Framing the 13th of July Uprising: Changing Perceptions in the Historical Perspective
Name
Course
Tutor
Date
Abstract
The paper explores the narratives of the 13th of July Uprising in Montenegro in several historical phases and instances in the last 80 years. Research broadly identifies three distinct and fundamentally competing narratives which dominated the public sphere and (re)shaped popular attitudes towards this cornerstone event in the Montenegrin History. Distinct narratives are intrinsically linked to the following historical periods (1) 1945 – 1991, Yugoslav era and state-sponsored Marxist historiography; (2) 1991-2006, dissolution of Yugoslavia and democratic transition; (3) 2006-current, independent Montenegro. The paper postulates that the changing political context and ‘top-down’ value approach determined the radically different interpretations and contextualization of the Uprising in 1941, framing the event(s) accordingly. Differently than in other similar historiographical disputes evolving (changing) narratives brought significant differences in material interpretations of the causes, political agenda, and mainstream flow of events. Together with the nation-building effort in the last decades the Uprising received a gradually different shading which stands in the heart of the paper’s research.
Framing the 13th of July Uprising: Changing Perceptions in the Historical Perspective
The Uprising in Montenegro (1941) was an incident that many reviewers argue that played fundamental roles in helping Montenegro to gain its freedom Italian dominance as well as to break from the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro that had existed as a nation in the Southeast Europe and existed from 1992 to 2006 after the fall of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The study provides an overview of the revolt against Italian dominance and shows how the event generated both debates and a series of actions that finally made Montenegro an independent state. Following the 1941 uprising in Montenegro, an analysis of distinct narratives reveals that happenings in three historical periods contributed to the freedom in Montenegro.[1] The Yugoslav era and promotion of Marxism by the state that spanned 1945-1991, the dissolution of Yugoslavia and democratic change that occurred between 1991 and 2006, and the events of 2006 onwards are incidents after the Uprising that were instrumental in helping Montenegro gain its independence. An analysis of the incidences during the three different eras helps to understand how far Montenegro has come to gain its independence and freedom. The assessment indicates that a nation comes a long way before gaining its independence and unless concerned parties come out to advocate for significant transformation the freedom may take longer.
Overview of the Uprising
The 13 July Uprising, also known as the Uprising in Montenegro was a revolt against the presence of Italians in Montenegro. The uprising only lasted six weeks before it was suppressed by Italian forces. The counter-offensive by tens of thousands of Italian forces, led by Alessandro Biroli with the help of irregular forces in Albania and Sandzak Muslim militia. However, some aspects of the uprising continued at a much lower scale until the Battle of Pljevlja of December 1st to 2nd 1941 where the apex was an infringement and destruction in the Italiangovernorate of Montenegro that existed from 1941 to 1943 as an occupied jurisdiction under military rule of Fascist Italy during WWII.[2] In the Battle of Pljevija, Yugoslav Partisans attacked the Italian governorate under the stewardship of Bajo Sekulic and Arso Javanovic, who championed thousands of Montenegrin Partisans against Italians in a place called Pljevija. Some of the people steering the revolt against Italian occupiers had recently been released from detention. The defeat of the communist troops during the battle of Pljevlja, fused with the policy of terror they followed, were the primary reasons for the growth of the tussle between the nationalist and communist insurgents in Montenegro following the revolt.[3] Following the pulling out of Partisans from Montenegro, the Chetniks did the same blunders the Partisans did, forming prison camps, performing trials and massacring extensively.[4] These violations were directed towards the remaining communists as well as towards the Sandzak Muslims. The killing of Muslims in Chetnik were expedited, especially in Bukovica, Pljevlja, and Bijelo Polje.[5] The attacks resulted in the Muslims forming village-based militias to safeguard against both Chetniks and Partisans. Much debate has ensued following the incident with various sides giving their views on the uprising.
