81	 Bilten	Slovenske	vojske	
SLOVENIJA IN PRIZADEVANJA NJENE ZUNANJE 
POLITIKE V ČRNOMORSKI REGIJI: IZBRANE TEME, 
VIDIKI IN MODALITETE
SLOVENIA AND ITS FOREIGN POLICY OUTREACH 
IN THE BLACK SEA REGION: SELECTED AREAS, 
ASPECTS AND MODALITIES
Milan	Jazbec Kratki	znanstveni	prispevek
Short	scientific	article
Prispevek predstavlja pomen izstopajoče multilateralne slovenske izkušnje v odnosu 
do črnomorske regije ter do Zahodnega Balkana, vključno s tamkajšnjimi državami. 
Izhajamo iz dejstva, da je Slovenija nova in mala država, nastala po koncu hladne 
vojne, k čemur dodajamo dejstvo, da je multilateralizem naravni zaveznik malih 
držav. Ob tem upoštevamo tudi spremembe v delovanju diplomacije ter v percepciji 
varnosti, ki so se zgodile v navedenem obdobju in kar dodaja k povečanem pomenu 
multilateralne diplomatske prakse.
Zagovarjamo stališče, da multilateralizem spodbuja, poglablja in včasih tudi delno 
nadomešča bilateralizem. Navedeno utemeljujemo z analizo slovenskih odnosov do 
obeh omenjenih regij in njihovih držav. S pomočjo intenzivne slovenske, in sicer 
redke multilateralne izkušnje, so bili odnosi z državami črnomorske regije razviti in 
dodatno spodbujeni ter tudi poglobljeni, obogateni in okrepljeni.
Na podlagi navedenega sklepamo, da je bilo prav zaradi multilateralnega zuna-
njepolitičnega pristopa mogoče razviti strukturno raznovrstne in celovite odnose 
z državami črnomorske regije na praktično vseh področjih aktualne mednarodne 
politike. Ko razpravljamo o zunanjepolitični in diplomatski praksi malih držav, ki 
imajo omejene resurse, ugotavljamo, da bo multilateralizem pri tem najverjetne-
je še naprej igral ključno vlogo ter tudi omogočal učinkovito izvajanje bilateralnih 
odnosov.
V prispevku v metodološkem smislu posplošujemo trende in ugotovitve.
Slovenija, diplomacija, multilateralizem, male države, integracijski proces, črno-
morska regija.
Povzetek
Ključne 
besede
 82 Bilten Slovenske vojske 
Milan Jazbec
The article focuses on the importance of significant multilateral Slovenian experien-
ces related to the Black Sea region and the Western Balkans, including the countries 
of both regions. We derive from the fact that Slovenia is a new and small country 
created after the end of the Cold War, and the fact that multilateralism is a natural ally 
of small countries. In addition, changes to diplomatic activity and security percepti-
ons taking place and increasing the importance of multilateral diplomacy practice in 
the period concerned are taken into account.
We defend the position that multilateralism enhances, strengthens and sometimes 
also replaces bilateralism. This opinion relies on the analysis of Slovenia’s 
relations with both regions and their countries. With help of intensive Slovenian 
and otherwise scarce multilateral experiences, the relations with the countries of the 
Black Sea region are being developed and advanced as well as deepened, enriched 
and strengthened.
On this basis it can be concluded that the approach of multilateral foreign policy has 
enabled structurally diverse and extensive relations with the countries of the Black 
Sea region in practically all areas of the current international policy. Our discussi-
ons about the foreign policy and diplomatic practice of small countries with limited 
resources bring us to the conclusion that multilateralism will most likely continue to 
play a major role and facilitate efficient bilateral relations.
In terms of methodology, the article provides a generalization of trends and findings.
Slovenia, diplomacy, multilateralism, small countries, integration process, Black 
Sea region.
During its less than two decades of existence, Slovenia has established and developed 
its foreign policy outreach in various scopes. This has been, on the one hand, the 
result of the political programme and, on the other, the policy outcome of various 
multilateral activities exercised by Slovenian diplomacy. Both determinants comple-
ment and produce the current policy output and present the way ahead.
