Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T21:51:57.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Bilingualism Bonus in Socialist Slovenia: Domestic Policy or Diplomatic Prestige?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 February 2024

Boštjan Udovič*
Affiliation:
Centre of International Relations, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia
Sonja Novak Lukanović
Affiliation:
Institute for Ethnic Studies, Ljubljana, Slovenia
*
Corresponding author: Boštjan Udovič; Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The objective of the article is to establish why a financial bonus for Slovenian–Italian bilingualism was introduced in the District of Koper (comprising today’s Slovenian municipalities of Ankaran, Koper, Izola and Piran), which came under Yugoslav rule after 1954. Using Brubaker’s triadic nexus concept and analysis of newly discovered archival sources, the authors found that (a) on the federal level, Yugoslavia only focused on minority protection as much as it was required to by international agreements and treaties, (b) the Italian minority itself was not a relevant actor in the Yugoslav system of minority protection, (c) Italy had a marginal role in the process of protecting the Italian minority in Yugoslavia, and (d) the political elite in Yugoslavia introduced the bilingualism bonus to encourage the integration of the Italian minority when building a new (socialist) sociopolitical order. The Slovenian-Italian bilingualism bonus was therefore not an altruist measure directed at minority protection, but rather a self-serving measure by the authorities to reinforce their power.

Type
Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Association for the Study of Nationalities

Introduction and the Research Problem

The objective of this article is to establish why a Slovenian–Italian bilingualism bonus as an issue of Italian minority protection (hereinafter BB) was introduced in the District of Koper,Footnote 1 which came under Yugoslav rule after 1954.

The BB is an instrument for achieving the objectives of specific public policies (Gazzola and Grin Reference Gazzola, Grin, Meylaerts and Nuñez2017). It is a public-sector financial incentive calculated to encourage its recipients to use a minority language in their work, thus enabling minority members to use their language in official matters, giving them a sense of heightened protection, and making them feel more welcome and accepted (Rossi, Lipsey, and Freeman Reference Rossi, Lipsey and Freeman2004). Although political science has developed myriad tools for explaining the formation, development, and evaluation of public policies (Rossi, Lipsey, and Freeman Reference Rossi, Lipsey and Freeman2004; Weimer and Vining Reference Weimer and Vining2014), the reasons for the introduction, development, and evaluation of BBs remain relatively poorly researched (Ricento Reference Ricento and Ricento2006). Most studies of language policies that are directed at supporting and promoting the use of minority languages in different European countries focus on evaluating the current state of affairs and less so on designing and exploring the broader social reasons, motives, and goals for introducing incentives to boost specific language policies (Grin et al. Reference Grin, Moring, Gorter, Häggman, Riagáin and Strubell2003; Novak Lukanovič Reference Novak Lukanovič2011; Gazzola et al. Reference Gazzola, Grin, Moring and Häggmann2016; Laakso et al. Reference Laakso, Sarhimaa, Åkermark and Toivanen2016). Existing research thus sees BBs as self-evident, failing to explore the reasons behind its introduction. It has moreover been evaluated mainly through the lens of its economic component (effectiveness) and less from the perspective of its political, social, and cultural influence. Our research will therefore particularly focus on the reasons for its introduction.

Alongside this macro-level research, there is a corpus of studies dealing with BBs at the micro level, specifically with respect to the needs of the individual/user—either the recipient of the BB or the person benefiting from better services due to the BB (cf. Weibel, Rost, and Osterloh Reference Weibel, Rost and Osterloh2010). Therefore, Vandenabeele (Reference Vandenabeele2007) analyzed the intrinsic and extrinsic motivation of public servants in relation to BB, Frey (Reference Frey1997) focused on the nature and structure of incentives in the workplace, and Kübler (Reference Kübler, Ladner, Chappelet, Emery, Knoepfel, Mader, Soguel and Varone2013) took on the issue of incentives in public administration and examined “representative bureaucracy” and “representative public administration,” which should reflect the diversity of the constituent parts of a society. Of course, more research on the topic was conducted in multilingual countries (for Canada and Switzerland, see Kübler, Kobelt, and Andrey Reference Kübler, Kobelt and Andrey2011; Turgeon and Gagnon Reference Turgeon and Gagnon2013; Gazzola Reference Gazzola2016; for Wales, see Evas and Cunliffe Reference Evas, Cunliffe, Durham and Morris2016), but all of these articles mainly focus on the conceptualization of the BB, its functioning, and its effectiveness.

The thesis we wish to test in this article pertains to the reason(s) for the introduction of the BB in the District of Koper. We believe there could be two reasons for the introduction of the BB: (1) an external or altruist one and (2) a domestic or selfish one (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Yugoslavia’s reasons for introducing the BB.

Source: Author’s illustration.