1945 – 1991, Yugoslav Era and State-Sponsored Marxist Historiography
The historiography of Yugoslavia shows the historiography forming in the Kingdom of Serbs, Yugoslavia/ Slovenes, and Croats in the interwar era, as well as in socialist Yugoslavia beginning the end of WWII until the nation’s disintegration at the start of 1990s. The availability of identical Yugoslav historiography was criticized by some scholars, claiming that it had never existed as a single group.[6] From this view, the historiography of Yugoslavia was only the common factor in various national historiographies which, adhering to their own dynamics, formed more or less autonomously from each other within Yugoslav territories.[7] Regardless of the variant perceptions on the nature of the historiography of Yugoslavia, it is possible to converse about some peculiar Yugoslav historiography taking into account not only the common condition in which it was created but also the presence of historiographical entities such as periodicals, projects, and professional initiatives, as well as the existing methodological and theoretical view shared by most Yugoslav scholars.[8] Following the assumption, the study focuses on the ideological perceptions and conditions in which Yugoslav historiography was formed, and its conceptual framework, organizational structure, and modernization initiatives in Yugoslavia (1945–1991).
Yugoslav historiography in the act of Sovietization was confined under strict ideological view and arguments of Marxism-Leninism. The connection of the communist leaders towards historiography was most precisely manifested by Milovan Đilas, the most vocal party ideologist during that time. Concerning the global competition of socialism against capitalism, he reiterated the significance of countering the bourgeois way of argument and viewing the historical field on the aspect of dialectical materialism. Moreover, Dilas asserted that in order to counter the bourgeois formation of history, historiography had to embrace Marxism as an obligatory ideological guidance.[9] In addition, it was anticipated historiography would give legitimacy to the revolutionary change and to the freshly formed communist order. Operating in the one-party structure that was aimed to oppress and exercise power against the proletariat, and under the firm regulation of the authorities, historiography was compelled to embrace stereotypes from the communist political verbiage as its theoretical framework. The impact of Marxism in Yugoslavia led Dorde Stankovic to argue that the historiography of Yugoslavia was marred by the methodological triangle, comprising of Marxist positivism, dogmatic Marxist history, and traditional political history.[10] For example, the traditional political history focused on the transformation of individual and events from diplomatic and political history and the responsibility of the great individuals. The argument affirms that Marxism greatly impacted the perception of Yugoslavia during the period after the War.
The period was marked with various developments in Yugoslavia that contributed towards advancing the country and helping come out from old forms. For instance, during the initial postwar years, new learning institutions were formed as a crucial aspect of the initiative of the socialist modernization which focused on the growth of higher education and science.[11] These institutions served as the foundation of historiographical infrastructure during the time of socialist Yugoslavia. Institutions directed for historical studies were formed in all the six republics and professional historical groups and associations were also initiated. In addition, Yugoslav historiographical institutions developed spontaneously during the 1950s and 1960s, and served as the basis of historiography in Yugoslavia.[12] Initially, the Association of historical societies of Yugoslavia was charged with the duty of assembling historical associations in the republic and organized congresses that brought historians together. A total of nine congresses were held between 1954 and 1988.[13] The emergence of party historiography, which was a form of Soviet historical scholarship gained prominence in Yugoslavia. In addition to advancements in the field of historiography, the creation of the new constitution in 1974 was attributed to facilitating and encouraging political disintegration. Politics also changed significantly following the enactment of the constitution, but that did not ease the authoritarian forms witnessed during the period.