We will focus our attention in this paper on three regions, namely South East Europe, 
in particular the Western Balkans, and the Black Sea region with most of our research 
and interest centering on the latter. Bearing in mind experiences already gained and 
the challenges of the future, this will be presented through the multilateral type acti-
vities that have already been undertaken and accompanied by comments on bilateral 
relations. Since we would like to highlight the basic foreign policy behaviour of a 
new, small state emerging from the aftermath of the Cold War, our main methodo-
logical approach lies in generalizing trends and not dwelling too much on details.1 
Although we do not deal with them, the various differences between the Western 
1 The author also draws significantly on the method of observing with one’s own participation (Gilli, 1974), being 
a long year diplomat – practitioner as well as theoretician.
Abstract
Key words
Introduction
 83 Bilten Slovenske vojske 
SLOVENIA AND ITS FOREIGN POLICY OUTREACH IN THE BLACK SEA REGION: SELECTED AREAS, ASPECTS 
AND MODALITIES
Balkan countries (in particular the successors of the former Yugoslavia) and those 
of the Black Sea region, which have been determined either by differing national 
histories (like statehood tradition, and institution building etc.) or by different levels 
of Soviet influence during the Cold War, should be kept in mind (Isaacs and Downing, 
2008). Finally, we will follow the proposition that, as a generalization, it could be 
used by other such states as Slovenia and in varying environments.
After a brief historical overview, our field of research focuses on contemplating and 
generalizing the Slovenian experience as well as drawing on lessons learned. The 
broader framework of this paper is marked by huge changes in the international 
arena, as well as by parallel changes in the way foreign policy and diplomacy is 
composed and implemented (Comp. A More Secure World, 2004, Barston, 2006, 
Buzan et all, 1998, Jazbec, 2009, Reiter, 2003).
 1 A BRIEF HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
Slovenia was established during the process of change initiated by the events of the 
tectonic shift at the end of the 1980s and the May Declaration of 1988. This decla-
ration, stating Slovenia’s ambition to become part of the European family of nations 
marked a fundamental foreign policy shift in the emerging state (Hribar, 2006). 
Indeed, this statement was the initial phase of integration for the new state that soon 
became its long-term foreign policy goal. Furthermore, it seems that it paved the way 
for the later move towards a multilateral policy, which began during the first half of 
the 1990s whilst still under the shadow of bilaterally orientated policies. The fact that 
Slovenia is a small state naturally contributed to its objectives for international orga-
nizations are, by definition, an ally of small states (Comp. Amstrup, 1976, Braveboy-
Wagner, 2008, Christmas-Møller, 1983, Jazbec, 2001, Thorhallsson, 2006, Väyryen, 
1983 etc.). In the mid-1990s the ambition for membership of the EU, as well as of 
NATO, was already Slovenia’s official foreign policy objective and this, decisively, 
became the hallmark of the following decade. Indeed, one could point out that – due 
to its dynamics, scope and efficiency – it most probably presented the multilateral 
backbone for all the activities which followed (Jazbec, 2010).
From a bilateral point of view, two sets of activities marked Slovenia’s foreign policy 
approach during the 1990s. At first, shortly after international recognition had been 
achieved, the endeavour to establish and develop cooperation with Europe and most 
other important countries followed. Then, particularly after the conclusion of the 
war in Bosnia, the direction of foreign policy was focused on the other newly esta-
blished countries in the territory of the former Yugoslavia and not only on Croatia.2 
Within the framework of developing strong cooperation with the whole of South 
East Europe, the Western Balkan countries were gaining in importance.3 Contrary to 
2 Slovenia and Croatia coordinated the majority of activities which paved the way for independence of both 
countries. 
3 Relations with all successor states of the former Yugoslavia were upgraded after Tudjman’s death and the 
imprisonment of Milošević at the beginning of the new millennium. 
 84 Bilten Slovenske vojske 
Indicator	of	scale:	
ow - ○,
medium - ●,
high - ◙.
Table	1:	
Intensity 
of Bilateral 
Contacts
this, yet during the same period, bilateral contacts with the countries of the Black Sea 
region were developing differently, varying from high to low intensity, depending on 
the country in question as well as on several other factors (namely history, culture, 
economic cooperation and tradition etc).