Even though the above reasons are presented as part of a purified model, real life rarely limiting itself to only one, we presume that Yugoslavia/Slovenia introduced the BB mainly for (selfish) reasons of domestic policy. This is partially confirmed by the statement given by Vlado Majhen, a member of the Executive Committee of the Slovenian Communist Party’s (ZKS) Central Committee, claiming that “minorities can be a factor of convergence with neighbouring countries” and that “minorities can be an important player [in the formation of the socialist state—comment added by authors] as long as they are constantly involved in labour and social governance.”Footnote 2 For Majhen, minorities were not an independent entity but always in some sort of relational position—to external factors and actors (neighboring states), or internally, to the political system.

Our thesis will be tested by compiling different methods. The main method used will be a critical analysis of primary (archival) and secondary (books, chapters, data, etc.) sources, which will represent the framework of the research. Our theoretical starting point will be Brubaker’s (Reference Brubaker1993, Reference Brubaker1995, Reference Brubaker1996) triadic nexus. But because we are primarily interested in the reasons for the introduction of the BB, we will expand the triadic nexus and its derivations using a comparative critical analysis of primary sources from the Archives of the Republic of Slovenia, or official publications of the District of Koper, official documents of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia, and session transcriptions of the Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia. Until today, these sources have neither been analyzed nor presented in the Slovenian or broader international context. Because the reasons for the introduction of the BB are highly important not only for Yugoslav–Italian relations but also for the theoretical value of minority protection, we believe the presentation of findings from these sources gives this article even more added value.

The article is divided into two parts: theoretical and empirical. The introduction is followed by the theoretical part, which presents the framework for the empirical analysis of the BB introduction in the District of Koper. The article ends with a discussion and conclusion, explaining the basic findings, evaluating the thesis, and outlining possible related areas for future research.

The Yugoslav System of Minority Protection and the Position of the Italian Minority in Yugoslavia 1945–1990: A Theoretical Framework

There is still a lot to learn about minority protection in Yugoslavia for the following three reasons. First, declarative/outspoken commitments made by Yugoslavia were often divorced from reality. It is therefore almost impossible to evaluate to what extent the declared minority protection commitments were translated into practice. The foreign public was often told that Yugoslavia cared about minorities, with politicians simultaneously stressing that the protection of minorities in Yugoslavia is not an activity per se but rather part of integrating minorities into the new—socialist society, defined by the “internationalFootnote 3 spirit of Yugoslavia […] in which there are no privileged and deprivileged minorities” (see Bebler, Reference Bebler1960, 10–11).

The second reason is mostly connected to how the term minority was understood in Yugoslav society. Usually, a minority was understood to designate a community that speaks a different language from the majority. This is confirmed also by BeblerFootnote 4 (Reference Bebler1960, 15). In his lecture for the Austrian Society of Foreign Policy and International Relations (Österreichische Gesellschaft für Aussenpolitik und Internationale Beziehungen), he highlights the following:

In the Federal Assembly, as in the Assemblies of the Republics and in the lower-level public authorities, each deputy can use its mother tongue and it is translated into one of the Yugoslav languages (Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian or Macedonian). Members of minorities can use their native language in public if they do not know the language of the majority. [emphases added]

Although Bebler in his note states that minorities have the right and possibility to use their language, this was not so in everyday practice. Yugoslav national exclusivism (as opposed to inclusivism) is apparent in the last sentence of Bebler’s speech, where he highlights minority languages as being “second best,” used only in cases when somebody does not speak the language of the majority.

The third reason lies in how Yugoslav decision makers perceived individual minorities in terms of relevance—that is, which minority was really relevant. In Yugoslavia, the only relevant minority were the Albanians. This can be seen in Bebler’s expose (1960, 8, 11, 18ff) and also in some official statements, like the one from the VI Congress of the League of Serbian Communist, highlighting that “around three-quarters of all minority members of Yugoslavia live in the Socialist Republic of Serbia”; […] “special emphasis relating to this topic concerns the regions of Kosovo and Metohija” (Stefanović Reference Stefanović1982, 37) [where the majority of citizens are Albanians—comment added by authors].Footnote 5 The understanding of Albanians as the major Yugoslav minority issue is likewise confirmed by Komac in 2023Footnote 6 declaring that

[w]ithout acknowledging the political stance towards Albanians, we cannot understand the system of minority protection in Yugoslavia, neither its lack of structure, ad-hocness, tailor-made [organisation], and fractured nature

and emphasizing that

Yugoslavia had no uniform approach to different minorities. The federal structures dealt mostly with the issue of Albanians, while states were entitled to define the level of minority protection afforded to other minorities by themselves. That is why you have different approaches to minority protection for Hungarians in Vojvodina, Croatia, and Slovenia; for Italians in Slovenia and Croatia; etc. Finally, it could be said that Yugoslavia created its own system of minority protection where declarative commitments were sometimes far removed from everyday practice, [the country] frequently eschewing its national and international obligations.Footnote 7

The above-mentioned facts and the complexity of Yugoslav–Italian relations partially explain the lack of research focusing on the position of the Italian minority in Yugoslavia from the historical and socioeconomic-cultural point of view, a topic that has been exciting more interest “only” in the last 20 years.Footnote 8