However, 1989 to 1991 witnessed the collapse of the communist regimes one after the other across Eastern Europe. Instead, centrifugal forces in the multinational state known as Yugoslavia became more evident and the stalemate there became dramatic and unprecedented. Political stalemates thwarted any hopes of an orderly shift to multiparty and a market economy. Tension escalated between Serbia and Slovenia that had conflicting ideologies and their proposals were incompatible.[14] Unfortunately, the political system of Yugoslavia lacked a procedure with which to calm such a tension.[15] Both sides held to their argument and were unrelenting.[16] They were committed to counter the checks and balance created by the system and thus entirely counter the legitimacy of state institutions such as the constitutional court.[17] From this time onwards, all that mattered were the specific needs of each republic – the common interest of Yugoslavia as a whole no longer received attention. In one last attempt to change things towards the end of 1988, the parliament introduced privatization and shuttered the practice of self-management and socialist property rights.[18] However, high inflation rate at 2,700% distracted the federal government’s attempts to materialize its desires. An election in 1990 that many thought would foster democracy sparked issues of disintegration and ethnicity and emerging parties were aligned based on ethnic identity and nor political ambitions. The need to be free was imminent and each party wanted to be more vocal in their approach. The struggle for freedom witnessed during the 1990s rekindle the image of what transpired during the 13 July Uprising when Montenegro sought to be free from Italian rule.
1991-2006, Dissolution of Yugoslavia and Democratic Transition
In 1991, Yugoslavia transited to another phase in the irreversible process of its dismantlement. Tension for war was increasing and all concerned parties were heightening their preparation for the highly anticipated confrontation. The final provocation came in May 1991 when leaders from Serbia and Montenegro barred Stipe Mesic, a Croatian, from taking over the office of the federal presidency, as he was supposed to assume the authority as planned in the rotation principle. Mesic had claimed that he would become the leader of Yugoslavia only to withdraw the statement later.[19] This left the nation with no one as the head of state and no one to command the army. All the other forms of Yugoslav statehood disappeared. Loyalties and identities were being restructured, and the long-applied structures of sharing power and mediation were no longer in place. [20]The fall of the political order, the disintegration of the multiethnic aspects, and the disappearance of the state monopoly of power formed a fatal vacuum. Anyone closely examining the situation at the time could already see that Yugoslavia towards a high intensive conflict.
Croatia and Slovenia were the first to declare their independence on June 1991. The move by these two nations created much concern in the international community with some questioning whether the move was unlawful or whether Yugoslavia was evidently falling into different parts.[21] Others questioned whether the borders between the two nations were international boundaries or they only existed as administrative demarcations, or whether the move was an indication of impending civil war or armed conflict. Slovenes proceeded to demarcate its international border with Croatia, a move that attracted the Yugoslav People’s Army to come and take dominance.[22][23] The Slovenia government opposed the occupation and a ten-day conflict ensued where the number of Slovene soldiers killed in the tussle was much less compared to those belonging to Yugoslav People’s Army. The creation of the boundary created further tensions between Slovenes and Croatians who clashed in various instances. For example, Croatia attacked the base of the People’s Army in September 1991, which further fueled the misunderstanding.
The following years were marked with considerable confrontations among nations seeking to break away from Yugoslavia. Germany had become increasingly engaged with the happenings in Yugoslavia and tried to intervene but its engagement only worsened things when it appeared it took side in its handling of the matter.[24] Germany’s participation also evoked criticism among other European nations that opted to remain neutral in the unfolding events. After the official acknowledgement of Bosnia-Herzegovina in mid-1992, the deterrence strategy botched. In a form of bombardment, Serbia fighters, backed by the JNA, took over a significant portion of Bosnia. All the attention turned towards Germany that had to put up with the effects of stern criticism leveled against the European nation by allies. Later, the confrontations in Bosnia-Herzegovina that lasted from 1992 to 1995 would extend to Kosovo from 1998 to 1999 and Macedonia in 2001.