Since we are generalizing trends and findings in this paper, it is possible to present 
the stage of bilateral contacts with the countries of the Black Sea region during the 
1990s in the following manner.4
The first observation points out the fact that two of the countries compared (Bulgaria 
and Romania) find themselves in two distinct groups (regions), namely the South East 
European and Black Sea regions. Also, from the same methodological point of view, 
the three Caucasus countries – Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia – are either part of, 
or closely connected with, the Black Sea region. Moreover, Moldova, which is located 
between Romania and the Ukraine and is not a coastal country, could too be treated 
as part of the region discussed. This all extends our need for a broader geographical 
generalization that perhaps could be reached by having in mind such regional tools of 
cooperation as the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Council (BSEC).
Furthermore, one can detect huge differences among the countries concerned in 
various aspects (territory, population, membership of international organizations and 
other forums, influence, power and foreign policy orientation etc.). Additionally, all 
of the Western Balkans countries, the three Caucasus and Moldova could be catego-
rized as small countries (Comp. Amstrup, 1976, Jazbec, 2001, pp 36-76, Šabič and 
Bukowski, 2002, Väyrynen, 1983). This brings us to a certain degree of reservati-
on where the process of generalization (which still remains our main principle and 
indicator) is concerned and hence, our conclusion, that bilateral relations with the 
countries concerned did not, on average, exceed medium intensity (although those 
with the Russian Federation were high all the time).
4 The estimation of intensity is made by the author. It has been generalized upon the criteria, which Small and 
Singer (1973) point out as an indicator of intensity of bilateral relations between two countries.
Country Intensity
Bulgaria ●
Georgia ○
Romania ●
The Russian Federation ◙
Turkey ●
The Ukraine ●
Armenia ○
Azerbaijan ○
Moldova ○
Milan Jazbec
 85 Bilten Slovenske vojske 
However, it became obvious rather soon, partially by design and partially by chance, 
that the multilateral frame also offered many opportunities for developing bilateral 
activities. This holds in particular for those countries with which not much was 
achieved earlier, for several reasons and not only due to previously set agendas. 
The EU accession process and the advancement of the ambition for NATO member-
ship presented an assortment of opportunities for strengthening cooperation with a 
variety of countries.5 Still, relations and cooperation with all of the countries of the 
Black Sea region were not a full part of the daily business until the early years of the 
new decade. Because of this, at the moment Slovenia began to engage intensively in 
different multilateral topics and processes, the pursuit of bilateral relations emerged 
in a new and enriched form.
 2 SELECTED AREAS, ASPECTS AND MODALITIES
After Slovenia became intensively engaged in the EU and NATO membership acti-
vities of the mid 1990s, the idea to opt for the UN Security Council’s nonpermanent 
membership for the period of 1998–1999 soon developed.6 The goal was fulfilled at 
the 52nd session of the General Assembly in the autumn of 1997, when Slovenia was 
elected. That event launched Slovenia’s diplomacy onto a global platform as well 
as offered her the opportunity to touch base on various topics with countries with 
which she had hitherto shared little or even no experience or contact (Jazbec, 2001, 
pp 66-72). It also meant that Slovenian diplomacy became more broadly acquainted 
as well as familiar with policy topics and issues related to the Black Sea region and 
previous bilateral contacts were strengthened and deepened along with the referred 
know how being accumulated.
This experience was intensified during the next decade (1999–2009), which was 
marked by a series of outstanding multilateral projects which Slovenia headed or 
played a central role. We are speaking about the following projects: the nonperma-
nent membership of the UN SC 1998/99, EU and NATO membership (obtained in 
2004), the OSCE Chairmanship in 2005, the Chairmanship of the Human Security 
Network (HSN) in 2005/06 and the Presidency of the Board of Governors of the 
IAEA in 2006/07 as well as the Presidency of the Council of the EU in the first half of 
2008 and the Presidency of the Council of Ministers of the Council of Europe (CoE) 
in 2009.7 This all means that the previous shortage of bilateral contacts with some 
countries of the Black Sea region and with the region as a whole was, via facti, dealt 
with and that the multilateral projects had been the de facto instruments of this in-
tensification of relations. However, the bilateral aspect of these multilateral projects 
still remained behind as, when carrying a multilateral project, countries generally 
refrain from linking them directly to bilateral relations. Despite this, however, the 
5 For example, cooperation with the three Baltic States also increased a lot for multilateral reasons.
6 During 1996, the author was a member of regular daily senior diplomats’ board meetings of the Slovenian 
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In the late summer of that year the idea was discussed and the decision taken to 
forward the proposal to the Government.