Studying the Italian minority in Yugoslavia and the Yugoslav reaction to its existence can best be explained using Brubaker’s (Reference Brubaker1993, Reference Brubaker1995, Reference Brubaker1996) three-pillar approach to analyzing minorities, which he calls the triadic relational nexus. According to him, the “national question” in Europe is a triangular nexus between “national minority, nationalizing state, and external national homeland” (Brubaker Reference Brubaker1993, 6). In his model, Brubaker (Reference Brubaker1993, 10) underscores the importance of seeing minorities as dynamic. He points out that a “national minority is not something that is given by the facts of ethnic demography, [but] a dynamic political stance.” A minority can therefore be understood as a policy entrepreneur (Mintrom, Reference Mintrom2019), reshaping itself according to its own criteria and with specific demands from the majority. At the same time, the political elite of the state must answer these demands to ensure the coherence of its own state form (Brubaker Reference Brubaker1995, 112–113).Footnote 9 The term nationalizing state refers to the state where a particular minority lives. This state is ethnically heterogenous (whether authorities officially recognize this or not), and a relationship between the majority ethnic group and minority ethnic group(s) is established. The third element of the triadic nexus is the external national homeland, sometimes also called the kin-state. Footnote 10 As Brubaker (Reference Brubaker1995, 117) states, the external national homeland is the state “responsible […] for its ethnic co-nationals who live in other states and possess other citizenships.” In the case of the Italian minority in Yugoslavia after 1954, the components of the triadic nexus would be the following: (1) the minority is the ethnic group of Italians that remained in Yugoslavia after 1954, (2) the nationalizing state is Yugoslavia (after 1991, Slovenia and Croatia), and (3) the external national homeland is Italy.

Brubaker (Reference Brubaker1993, Reference Brubaker1995, Reference Brubaker1996) also highlights another characteristic of his triadic structure—its relational status, or rather “relation between relational fields” (Brubaker Reference Brubaker1995, 118), which moves the entire model from a static to a dynamic one. Precisely this understanding allows us to analyze the reasons and changes in the attitude of the Yugoslav authorities toward the Italian minority in Yugoslavia. Static models could not explain this and would require a case study. But if we analyze Brubaker’s model closely, we can see that it not only allows a case-study analysis but also empowers a longitudinal analysis of the development of the relations between the Yugoslav authorities and the Italian minority in Yugoslavia as well as the determinants and factors that affected it.

Nevertheless, although criticism of Brubaker’s model exists (cf. Chandler Reference Chandler and Cordell1999; Wolczuk Reference Wolczuk2000; Kulyk Reference Kulyk2001; Kuzio Reference Kuzio2001), none has been able to refute it. On the contrary, Smith (Reference Smith2002, 3–16) reinforced it by introducing its fourth component (that is, the international milieu),Footnote 11 turning it from the triadic into a quadratic nexus. Footnote 12 Smith’s intervention in Brubaker’s model set the course for research on minorities for the next 20 years (Tesser Reference Tesser2003; Pettai Reference Pettai2006; Smith Reference Smith2020; Krasniqi Reference Krasniqi2013; Abram Reference Abram2021a).Footnote 13

The suitability of the quadratic nexus model for analyzing Italian-Yugoslav relations is illustrated by Abram (Reference Abram2021a, 18; Abram Reference Abram2021b, 41–60), who uses “the system of international relations” as the fourth component. He points out that the minority issue in Yugoslavia cannot be considered outside “the idea of ‘active coexistence’ on a global level, [since the Yugoslav Communist Party’s 1958] programme underscored the recognition of national minority rights in the development of a new system of international relations” (cf. Haug Reference Haug2012; Udovič Reference Udovič2022). Via facti we agree with Abram (Reference Abram2021a, Reference Abram2021b) that Italian–Yugoslav relations cannot be studied by not including the international milieu and its accompanying events; what is methodologically and epistemologically problematic for us is to equalize the fourth variable (the international environment) with Brubaker’s three, as the fourth variable represents “just” a framework in which Brubaker’s three components are interacting among themselves (cf. the diagram by Pettai Reference Pettai2006). Instead of using the term quadratic nexus, which is somewhat inaccurate when analyzing Italian–Yugoslav relations, we therefore opt for an expanded triadic nexus (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Methodologically and epistemologically upgrading the triadic nexus into an expanded triadic nexus.

Source: Authors illustration.

Based on our research thesis, illustrated in Figure 1, our discussion on the introduction of the BB will focus mainly on an analysis of the expanded triadic nexus, focusing on the vertex of the nationalizing state. We will look at both the domestic and foreign policy reasons for introducing the BB. We will limit ourselves to this based on an analysis of primary sources, which indicate that members of the Yugoslav political elite often emphasized the importance of including minorities in the sociopolitical make-up of the state to additionally legitimize this order while also reducing the significance of nationality and ethnicity, which would in the long run lead to reduced ethnic tension and conflict, the possibility of which could already be felt in the 1960s.Footnote 14

Italian Minority Protection in Yugoslavia: The Application of the Expanded Triadic Nexus