As the pressure exaggerated, a sort of brutality supposed to be outdated unexpectedly reemerged and surprised the world. Ethnic cleansing, which was linked to premeditated and fierce expulsion of unwelcomed groups of people from specific areas via extermination, dislocation, and banishment, as had occurred during the 19th century resurfaced.[25] It was apparent ethnic cleansing happened systematically and in a planned manner. Later findings by International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) suggested that the atrocities committed during the time had significant impact on affected groups.[26] Many women became victim of rape and children faced hardship that they had never experienced before.[27]
The 2000s came as a time for pacts with concerned parties focusing on calming existing tensions and the prolonged misunderstanding. For instance, successor states formed a pact in 2001, thus marking an essential time in history because Yugoslavia changed its name formally to Serbia and Montenegro two years later. Serbia had been part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from 1992 to 2003 before teaming up with Montenegro from 2003 to 2006. It was the dissolving of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), which served as the final institutional remnants of Yugoslavia that paved way for the formation of State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. In mid-2006, Montenegro quit the relationship with Serbia after more voters in a referendum (55%) chose to be independent.[28][29] Belgrade was among the first groups to recognize the newly formed state.[30] The attempts to be free and the freedom achieved in 2006 reflects what the people of Montenegro had desired for many years since the time of the 13 July Uprising when 13 July Uprising when Montenegrins opted to evacuate Italians.
2006-Current, Independent Montenegro
2006 was a new dawn for Montenegro that gained independence and embarked on constructing the antifascist narrative. The overwhelming decision by Montenegrins in the referendum held in 2006 gave the country an opportunity to enhance areas that had witnessed constraints during its time with Serbia. For example, the state revived the economy significantly between 2006 and 2008, with growth rates surpassing 6% annually.[31] Nonetheless, the boom was followed by an inflation of the same measure in 2009. The independence allowed Montenegrins to access the EU without much regulation as imposed before gaining autonomy. A spectacular incident during this time was the reenergized emergence of anti-fascist groups in Montenegro. The groups called for an end to authoritarian leadership characterized by forcible oppression of opposition and doctorial power.[32] The anti-fascist narrative gained prominence with the objective of transforming the country into a democratic state where everyone has an opportunity to contribute towards civil processes and are not bound to authoritarian governance.
Montenegro has made significant strides since becoming independent in 2006. Today Montenegro exists as a parliamentary republic that achieved full autonomy from Serbia.[33] The state moved in swiftly to introduce measures that would allow the newly formed country to stand for its affairs.[34] For instance, the parliament in Montenegro adopted the initial constitution in 2007, which outlined the state’s governance structure to be comprising of the judiciary, the legislative, and the executive.[35][36][37] Contrary to the leadership structure in Yugoslavia after the WWII when authoritarian structures dominated all, the post-2006 Montenegro embraced democratic forms for managing the government.[38][39] The state structure stipulates that the president serves as the head of state elected by citizens to serve for a duration of five years.[40] The Prime Minister leads the unicameral parliament in Montenegro.[41] The state tries to achieve fair legislations and focusing on furnishing courts with needed manpower and resources to handle legal disputes without much fear
The last state to leave Yugoslavia was Kosovo that declared independence on February 2008. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), while submitting its 2010 advisory opinion claimed that Kosovo’s unilateral pronunciation of freedom did not counter Security Council resolutions or general international law.[42] The international community remained divided concerning the proclamation despite the guidance by ICJ.[43] The EU questioned the legitimacy of Kosovo, but the U.S. acknowledged it as the newest country in Europe.[44][45] Slowly Yugoslavia disintegrated into various parts in what appears to be a systematic process of disintegration that gained momentum during the 1980s, but had shown similar interests much earlier.[46]
The narration and history of how Montenegro acquired its independence shows how achieving freedom requires great patience and sacrifice. The study shows how Montenegro confronted Italians during the 13 July Uprising as well as shows how it was compelled to be part of Serbia before finding its standing. The breaking away of Serbia and Montenegro from Yugoslavia in 2003 and the ultimate separation of Serbia and Montenegro provided guarantee to the latter state that it had become independent dispute opposing views.[47] Nonetheless, the assignment emphasizes that sometimes it is good to wait until the right times comes.