7 For a more detailed policy overview, see Jazbec (2010).
SLOVENIA AND ITS FOREIGN POLICY OUTREACH IN THE BLACK SEA REGION: SELECTED AREAS, ASPECTS 
AND MODALITIES
 86 Bilten Slovenske vojske 
high multilateral dynamics in which Slovenia was engaged did deepen the concrete 
knowledge of the countries concerned and pave the way for a bilateral upgrade later 
on. At the same time, Slovenia’s foreign policy outlook was heavily enriched with 
various topics and issues which were composed of a multilateral agenda, spanning 
from global peace and security issues to those of purely regional questions and 
specific issues (stockpiles, military leftovers and mélange ammunition, etc.). This 
series of multilateral projects, including their main topics and the intensity of their 
relations to the three regions, is presented in the following Table.
The mentioned period and the engagement in the above-presented activities has 
brought Slovenia a rich experience in policy making on a combination of highly 
various topics that span from hard to soft security issues, with many policy options 
and approaches in between (from collective and cooperative security to collective 
defense and crisis management), to the nuclear security of the global community and 
human rights (Comp. Axworthy, 2001, Hillison, 2009, Nye, 2004). All these would 
have been unexplored territories had it not been for the multilateral policy and di-
plomatic approach. Moreover, what is striking is that, despite just eighteen years of 
Slovenia’s existence as a sovereign independent state, eight outstanding multilate-
ral projects have been carried out in barely twelve years. This seems to be a unique 
case in modern history. Simply put, a highly enriched foreign policy and the diplo-
matic dynamics of the new state brought around a rare experience and proved again, 
in practice, that multilateralism works in favour of small countries (Comp. Prasad, 
2009). As a result, the trend was enabled due to a changed international environment 
that carried with it beneficial circumstances on the one hand, and because of an open 
ear and policy sensibility on the other.
Through these projects Slovenia managed to develop varying and structurally 
complex contacts and relations with the countries of the Black Sea region on practi-
cally all the important aspects of contemporary international politics. In some cases 
these have been a combination of the already intensive bilateral relations enriched 
Table	2:	
Slovenian 
multilateral 
projects and the 
intensity of their 
relation to the 
three regions
No	 Year Project SEE WB BSR Topics	
1. 1998/99 UN SC ○ ● ○ Collective Security
2. 1994/2004 NATO ○ ● ○ Collective Defense
3. 1994/2004 EU ○ ● ○ Crisis Management
4. 2005 OSCE ○ ◙ ◙ Cooperative Security
5. 2005/06 HSN ○ ● ○ Soft Security
6. 2006/07 IAEA ○ ○ ● Nuclear Security
7. 2008 EU ○ ◙ ● Crisis Management
8. 2009 CoE ○ ● ● Human Rights
Milan Jazbec
 87 Bilten Slovenske vojske 
by multilateral activities while, in other cases, bilateral activities were stimulated by 
multilateral contacts and engagement in various forums.
Due to the dynamics of multilateral diplomacy this has been a two-way process in 
which Slovenia has gained a lot. Its multilateral experiences can be grouped into 
four main fields. Firstly, bilateral cooperation as a diplomatic and foreign policy 
fundament; secondly, integration process activities, which encompass a variety of 
processes, aspects and areas; thirdly, policy and political management, which helped 
not just to carve out Slovenia’s policy approach but to constantly transform it and, 
fourthly, an overall process of exchanging experiences, ideas, and knowledge as 
well as enhancing cooperation. A policy overview of this matrix is presented in the 
following Table.
The overview offers an outlook of the various types of Slovenian experience referring 
to the countries from all three regions and projects through which these activities 
have primarily been executed. The first and the fourth type of experience (bilateral 
cooperation and exchange) refer to all of the countries and were carried out through 
all projects. This presents the most encompassing experience and general approach; 
perhaps, it is also the most fundamental approach in each case. The second one 
(integration process experience) concerns the majority of the countries discussed 
but primarily the post Cold War endeavours of the EU and NATO (Comp. Bebler, 
2009.b, Marc, 2008). The third one (policy and political management) is also related 
to the majority of the countries involved and has been carried out through all of the 
projects.