Introduction

Relations between Yugoslavia and ItalyFootnote 15 after the First and Second World War are considered among the most complex in Europe. This can be attributed to three factors: (1) after WWI, having switched sides to the Entente, Italy was given a third of the Slovenian ethnic territory and a large part of Istria, both of which should have been part of Yugoslavia according to their ethnic composition; (2) in 1941, Italy occupied part of Yugoslavia—half of Slovenia and other parts (part of Croatia, today’s Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, etc.)—effectively participating in the partition of Yugoslavia; and (3) after WWII, the Cold War started precisely on the border between Yugoslavia and Italy, starting with the arrival and later forced withdrawal of Yugoslav Partisan forces from Trieste and later with the protracted procedure of determining the border between the two countries, lasting from 1947 to 1975. Only with the Osimo Treaty of 1975Footnote 16 was the Gordian knot finally cut on one of the hotspots with the highest potential for military conflict (Pirjevec, Reference Pirjevec1995; see also Komac, Reference Komac2015a, Reference Komac2015b).

Apart from the geopolitical shifts and changing borders between Yugoslavia and Italy, the relations between the two countries after WWII were further complicated by two other determinants: (a) the ideologically and politically different systems in the two countries and (b) the changed ethnic composition of the border territory, particularly on the Yugoslav side.

With respect to the former, we must note that, with the ascent of Tito and his comrades (Pirjevec, Reference Pirjevec2011a) to power, Yugoslavia became a communist or socialist state and as such was part of the community of states in the sphere of influence of the Soviet Union (until 1948).Footnote 17 On the other side, Italy—partly “administered” by American allied forces—remained a country with a liberal economic and political order. Although historical analyses of Italian-Yugoslav relations often neglect this ideological divide between the two states, we believe that we cannot fully comprehend the state of affairs between Yugoslavia and Italy between 1947 and 1990 without also analyzing their sociopolitical, economic, and cultural relations (cf. Mišić Reference Mišić2013, Reference Mišić2018, Reference Mišić2021, Reference Mišić2022; Portmann and Ruzicic‑Kessler Reference Portmann and Ruzicic-Kessler2014; Bucarelli et al. Reference Bucarelli, Micheletta, Monzali and Riccardi2016; Ruzicic-Kessler Reference Ruzicic-Kessler2018; Kapetanović Reference Kapetanović2022).

But from the perspective of our analysis, the critical factor of the two is the latter—the changed ethnic composition of the newly acquired Yugoslav territory. The composition started changing rapidly right after 1945Footnote 18 and even more drastically after the Paris Peace Treaty was signed in 1947, allowing Italian citizens to “become citizens with full civil and political rights of the State to which the territory is transferred”Footnote 19 or to opt for Italian citizenship within a year.Footnote 20 Of course, the decision was personal, but given the political and ideological constellation in Yugoslavia at the time, the fearmongering about what would happen to Italians if they stayed in Yugoslavia, as well as soft (and less-soft) measures of the Yugoslav authorities that “helped” Italians “choose,” it comes as no surprise that a large number of Italians from the newly acquired Yugoslav territories opted to move to Italy. And this drastically changed the composition of the population in these partsFootnote 21 as well as the attitude of Yugoslav authorities to the Italians who stayed in Yugoslavia.Footnote 22

The fact that Yugoslavia encouraged Italians to move to the other side of the border was not against postwar central Party policies, as confirmed by Komac (Reference Komac2022). He notes that the idea of an ethnically homogenous state was appealing to the Communist Party, and they were using different forms of ethnic engineering to build such a state including relocations, deportations of ethnic minorities, and international treaties. He adds the importance of remembering that Yugoslavia settled agreements with Eastern bloc countries including Hungary, Poland, Ukraine, and Czechoslovakia regarding deporting minority members. This finding clearly shows that Yugoslavia initially sought to create a nationally homogenous state (nationalizing state), where it would be easier to introduce a socialist system. The authorities were aware of the pitfalls that befell the Kingdom of Yugoslavia before the war precisely because of national(ist) strife, which not only caused instability in governance but also culminated in a fratricidal war between 1941 and 1945. In such a frame of mind, there was hardly room for the Italian population in Yugoslavia.

Pirjevec (Reference Pirjevec2011b) makes an important observation in terms of the nationalizing state and minority triadic components: for Slovenians (Yugoslavia), Koper (and the entire area of what later became the District of Koper, which is the focus our research) “fell from the sky” as a gift no one expected. Pirjevec says Trieste was the only symbolically important access point to the sea for Slovenians, and Koper was beyond the Slovenian frame of mind. When Tito saw that he could not get Trieste—according to Pirjevec, he already knew this from his talks with Churchill in Naples in 1944—he simply took Koper as better than nothing. Koper was therefore second best after Slovenians could not get their first choice.Footnote 23 This thesis by Pirjevec provides some sense to the different approaches in encouraging the Italian population to opt for Italy after 1947. In any case, the exodus stopped in 1951, but the world had already changed dramatically by then.