Conclusion
The study reveals that events following the 13 July Uprising were a reflection of what the Communist Party of Yugoslavia sought to achieve from the revolt against Italian dominance. Yugoslavia existed as a single entity from 1945 until 1991 when calls for disintegration became unbearable. Yugoslavia had embraced Marxist ideologies prior to separation of countries that was escalated by various issues, including the tension between Serbia and Slovenia. The need to be free as witnessed at the beginning of 1990 was a replica of what happened during the 13 July Uprising. 1991 marked a new dawn because it is when Yugoslavia ceased to exist. However, all aspects of Yugoslavia had been eliminated by January 1992. The desire to break away from Yugoslavia generated much conflict among concerned parties. The issue of ethnic cleansing resurfaced at a particular point and caused massive displacement. Serbia and Montenegro that had been together since 2003 ended their being together after voters unanimously voted in a referendum to have Serbia and Montenegro going separate ways. The need to liberate Montenegro was achieved in 2006. The dream that Montenegrins had in 1941 to be free from Italians rekindled in 2006 when Montenegro finally became free and formulated a plan to manage its government.
Bibliography
Aljazeera, Serbia Recognises Montenegro Split. Aljazeera, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2006/6/15/serbia-recognises-montenegro-split (2006)
BTI, Montenegro Country Report 2022. BTI, https://bti-project.org/en/reports/country-report/MNE (2022)
C. Nielsen, Serbian Historiography after 1991, Contemporary European History, 29, no. 1, 2020, 90-103.
D. Anderson, The Collapse of Yugoslavia: Background and Summary, Research Paper, No. 14 1995-96
D. Guzina, The Self-Destruction of Yugoslavia, Canadian Review of Studies in Nationalism 27, no. 1-2, 2000, 21-32.
D. Jovic, Communist Yugoslavia and its “Others”. Open Edition Books, https://books.openedition.org/ceup/2438?lang=en (2017)
D. Tomovic, Divided Montenegro Marks Decade of Independence. BalkanInsight, https://balkaninsight.com/2016/06/03/montenegro-marks-decade-of-independence-with-old-divisions-06-02-2016/ (2016)
EU, Montenegro. EU, https://portal.cor.europa.eu/divisionpowers/Pages/Montenegro.aspx (n.a.)
Euro Docs, History of Montenegro: Primary Documents. Euro Docs, https://eudocs.lib.byu.edu/index.php/History_of_Montenegro:_Primary_Documents (2021)
F. Bieber, Montenegro in Transition: Problems of Identity and Statehood, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 2003.
F. Bieber, The Conflict in Former Yugoslavia as a Fault Line War, Balkanologie, 3, no. 1, 1999, 33-48.
F. Goddi, The Military Court of Cettigne During the Italian Occupation of Montenegro (1941–1943).
G. Merlicco, Between Old Austria and New Foes: Italy and the Yugoslav Project (1917-18), Leiden, 2018, 34-50.
Gong, Antifascism in Montenegro – A Fundamental Value or a Pre-Election Trick? Gong, https://gong.hr/en/2015/05/15/antifascism-in-montenegro-a-fundamental-value-or-a/ (2015)
I. Banac, Historiography of the Countries of Eastern Europe: Yugoslavia, The American Historical Review, 97, no. 4, 1992, 1084-1104.
ICG, Montenegro’s Referendum. Update Briefing, No. 42, https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/18060/b042_montenegro_s_referendum.pdf
I. Luksic and M. Katnic, The Making of a State: Transition in Montenegro, Cato Journal, 36, no. 3, 2016, 689-709.
IRMCT, What is the Former Yugoslavia. IRMCT, https://www.icty.org/en/about/what-former-yugoslavia (2004)
I. Vukovic, The Post-Communist Political Transition of Montenegro: Democratization Prior to Europeanization, Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 1, no. 2, 2010, 59-76.