Generally speaking, the matrix demonstrates what dynamic relations with a country 
look like when carried out through various approaches and within a multilateral 
framework.8 Additionally, one can speculate that in regard to all of the countries, 
bilateral relations were stimulated, upgraded, and, sometimes, also partially compen-
sated through the multilateral projects discussed here. It also illustrates how strong, 
efficient and complementary bilateral and multilateral diplomatic and foreign policy 
approaches can be in the management of contemporary world affairs. Multilateralism 
serves here as an element of support for upgrading bilateralism as well as serving its 
8 Based on our method of generalization, one would hardly exclude any country from all four types. But still, to 
obtain a clear view of the process, we have done this to show the structural dynamics and various possibilities 
of different practical cases.
Table	3:	
Types of 
Slovenia’s 
experience 
and its 
relation to 
countries
No	 Type Project Countries
1. Bilateral Cooperation All All
2. Integration Process (primarily) EU + NATO Majority
3. Policy and Political Management All Majority
4. Exchange All All
SLOVENIA AND ITS FOREIGN POLICY OUTREACH IN THE BLACK SEA REGION: SELECTED AREAS, ASPECTS 
AND MODALITIES
 88 Bilten Slovenske vojske 
own purposes.9 Relations among countries in such cases are much better, closer and 
fuller in scope and, at the same time, act in a more interlinked manner that enriches 
their cooperation. At the end of the day, however, it is still bilateralism which serves 
as the starting point for all these activities.
The last focus in this part of the paper refers to the three regions and the intensity of 
both the Slovenian experience and the future challenges in relation to them (inside 
they incorporate a separate look at the bilateral and multilateral aspects). We give 
a generalized view of the intensity of the experiences which Slovenia gained in its 
contacts with these regions and of the future challenges they pose over the coming 
period.10 A generalized overview is presented in the following Table.
It looks as if the intensity of Slovenia’s relations with these regions has, to date, 
depended upon Slovenian integration ambitions. During the pre-membership period 
in NATO and the EU, for example, Slovenia was mostly occupied with carrying out 
activities which would lead it to membership status and the relations with the regions 
in question and the various countries within them were determined by these facts. 
Later, after membership (actually, during the final stages of the process), relations 
were enriched with the transfer of the integration experiences to these countries 
and regions.11 However, other multilateral projects also determined the scope and 
intensity of the relations discussed. Perhaps one can point out here that it was the 
Slovenian OSCE Chairmanship of 2005 that, in various ways brought together 
Slovenia and the Black Sea region in particular. It could also be stressed that the mul-
tilateral approach has been crucial for the upgraded activities with these regions over 
the past period albeit with the exemption of the Western Balkans (although relations 
with the Black Sea region remain behind the other two.).
Speculating about the future challenges in these relations, one could say that it is the 
multilateral approach that will dominate the management of these relations. Most 
9 Form more on this compare, for example, Simoniti (1994).
10 As far as the agenda is concerned, we presuppose that it will be composed primarily of the topics determined 
by various multilateral forums and their activities. This would mean that participation of countries from these 
regions in various integration processes form or determine their policy agenda. Compare Brzezinski (2009), 
Glenn (2009) and Kennedy (1993).
11 This primarily applies to the Western Balkans and some countries of the Black See region, while the majority of 
South East Europe was included in the integration process more or less at the same time as Slovenia.
Table	4:	
Intensity of 
Slovenian 
experience 
and challenges 
related to the 
three regions
Experiences Future	Challenges
Bilateral Multilateral Bilateral Multilateral
South East Europe ◙ ◙ ○ ●
Western Balkans ◙ ● ● ◙
Black Sea Region ○ ○ ○ ●
Milan Jazbec
 89 Bilten Slovenske vojske 
probably the Western Balkans region will stand out more, which is to be expected 
given the rich political, historical, security, economic, cultural, and other aspects 
involved. Since the majority of South East Europe is already firmly ensconced in the 
notion of integration, one could further speculate that the intensity of the challenges 
is unlikely to exceed that of the gained experiences. Hence, the Black Sea region 
is gradually spreading and increasing the variety of its contacts and participation 
in those multilateral endeavours where Slovenia is also heavily engaged, a policy 
which could upgrade the existing intensity.12
The main ambition of this paper was to present the importance of Slovenia’s outstan-
ding multilateral experience with regards to its relations with the relevant countries, 
but particularly with the Western Balkans and the Black Sea region. We focused on 
multilateral activities accompanied by comments on bilateral activities, as well as 
taking into consideration the experiences already gained and the future challenges 
that Slovenian foreign policy is likely to face.