After splitting from the Cominform in 1948, Yugoslavia sought partnerships with Western Allies. The latter knew that Tito needed money for survival, so they tried to pressure Yugoslavia to reach a solution for the never realized Free Territory of Trieste (FTT). The apex of the first wave of the Cold War, the Korean War, and above all the inability of the United Nations to bring the FTT to life due to the Cold War blockade led to the Allied decision in 1952 to leave the administration of the FTT’s Zone A to Italy. Tito responded with vitriol, explaining at an event near Nova Gorica that he would consider the move as a declaration of war. The crisis escalated, but so did the economic situation in Yugoslavia, leading it to soften its stance somewhat and accept a compromise that made neither Italy nor Yugoslavia particularly happy. Zone A of the FTT was given to Italy and Zone B to Yugoslavia. A line was drawn between the two zones, which Italians regarded as provisional (linea di demarcazione), whereas Yugoslavs understood it as a regular border between the two states. This different interpretation persisted for another 20 years, until the signing of the Osimo Treaty in 1975.

In the initial post-WWII period (1945–1954), the Italian minority in Yugoslavia found itself in dire straits. Although the Constitution of the Federative People’s Republic of Yugoslavia guaranteed minorities the right to “the free use of their own language,”Footnote 24 this specifically also being reaffirmed for Italians by Articles 4 and 7 of the Permanent Statute of the Free Territory of Trieste, Abram (Reference Abram2018) found that between 1947 and 1955 visible signs of the presence of the Italian population on the newly acquired Yugoslav territory were being erased from public spaces.Footnote 25 This was also the case for bilingualism and activities in other areas (Abram, Reference Abram2021a).

After concluding the Memorandum of Understanding regarding the Free Territory of Trieste (MoU) in 1954 and a gradual rapprochement between Yugoslavia and Italy, the situation also changed for the Italian minority in Yugoslavia. Their right to use their own language in private and public spaces was defined in Point 5 of Annex II to the MoU. This point also intervened notably into public space, stipulating that public signs in bilingual areas must be in both languages. In this case—probably due to the temporary resolution of relations with Italy, the rise of new initiatives around the world (the Non-Aligned Movement), the thawing of relations with the Soviet Union (the Belgrade and Moscow Declarations, 1955/1956)—this written commitment encouraged Yugoslav authorities to grant the Italian minority more rights also in the public space (Abram Reference Abram2018, 2021a; Orlić Reference Orlić2019). We believe the major contributor to the relaxation of attitudes toward the Italian population in the area was Yugoslavia’s association with postcolonial states. If Yugoslavia wanted to assert itself as the leader of the newly emerging Non-Aligned Movement, it had to lead by example, showing it would defend their basic rights and that it differed from Western and Eastern regimes.

But of course, even the protection of minorities, to which Yugoslavia committed itself, did not go as smoothly as it should have. The first issue, relevant for the entire time from 1955 to 1990, is the different status and position of the Italian minority relative to other minorities in Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia was much more generous toward this minority than it was toward others (e.g., the Hungarian one), which was probably because Italy was a Western country and a member of the European Economic Community. The second—and previously mentioned—issue was the discrepancy between commitments and practice, also in the case of the Italian minority. As an illustration of this, the Findings, Positions and Proposals of the Local Conference of the Koper branch of the Socialist Alliance of the Working People from 1988 contains the following quote: “The self-governance acts of united labour organisations should be translated, but they are mostly not”, also wondering “whether the bilingual services were on an appropriate level.”Footnote 26 In other words, 30 years after introducing measures guaranteeing full bilingualism, the dilemmas faced by the Italian minority were more or less the same. The third observation within the Yugoslav–Italian expanded triadic nexus are the differences at the local level. Although Italy (the external national homeland) insisted that the Italian minority in Yugoslavia was indivisible,Footnote 27 Yugoslavia permitted its republics to deal with the concrete benefits of minorities. This led to the Italian minority in Slovenia and Croatia being protected differently, as confirmed by the Minutes (Zapisnik) from 1965 where the Slovenian political leaders conditioned the protection of the Italian minority on its existence, whereas the Croatian side conditioned it on a specific number of its members.Footnote 28

BB in the District of Koper as an Element of the Nationalizing State: The Fourth Component

The new path that Yugoslavia started pursuing in the second half of the 1950s brought two major shifts: internally, the political elites started a gradual liberalization of the economy (although still within the framework of the socialist political and economic system); in the area of foreign policy, Yugoslavia, with its experience of being tied strongly to the East until 1948 and to the West between 1948 and 1955, sought a third way, which materialized in 1961 with the establishment of the Non-Aligned Movement. In this domestic and foreign policy context of thawing, Yugoslavia also adopted a friendlier policy toward the “foreign” minorities present on its territory. In the case of the Italian minority, this was reflected in its renewed physical visibility (e.g., reinstallment of bilingual street signs, bilingualism in official proceedings; Abram, Reference Abram2021a) as well as in activities of the political elites to encourage its “political visibility.”Footnote 29 Justifications for why Yugoslavia should do this were diverse, ranging from no official justification and the relevant officials simply assuming these rights of the Italian minority as a factFootnote 30 to the reasoning that respecting the rights of minorities in Yugoslavia by allowing them to use their own language and reinstating visible bilingualism would set an example for other countries where Yugoslavia had its own minorities.Footnote 31