J. Allcock, Rural-Urban Differences and the Break-up of Yugoslavia, Balkanologie, 6, no. 1-2, 2002, 101-125.
J. Gardetto, Accession of the Republic of Montenegro to the Council of Europe. Assembly, https://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/X2H-Xref-ViewHTML.asp?FileID=11457&Lang=EN (2007)
K. Friis, The Referendum in Montenegro: The EU’s ‘Postmodern Diplomacy’, European Foreign Affairs Review, 12, no. 1, 2007, 67-88.
K. Morrison, Nationalism, Identity and Statehood in Post-Yugoslav Montenegro, Bloomsbury, 2018.
L. Micheletta, Italy, Greater Albania, and Kosovo 1939-1943, Nuova Rivista Storica, 97, no. 2, 2013, 521-542.
LSE, Montenegro’s Decade of Independence: Tracing a State Back to its Origins. LSE, https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2016/05/26/montenegros-decade-of-independence-tracing-a-state-back-to-its-origins/ (2016)
L. Teslik, Montenegro’s Referendum on Independence. CFR, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/montenegros-referendum-independence (2006)
M. Calic, A History of Yugoslavia, Purdue University Press, 2019.
M. Levy, “The Last Bullet for the Last Serb”:1 The Ustasa Genocide against Serbs: 1941–19452, The Journal of Nationalism and Ethnicity, 37, no. 6, 807-837.
M. Uvalic, The Rise and Fall of Market Socialism in Yugoslavia. DOC Research Institute, https://doc-research.org/2018/03/rise-fall-market-socialism-yugoslavia/ (March 2018)
N. Virtue, Occupation Duty in the Dysfunctional Coalition: The Italian Second Army and its Allies in the Balkans, 1941-43, Journal of Military and Strategic Studies, 14, no. 1, 2011, 1-32.
N. Wood, Montenegro Votes to Secede from Serbia. New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/21/world/europe/21iht-montenegro.html (2006)
P. Kelmendi and C. Pedraza, Determinants of Individual Support for Independence: Evidence from Montenegro, Cambridge University Press, 2021.
Responses to Information Requests (RIRs), https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2013/11/07/SRB102484.E.pdf
R. Fawn, The Kosovo: And Montenegro: Effect, International Affairs, 84, no. 2, 2008, 269-294.
R. Pannacci, Sex, Military Brothels and Gender Violence during the Italian Campaign in the USSR, 1941–3, Journal of Contemporary History, 55, no. 1, 75-96.
S. Blank, Yugoslavia’s Wars: The Problem from Hell, Strategic Studies Institute, 1995.
S. Imeri, Evolution of National Identity in Montenegro, Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 5, no. 3, 141-148.
S. Kunitz, The Making and Breaking of Yugoslavia and Its Impact on Health, American Journal of Public Health, 94, no. 11, 2004, 1894-1904.
S. Mladsenov, Failures in Western Conflict Prevention in Former Yugoslavia: An Exception to the Rule or its Confirmation? UDK, 2, no. 1, 2014, 63-73.
The Constitution of Montenegro, https://www.legislationline.org/download/id/5441/file/Montenegro_Constitution_2006_en.pdf
The Conversation, Montenegro was a Success Story in Troubled Balkan Region – Now Its Democracy Is in Danger. The Conversation, https://theconversation.com/montenegro-was-a-success-story-in-troubled-balkan-region-now-its-democracy-is-in-danger-157288 (2006)
The European Elections Monitor, Referendum on independence in Montenegro, 21st May 2006. The European Elections Monitor, https://www.robert-schuman.eu/en/eem/0520-referendum-on-independence-in-montenegro-21st-may-2006 (2006)
The Guardian, Montenegro Vote Finally Seals Death of Yugoslavia. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/may/22/balkans (2006)
The Independent International Commission on Kosovo, The Kosovo Report, Oxford University Press, 2000.
T. Kivimaki, M. Kramer and P. Pasch, The Dynamics of Conflict in the Multi-ethnic State of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, 2012.