The broader framework of our discussion was established by the fact that Slovenia 
is a small (as well as the majority of countries discussed) newly independent state, 
which emerged from the tectonic changes that came about as a result of the end of the 
Cold War. This enhances the proposition that multilateralism works as a natural ally 
of small states. Additionally, as a consequence of the changes in 1989, several shifts 
of policy have also occurred in the directions of diplomacy as well as in the percep-
tions of security. The reordering of world affairs has coincided with the necessity to 
observe, detect and cope with the outburst of the globalization process, which has, 
at the same time, deepened the importance and the efficiency of multilateralism in 
diplomatic practice.
Perhaps the most important observation in this paper would be that multilateralism 
stimulates, enhances and sometimes partially also compensates for bilateral relations. 
This fully illustrates the current structural dynamics between the two aspects of di-
plomatic practice. We have showed this in the case of Slovenia and its relations 
primarily with the countries of the Black Sea region, supported with similar, but 
less intensive findings about the Western Balkans where bilateralism still plays a 
highly important, if not crucial role. On a general level though, whilst multilaterali-
sm serves as a policy approach it also appears, in practice, to be a diplomatic tool and 
a methodological framework for bilateralism.13 Due to Slovenia’s rare and intensive 
multilateral experience, relations with the countries of the Black Sea region have not 
only been improved and stimulated, but also upgraded, enriched and strengthened. 
There are, of course, differences as far as the various countries are concerned, but the 
general observation is relevant.
12 Again we point out the diversity of this engagement in the Black Sea region (referring to some of the countries 
like Russia and Turkey) and the necessity of generalization in the paper. 
13 The intention of the paper is not to support all these with several empirical examples, but at least to present the 
author’s personal, diplomatic view that there are many such issues in Slovenian diplomatic practices across 
various areas.
Conclusion
SLOVENIA AND ITS FOREIGN POLICY OUTREACH IN THE BLACK SEA REGION: SELECTED AREAS, ASPECTS 
AND MODALITIES
 90 Bilten Slovenske vojske 
It has been its multilateral policy orientation that has enabled Slovenia to develop 
structurally diverse and complex contacts and relations with the countries of the 
Black Sea region on practically all the important aspects of contemporary interna-
tional politics. There are cases where this has been a combination of the already 
intensive bilateral relations in place being enriched by multilateral activities, and 
there are cases where bilateral activities have been stimulated by multilateral contacts 
and engagement in various forums and on other such platforms. As a consequence, 
since we hail from the foreign policy and diplomatic practice of a small country with 
limited resources, multilateralism will most probably continue to play a dominant 
role and continue to shape and enable the efficient implementation of our bilateral 
relations.
1. A more secure world: Our shared responsibility. Report of the High-level Panel on 
Threats, Challenges and Change. 2004. New York: United Nations. (UNHP Report).
2. Amstrup, N., 1976. The Perennial Problem of Small States: A Survey of Research Efforts. 
Cooperation and Conflict, 3/1976. p. 163–182.
3. Axworthy, L., 2001. Introduction. In: McRae, R., Hubert, D., Eds. Human Security and the 
New Diplomacy: Protecting People, Promoting Peace. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-
Queen’s University Press. p. 3–13.
4. Bahčič, P. (Ed.), 2002. Slovenia and NATO: Public Debate in the Parliament. Ljubljana: 
Press Office of the Parliament.
5. Barston, R. P., 2006. Modern Diplomacy. London: Longman.
6. Bebler, A., 2009.a Slovenia and NATO. In: News of the Euro-Atlantic Council of Slovenia: 
Young at 60 (Conference Materials). Volume VIII. No. 1/2009. Ljubljana. p. 29–38.
7. Bebler, A., 2009.b The Policy of NATO Enlargement and its Development. In: News of the 
Euro-Atlantic Council of Slovenia: Young at 60 (Conference Materials). Volume VIII. No. 
1/2009. Ljubljana. p. 70–76.