Foreign Policy Justifications for Introducing the BB in the District of Koper

When analyzing the foreign policy factors behind the introduction of the BB, we cannot overlook the already mentioned Paris Peace Treaty between Yugoslavia and Italy (1947) and the MoU (1954), both of which defined the language rights of Italians who decided to stay in Yugoslavia. The fact that Yugoslavia did not wish to open new fronts after having invested a lot of effort into establishing the MoU with Italy is evident from a memo of the Ethnic Affairs Commission sent to the Yugoslav Communist Party’s Central Committee (Ethnic Minorities Commission) of July 3, 1959, where the state authorities provide the federal level with a detailed list of measures Slovenia took to insure the implementation of the MoU.Footnote 32 A mixed Yugoslav–Italian commission for coordinating the implementation of the MoU met the same year. In the preparations for this meeting, the federal authorities inquired about the changing of the names of minority members in the District of Koper, a question that the Italian side was certain to pose. The answer from the District of Koper authorities was “[T]o our knowledge, there were numerous cases [of making the surnames and first names Yugoslav—comment added] on the Croatian side, but not many in our district.”Footnote 33

Yugoslavia’s intention to send a foreign policy message to its neighbors by granting a certain level of protection to minorities on its territory is also confirmed by the intervention made by Mitja Ribičič, a member of the Executive Council (government) of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia, when passing the Act on Bilingual Schools and Schools with the Language of National Minorities as the Language of Instruction in the People’s Republic of Slovenia. Ribičič highlighted the political significance of the document, which he said was important “both at the level of Yugoslavia and in the framework of relations with neighbouring countries, specifically Hungary, Austria and Italy.” He went on to explain that education in the District of Koper remained monolingual (with separate Slovenian and Italian schools) “due to certain international commitments” (i.e., the MoU).Footnote 34 The same spirit is reflected in subsequent minutes recorded by district, state, and federal bodies; however, international commitments as set down in the MoU are brought up less and less frequently and the importance of the minority as an element of building the sociopolitical system of Yugoslavia is mentioned more and more. In general, we can say that the foreign policy component was much more important in the first decade after signing the MoU but later sunk into the background, failing to reemerge even during the “second Trieste crisis” in the mid-1970s.

To summarize, by looking at the link between minority protection in Yugoslavia and international commitments and relations with neighboring states, we can see that the idea of minority protection as an instrument of Yugoslav diplomacy mainly came in two forms: (1) pacta sunt servanda, marked by temporarily closing open issues with Italy and a boost in economic cooperation between the countries, and (2) Yugoslav minority policy as an example for neighboring states (Italy, Austria, and Hungary). The latter was emphasized several times in meetings of the Commission on Minorities of the SZDL (Socialist Alliance of the Working People) and other SZDL fora. Yugoslav policy toward minorities was therefore not supposed to be based on “counting minority members” or on the attitude of “neighbouring countries towards Yugoslav minorities.”Footnote 35

Domestic Policy Justifications for Introducing the BB in the District of Koper

The question that the Communist Party elites kept encountering was how to encourage individuals to implement this new, friendlier policy toward minorities in their everyday contact. Discussions went in different directions—from taking the protection of the Italian minority as a given fact that simply must be observed to explanations that people need to be encouraged to accept this new minority protection policy as something positive. The state invented an instrument, known as the BB, precisely for this purpose. The first mention of this planned instrument, directed at ensuring greater minority protection with respect to the use of their language, was in 1959. The minutes from the 25th session of Slovenian Communist Party’s District Committee of Koper state that a “regulation is expected to be passed in the autumn granting a stimulation/special bonus to officials who prove they can work in both languages.”Footnote 36 The state decided to adopt a policy of encouraging the protection of the Italian minority also by rewarding individuals who can work with people in the Italian language. It only took a few months for the bonus to be de facto introduced.

March 1960 brought a new Decree on the Job Classification in the Administrative Bodies of the District People’s Committee of Koper,Footnote 37which already required applicants for specific positions to speak Italian, but this decree did not yet mention any financial reward for this skill. This was introduced a year later in the Decree on a Special Bonus for Employees who also use Italian in Official Business,Footnote 38 granting officials also using Italian a “special bonus of up to 5,000 dinars a month.”Footnote 39 Records show that the same policy was also introduced for members of the Hungarian minority, the only difference being that the local communities with the Hungarian minority kept warning the state authorities that they were short on funds for the BB,Footnote 40 whereas there were no such financial constraints in the District of Koper.