T. Trost and L. David, Renationalizing Memory in the Post-Yugoslav Region, Journal of Genocide Research, 1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1080/14623528.2021.1968852
U.S. Department of State, U.S. Relations with Montenegro. U.S. Department of State, https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-montenegro/ (2021)
Z. Polackova, P. Duin, Independence Lost and Regained: Montenegro’s Contested Identity and the Failure of Yugoslavia (1918-2006), Studia Politica Slovaca, 10, 2017, 23-47.
[1] I. Vukovic, The Post-Communist Political Transition of Montenegro: Democratization Prior to Europeanization, Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 1, no. 2, 2010, 59-76.
[2] S. Imeri, Evolution of National Identity in Montenegro, Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 5, no. 3, 144.
[3] EU, Montenegro. EU, https://portal.cor.europa.eu/divisionpowers/Pages/Montenegro.aspx (n.a.)
[4] R. Pannacci, Sex, Military Brothels and Gender Violence during the Italian Campaign in the USSR, 1941–3, Journal of Contemporary History, 55, no. 1, 75-96.
[5] N. Virtue, Occupation Duty in the Dysfunctional Coalition: The Italian Second Army and its Allies in the Balkans, 1941-43, Journal of Military and Strategic Studies, 14, no. 1, 2011, 17.
[6] M. Uvalic, The Rise and Fall of Market Socialism in Yugoslavia. DOC Research Institute, https://doc-research.org/2018/03/rise-fall-market-socialism-yugoslavia/ (March 2018)
[7] F. Goddi, The Military Court of Cettigne During the Italian Occupation of Montenegro (1941–1943), 51.
[8] K. Morrison, Nationalism, Identity and Statehood in Post-Yugoslav Montenegro, Bloomsbury, 2018, 82.
[9] L. Micheletta, Italy, Greater Albania, and Kosovo 1939-1943, Nuova Rivista Storica, 97, no. 2, 2013, 528.
[10] M. Levy, “The Last Bullet for the Last Serb”:1 The Ustasa Genocide against Serbs: 1941–19452, The Journal of Nationalism and Ethnicity, 37, no. 6, 817.
[11] S. Kunitz, The Making and Breaking of Yugoslavia and Its Impact on Health, American Journal of Public Health, 94, no. 11, 2004, 1897.
[12] I. Banac, Historiography of the Countries of Eastern Europe: Yugoslavia, The American Historical Review, 97, no. 4, 1992, 1087.
[13] The Independent International Commission on Kosovo, The Kosovo Report, Oxford University Press, 2000, 53
[14] J. Allcock, Rural-Urban Differences and the Break-up of Yugoslavia, Balkanologie, 6, no. 1-2, 2002, 112.
[15] ICG, Montenegro’s Referendum. Update Briefing, No. 42, https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/18060/b042_montenegro_s_referendum.pdf
[16] S. Mladsenov, Failures in Western Conflict Prevention in Former Yugoslavia: An Exception to the Rule or its Confirmation? UDK, 2, no. 1, 2014, 68.
[17] IRMCT, What is the Former Yugoslavia. IRMCT, https://www.icty.org/en/about/what-former-yugoslavia (2004)
[18] M. Calic, A History of Yugoslavia, Purdue University Press, 2019, 284
[19] The Conversation, Montenegro was a Success Story in Troubled Balkan Region – Now Its Democracy Is in Danger. The Conversation, https://theconversation.com/montenegro-was-a-success-story-in-troubled-balkan-region-now-its-democracy-is-in-danger-157288 (2006)
[20] T. Kivimaki, M. Kramer and P. Pasch, The Dynamics of Conflict in the Multi-ethnic State of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, 2012.
[21] S. Blank, Yugoslavia’s Wars: The Problem from Hell, Strategic Studies Institute, 1995, 56.
[22] G. Merlicco, Between Old Austria and New Foes: Italy and the Yugoslav Project (1917-18), Leiden, 2018, 38.
[23] C. Nielsen, Serbian Historiography after 1991, Contemporary European History, 29, no. 1, 2020, 97.