8. Braveboy-Wagner, J. A., 2008. Small States in Global Affairs: The Foreign Policies of the 
Caribbean Community (Caricom). London: Palgrave MacMillan.
9. Brzezinski, Z., 2009. Major foreign policy challenges for the next US President.
10. International Affairs. 85-I. p. 53–60.
11. Buzan, B., Waever, O., de Wilde, J., 1998. Security: A New Framework for Analysis.
12. Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
13. Christmas-Møller, W., 1983. Some Thoughts on the Scientific Applicability of the Small 
State Concept: A Research History and Discussion. In: Höll, O. (ed.), 1983. Small States 
in Europe and Dependence. Wien: Wilhelm Braumüller. p. 35–53.
14. Gilli, G. A., 1974. Kako se istražuje: vodič u društvenim istraživanjima (How to Research 
in Social Sciences). Zagreb: Školska knjiga.
15. Glenn, K. J., 2009. Foreign Policy Challenges for the Obama Administration. Sieps.
16. European Policy Analysis. January, Issue 1, 2009.
17. Hillison, R. J., 2009. New NATO Members: Security Consumers or Producers?
18. Washington: Strategic Studies Institute.
19. Hribar, T., 2006. Hitri tempo slovenske samovzpostavitve (1986-2008) (Fast Tempo of the 
Slovenian Self-Establishment). In: Nova revija. Vol. XXV. No. 289–290. p. 1–29.
20. Isaacs, J., Downing, T., 2008. Cold War. London: Abacus.
21. Jazbec, M., 2001. The Diplomacies of New Small States: The Case of Slovenia with some 
comparison from the Baltics. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Bibliography
Milan Jazbec
 91 Bilten Slovenske vojske 
22. Jazbec, M., 2002. Diplomacija in varnost. Ljubljana: Vitrum.
23. Jazbec, M., 2009. Dvajseta obletnica konca hladne vojne: 1989–2009 (The Twentieth 
Anniversary of the End of the Cold War). Ljubljana: Ifimes.
24. Jazbec, M., 2010. Globalna multilaterala (The Global Multilateral Projects). Obramba, 
March 2010. p. 20–23.
25. Kennedy, P., 1993. In Vorbereitung auf das 21. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt: S. Fischer.
26. Malešič, M., 2002. Slovenska javnost: politično uradniška elita in NATO (The Slovene 
Public: the Political–Bureaucratic Elite and NATO). Teorija in praksa, May / June, 2002. 
Vol. 39, No. 3. p. 414–425.
27. Marc, L., 2008. Evropska soseščina in širitev (The European Neighbourhood and 
the Enlargement). In: Predsedovanje Slovenije Svetu Evropske unije: Zunanji odnosi 
(The Slovenian Presidency of the Council of the EU: External Relations). Ljubljana: 
Ministrstvo za zunanje zadeve. p. 43–44.
28. Nye, J. S., 2004. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: Perseus 
Books Group.
29. Prasad, N., 2009. Small but Smart: Small States in the Global System. In: Cooper, A. F., 
Shaw, T. M. (Eds.), 2009. The Diplomacies of Small States: Between Vulnerability and 
Resilience. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 41–64.
30. Reiter, E., 2003. Perspektiven der globalen strategischen Entwicklung: Das Ende der 
Ordnung von Jalta. Hamburg, Berlin, Bonn: Mittler Verlag.
31. Simoniti, I., 1994. Multilateralna diplomacija (Multilateral Diplomacy). Ljubljana: 
Teorija in praksa.
32. Small, M., Singer, J. D., 1973. The Diplomatic Importance of States: 1816–1970.
33. World Politics. Vol. XXV, No. 4. p. 577–599.
34. Šabič, Z., Bukowski, C. (Eds.), 2002. Small States in the Post-Cold War World: Slovenia 
and NATO Enlargement. Praeger Publishers.
35. Thorhallsson, B., 2000. The Role of Small States in the European Union. Aldershot: 
Ashgate.
36. Väyrynen, R., 1983. Small States in Different Theoretical Traditions of International 
Relations Research. In: Höll, O. (ed.), 1983. Small States in Europe and Dependence. 
Wien: Wilhelm Braumüller. p. 83–104.
SLOVENIA AND ITS FOREIGN POLICY OUTREACH IN THE BLACK SEA REGION: SELECTED AREAS, ASPECTS 
AND MODALITIES