Symbolically, the position of the Italian minority improved with the adoption of the Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia (Ustava Socialistične republike Slovenije, 1963), which stated in Article 77 that, on territories with the two minorities, “the Italian and Hungarian languages shall be equal to the Slovenian language in public and social life. The manner of exercising the rights of members of the Italian or Hungarian nationality shall be determined by law and municipal statutes.” The adoption of state constitutions thus transferred the full burden of implementing minority rights from the federal to the state/local level. The dilemma of the relation between the nationalizing state and the minority was therefore no longer officially in the domain of the federation but rather in the hands of its constituent republics and local entities. This led to problems both in Italy (the external national homeland), which insisted on equal protection of both parts of its minority as well as between the Italian communities in Slovenia and Croatia, where the latter constantly complained that protection in Slovenia was better.Footnote 41

An analysis of many other minutes taken by decision-making bodies at the state and District of Koper levels shows that the BB established itself as an essential instrument for ensuring active bilingualism and protecting the Italian minority in the District of Koper. After 1964, discussions only revolved around how this bonus should be granted:Footnote 42 (a) whether it should be tied to the individual or the individual’s post,Footnote 43 (b) whether it should be fixed or variable (as a combination of a fixed bonus and an additional super-bonus),Footnote 44 (c) how to devise uniform criteria for granting the BB,Footnote 45 etc. The need for the bonus and its justification were no longer up for discussion. But there were debates on the broader understanding of bilingualism and the position of the Italian minority in the Yugoslav sociopolitical system.

Archival sources record one of the first such discussions in a meeting of the ZKS Central Committee’s Commission for Minority Issues in 1959, where Vlado Majhen explained in his expose that the Communist Party should set an example of inclusion of minorities in the sociopolitical life of Yugoslavia. He went on to state that the Communist Party should “involve [young] members of national minorities in [local] political leaderships.”Footnote 46 A conclusion that the socialist system is more successful in resolving minority issues than capitalist states was made at the session of the Main Board of the SZDL of Slovenia on February3, 1967.Footnote 47 This position is reiterated a decade later in a document of the Slovenian Assembly on the realization of special rights of the Italian and Hungarian minorities,Footnote 48 whose introduction includes the following highlights:Footnote 49

  1. (1) our consideration of the position and development of nationalities [in Yugoslavia, and Slovenia] is original; it derives from the special, original social foundations of our socialist self-governing society;

  2. (2) we have always understood the national question also as a class question;

  3. (3) members of the nationalities living in [Yugoslavia] are our political wealth, our advantage; and

  4. (4) replacing the term minority with nationality is the political expression of qualitative change; etc.

This logic continues throughout the document, which is a thorough analysis of the situation regarding the Italian and Hungarian minorities in Slovenia.

All three cases—Majhen’s intervention, conclusions of the SZDL Main Board, and the Assembly’s analysis—show that Yugoslav political leaders viewed minorities as a sociopolitical issue, not a national one, meaning that minorities in Yugoslavia could be a building block of the new, socialist sociopolitical order, but they needed proper encouragement for that. Therefore, neither the federal nor the state political leaders were against greater protection of minorities on the state and local levels. On the contrary, declaratively they even supported a higher level of protection, which—according to Majhen (1959)—should not be based on reciprocity (i.e., how neighboring countries protect the Slovenian or Croatian minority) but rather on “reverse reciprocity,” meaning that Yugoslavia should give the minorities on its territory more to set an example.

Discussion and Conclusion

Our paper sought to establish why Yugoslav (and by extension the Slovenian) authorities introduced the BB as an instrument for protecting the Italian minority in the District of Koper. We built the analysis on our own model of an expanded triadic nexus, which combines the influences of the needs of the Italian minority in Yugoslavia, the characteristics of the nationalizing state (Yugoslavia), and the external national homeland (Italy), all of which is set in the frame of the fourth component, the influence of norms and the actors’ activities in the international community. The analysis brought the following conclusions:

  1. (1) For the Yugoslav leadership (as the nationalizing state), the only relevant minority whose policies should be set out at the federal level were the Albanians; other minorities were protected usually at the level of the republics, districts, or local communities, (only) if the international agreements and treaties required so. Even in such cases, the protection of minorities was mainly left to the state (republic) level and to local communities.

  2. (2) Applying the first conclusion to the case of the Italian minority in Yugoslavia it is possible to say that the Italian minority was not a relevant actor in the Yugoslav system of minority protection, first, because its members who remained in Yugoslavia were looked upon with suspicion by Italy (sometimes they were called communists or untrue Italians and sell-outsFootnote 50 and, second, because it was not regarded as a relevant actor by either the federal or the state and local authorities. Consequently, it was pushed to the sidelines, assuming a sort of voluntary submission and pragmatism, which Lusa (Reference Lusa2021) illustrates with the words “Dovemo parlar con tutti, dovemo domandarghe soldi a tutti e dovemo cior soldi de tutti.”Footnote 51

  3. (3) Italy (as an external national homeland) played a marginal role in the process of protecting the Italian minority in Yugoslavia. Although the consulate in Koper sometimes tried to influence the local authorities to get certain things moving, the available archival sources allow us to conclude that Italy was not too interested in the conditions of the Italian minority in Yugoslavia. The reason for this may lie in the MoU being a two-way treaty. If Italy showed the willingness to demand that Yugoslavia accomplish duties stemming from international treaties, this would surely spur Yugoslavia to also demand more rights for the Slovenian minority in Italy.

