-depth context analysis was compiled for the Belgrade Centre for Security Policy and provides a comprehensive understanding of Serbia's socio-political environment and historical context. By splitting the analysis into two parts - the Milosevic era (1989-2000) and the beginning of reforms (2000-2009) - the reader is able to grapple the major issues faced in the creation of security sector reform and that these issues stem from the Milosevic era and authoritarian rule. The context analysis focuses specifically on the corruption, elitism and personal link to Milosevic in the military, police and private security complex and less on human rights, civilian perception or experience of judicial issues. This document is key for developing an understanding of the multi-faceted security challenges that persist to this day.

SeCons Development Initiative Group. (n.d.). Country Assessment Report – Human Security SERBIA.

The Country Assessment Report clearly and concisely outlines some of the key issues of Serbia's security sector reforms. As the focus of this report on human security, it mainly summarizes the way in which security sector reform has helped transform civilian life in Serbia over the last two decades, while not going into much closer detail of security reforms involving the military, police or judiciary. However, the Report’s focus on the overlying security narratives, clarifies why the main policies, institutions and instruments of SSR were deemed necessary in the first place. This report is rather short and therefore serves as an essential overview of security sector reform.

Petrović, N. (2010). Gender and Security Sector Reform in Serbia. Retrieved from Belgrade Center

for Security Policy: doi:https://issat.dcaf.ch/download/4954/43684/2010 Gender and SSR in Serbia_EN.pdf.

The Belgrade Centre for Security Policy published this study on gender and the security sector in Serbia in order to closely examine women’s status as actors and receivers of SSR since 2000. The findings of this major study was presented in front of the National Assembly in 2010 and is a key work that attempts to help include the gender perspective in Serbia's security reforms. The findings celebrate the existence of the necessary framework for inclusion and positive steps of inclusion in the police force. However, major criticism of underrepresentation of women in the security sector is linked back to overall socio-cultural prejudice of the traditional role for women. Overall, only a small number of women can be found in position that rewire major decision-making. This work provides a dimension of security sector reform that is often overlooked in the wake of powerful security discourse and democratization – the way in which gender plays a role for key domestic actors and may undermine SSR. This is an essential foundation for creating an inclusive database.

OSCE Mission to Serbia. (2015, October 26). War crimes proceedings in Serbia (2003-2014) - An

analysis of the OSCE Mission to Serbia’s monitoring results. Retrieved from Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe: https://www.osce.org/serbia/194461?download=true

This analysis, authored by the OSCE Mission to Serbia in 2015, monitors the results of war crimes proceedings in Serbia from 2003-2014 and finds some major criticisms that connect to limitations of effective security sector reform. Overall, this study criticizes the relatively small amount of actual war crime cases, the little amount of state support for victims, the lack of witness protection, general trend of lenient sentencing and the failure to prosecute political elites. The OSCE does acknowledge the complicated process of holding the state and its actors accountable for past war crimes, in midst of democratic overhaul and security sector reform. This source is essential for evaluating the successes of SSR in terms of democratization of the judiciary and general public opinion. In the future, an updated report on the last five years of war crimes proceedings would be beneficial for the database.

Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe. (2018, December 31). Mission to Serbia .

Retrieved from Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe: https://www.osce.org/mission-to-serbia/285186?download=true

The Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe (OSCE)’s Mission to Serbia is a field operation set up in 2001, officially invited by the Serbian state. This document outlines the mission’s mandate: the democratization of Serbia’s institutions, judiciary and reforming the police force. By providing detailed explanations on the organization's work in the areas of rule of law and human rights, security co-operation, democratization and media - this source points to OSCE's focus on accountability mechanisms within its mandate. This source does not provide any analysis or any critical approach to the OSCE's own work, however the information is essential to understand the different actor's involvement in key issue areas of SSR and also points to a relatively overlooked aspect of reforms that the organization has been focusing on - democratization of the media.

Ćoragić, Denis. "Are Security and Intelligence Services in Serbia Politicized?" Western Balkans

Security Observer(2010): 115.

Belgrade Centre for Security Policy. Belgrade Centre for Security Policy. 2018. 1 February 2019.

<http://www.bezbednost.org/National-Security/2495/Police.shtml>.

Center for Euro-Atlantic Studies. "For a More Dynamic Reform of the Security Sector in Serbia."

November 2012. The Central and Eastern European Online Library .<https://www-ceeol-com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/search/viewpdf?id=545370>.

Decker, D. Christopher. "Enforcing Human Rights: The Role of the UN Civilian Police in Kosovo."

International Peacekeeping13 no. 4, 2006.4 (2006): 502-516. <doi:10.1080/13533310600988747>.

EUD. "EU Delegation to Serbia." n.d. EU Delegation to Serbia .<europa.rs/?lang=en.>.

Gardner, Anne-Marie. "Beyond Standards before Status: Democratic Governance and Non-State

Actors." July 2008. Cambridge University Press.<https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/stable/pdf/40212488.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A02feb0fb82ee22c37debbd67a2c3096e>.

Hadžić, Miroslav. "Achievements of Security Sector Reform in Serbia." Year: 2008 Security Sector

Reform: Achievements and Prospects. Belgrade: Centre for Civil-Military Relations, 2008. 174.

Hadžić, Miroslav. "Bilans reforme sektora bezbednosti Srbije ." Godišnjak reforme sektora

bezbednosti u Srbiji. Beograd: Centar za civil- no-vojne odnose, 2009. 19-27.

Lišanin, Mladen. "Security Sector Reform in the Post-Authoritarian Environment." Western

Balkan Security Observer(2010): 115.

NATO Military Liaison Office Belgrade. "NATO's Relations with Serbia." n.d. NAPLES - Allied Joint

Force Command,.<jfcnaples.nato.int/mlo_belgrade/about-mlo-belgrade/natos-relationship-with-serbia. >.

Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe. Mission to Serbia . 31 December 2018.

<https://www.osce.org/mission-to-serbia/285186?download=true>.

OSCE Mission to Serbia. War crimes proceedings in Serbia (2003-2014) - An analysis of the OSCE

Mission to Serbia’s monitoring results. 26 October 2015. <https://www.osce.org/serbia/194461?download=true>.

Pavlovic, Antonic and Antonic Slobodan. Konsolidacija demokratskih ustanova u Srbiji posle 2000.

Belgrad: godine, 2007.

Petrović, Nataša.Gender and Security Sector Reform in Serbia. 2010.

<doi:https://issat.dcaf.ch/download/4954/43684/2010 Gender and SSR in Serbia_EN.pdf.>.

Petrović, Predrag. "Reserved Domains as Obstacles to Adopting the Law on Private Security

Sector." Western Balkans Security Observer(2010): 115.

Radovanovic, Gorana , et al. Context analysis of the security sector reform in Serbia 1989-2009.

Belgrade: Belgrade Centre for Security Policy , 2011.

SeCons Development Initiative Group. Country Assessment Report – Human Security SERBIA. n.d.

Sedra, Mark. Security Sector Reform 101: Understanding the Concept, Charting Trends and

Identifying Challenges. Ontario: Security Sector Reform Resource Centre, 2010.

U.S. Department of State. "The Contact Group ." 2001-2009. U.S. Department of State.

<state.gov/p/eur/ci/kv/c13102.htm.>.

UNMIK. "Mandate." 17 February 2016. UNMIK UNMISSIONS.<unmik.unmissions.org/mandate>.