[24] R. Fawn, The Kosovo: And Montenegro: Effect, International Affairs, 84, no. 2, 2008, 275.
[25] T. Trost and L. David, Renationalizing Memory in the Post-Yugoslav Region, Journal of Genocide Research, 1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1080/14623528.2021.1968852
[26] P. Kelmendi and C. Pedraza, Determinants of Individual Support for Independence: Evidence from Montenegro, Cambridge University Press, 2021, 70.
[27] F. Bieber, The Conflict in Former Yugoslavia as a Fault Line War, Balkanologie, 3, no. 1, 1999, 33-48.
[28] K. Friis, The Referendum in Montenegro: The EU’s ‘Postmodern Diplomacy’, European Foreign Affairs Review, 12, no. 1, 2007, 67-88.
[29] L. Teslik, Montenegro’s Referendum on Independence. CFR, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/montenegros-referendum-independence (2006)
[30] The European Elections Monitor, Referendum on independence in Montenegro, 21st May 2006. The European Elections Monitor, https://www.robert-schuman.eu/en/eem/0520-referendum-on-independence-in-montenegro-21st-may-2006 (2006)
[31] Z. Polackova, P. Duin, Independence Lost and Regained: Montenegro’s Contested Identity and the Failure of Yugoslavia (1918-2006), Studia Politica Slovaca, 10, 2017, 24.
[32] Gong, Antifascism in Montenegro – A Fundamental Value or a Pre-Election Trick? Gong, https://gong.hr/en/2015/05/15/antifascism-in-montenegro-a-fundamental-value-or-a/ (2015)
[33] LSE, Montenegro’s Decade of Independence: Tracing a State Back to its Origins. LSE, https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2016/05/26/montenegros-decade-of-independence-tracing-a-state-back-to-its-origins/ (2016)
[34] J. Gardetto, Accession of the Republic of Montenegro to the Council of Europe. Assembly, https://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/X2H-Xref-ViewHTML.asp?FileID=11457&Lang=EN (2007)
[35] The Constitution of Montenegro, https://www.legislationline.org/download/id/5441/file/Montenegro_Constitution_2006_en.pdf
[36] U.S. Department of State, U.S. Relations with Montenegro. U.S. Department of State, https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-montenegro/ (2021)
[37] Z. Polackova, P. Duin, Independence Lost and Regained: Montenegro’s Contested Identity and the Failure of Yugoslavia (1918-2006), Studia Politica Slovaca, 10, 2017, 25.
[38] The Guardian, Montenegro Vote Finally Seals Death of Yugoslavia. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/may/22/balkans (2006)
[39] D. Tomovic, Divided Montenegro Marks Decade of Independence. BalkanInsight, https://balkaninsight.com/2016/06/03/montenegro-marks-decade-of-independence-with-old-divisions-06-02-2016/ (2016)
[40] Responses to Information Requests (RIRs), https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2013/11/07/SRB102484.E.pdf
[41] N. Wood, Montenegro Votes to Secede from Serbia. New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/21/world/europe/21iht-montenegro.html (2006)
[42] Aljazeera, Serbia Recognises Montenegro Split. Aljazeera, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2006/6/15/serbia-recognises-montenegro-split (2006)
[43] D. Guzina, The Self-Destruction of Yugoslavia, Canadian Review of Studies in Nationalism 27, no. 1-2, 2000, 27.
[44] D. Anderson, The Collapse of Yugoslavia: Background and Summary, Research Paper, No. 14 1995-96, 8
[45] BTI, Montenegro Country Report 2022. BTI, https://bti-project.org/en/reports/country-report/MNE (2022)
[46] Euro Docs, History of Montenegro: Primary Documents. Euro Docs, https://eudocs.lib.byu.edu/index.php/History_of_Montenegro:_Primary_Documents (2021)
[47] I. Luksic and M. Katnic, The Making of a State: Transition in Montenegro, Cato Journal, 36, no. 3, 2016, 693.