  4. (4) What kind of influence did the fourth element, the international framework, have on the situation faced by the Italian minority in Yugoslavia? Apart from the declarative level, there was none. The Italian minority in Yugoslavia “was forgotten” as soon as the MoU was signed, as the international community did not really address its rights more than strictly necessary. Because Yugoslavia declaratively (in some cases also in practice) and formally took care of the Italian minority on its territory, it did not represent an issue the great powers felt inclined to deal with at the hight of the Cold War.

We can consequently justly question Yugoslavia’s motives for introducing the BB. The answer is clear: mainly out of domestic political need or necessity. The BB was an instrument the Yugoslav authorities (i.e., the Communist Party) invented to include the Italian minority more into the building of the new sociopolitical order. In this, the BB had a dual role. For the majority population, it was a reward for using the Italian language. And for the minority, the influence of the BB—the visible bilingualism and possibility of using their own language in official dealings with state institutions—created the impression that the regime looked favorably on them, as they could live out their national identity within the socialist system. In this sense, the BB was a mirage of sorts that kept both sides happy—the “service provider” (majority population) and the “service seeker” (minority members). However, neither side was aware that the BB primarily helped the political elite in building the new sociopolitical order, where the national question was only one of the basic components of the class struggle (Bačič Reference Bačič and Megušar–Borut1977, 458–469) and therefore less and less important until it would become completely obsolete once the society was fully reformed. Additional proof of this can be found in the introduction of the concept of nations and nationalities (ethnic minorities), which Yugoslavia started using in the late 1960s and which took hold after a new Constitution was adopted in 1974.Footnote 52 With the expansion from constitutive nations of Yugoslavia to nations and nationalities of Yugoslavia, the authorities diluted the significance of classical nationhood and started replacing it with workers’ self-governance. In this system, your national or ethnic identity was increasingly irrelevant, and it was much more important who or what you were in terms of ideological affiliation.

To conclude, the introduction of the BB has little to do with the expanded triadic nexus. In fact, it even has almost nothing to do with the protection of the Italian and Hungarian minorities in Slovenia (apart from its indirect effects). But it has a lot to do with the ideological social constellation and the argumentation of Yugoslav political elites that nations are an outdated 19th century concept, outgrown by both mankind and the socialist system. The BB was therefore not born out of altruism, but rather based on selfish interests of the political elites, which—under the guise of minority protection—mainly wanted to reinforce and protect their own position.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank professor Miran Komac, the editors, and the two anonymous reviewers for their substantive contribution to the quality of the article.

Financial support

This work was supported by two research programmes (Slovenia and Its Actors in International Relations and European Integrations, P5-0177, and Ethnic and Minority Studies and the Slovene Studies, P5-0081) and by the research projects (Institutional Bilingualism in the Ethnically Mixed Areas in Slovenia: Evaluation of Bilingualism Bonus Programme, J6-9373, and Political Participation of National Minorities and Persons Belonging to Them: Comparative Study of Political Participation of Slovene Communities in the Neighboring Countries of the Republic of Slovenia, J5-3117), all financed by the Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency (ARIS).

Disclosure

None.

Footnotes

1 Following the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding [MoU] regarding the Free Territory of Trieste between Italy and Yugoslavia in London in 1954, which effectively abolished the Free Territory of Trieste and drew the border between Yugoslavia and Italy, the Koper, Izola, and Piran municipalities came under the administration of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia (then part of Yugoslavia) (Memorandum of Understanding regarding the Free Territory of Trieste, October 5, 1954, U.N.T.S. 235). From 1991, the three municipalities (Ankaran becoming an independent municipality later) encompass the part of Slovenia where segments of an Italian minority continue to live and work.

2 Komisija za manjšinska vprašanja pri CK ZKS, 1959, Zapisnik Komisije za manjšinska vprašanja pri CK ZKS z dne 5. junij 1959, Arhiv Slovenije 1589-III (825), 2–5.

3 Contrary to “national.”

4 Aleš Bebler—Primož was a partisan, diplomat, and a high-ranking politician in post-WWII Yugoslavia. He was advisor to Edvard Kardelj (the chief ideologist and No. 2 in Yugoslavia), the permanent representative of Yugoslavia in the United Nations (1950–1952), and the ambassador to France and Indonesia, to name a few of his functions.

5 A negative attitude toward Albanians in Kosovo and Metohija can also be found in Bebler’s expose on p. 4 where he writes (with a sublimely negative tone): “Today, there are 750 thousand Shiptars, 250 thousand more than 20 years ago, what can be attributed to the sharp growth of this population.”

6 Komac, Miran. 2023. Interview by author regarding the minority protection in Yugoslavia. Ljubljana and via email, February 7, and March 17, 2023.

7 Yugoslavia actively participated in the debate surrounding the formulation of the Helsinki Final Act; however, due to the Brezhnev doctrine, it was most concerned with Principles I to VI (Principle I: Sovereign equality, respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty; Principle II: Refraining from the threat or use of force; Principle III: Inviolability of frontiers; Principle IV: Territorial integrity of States; Principle V: Peaceful settlement of disputes; Principle VI: Non-intervention in internal affairs), and not VII (Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief), which were already accomplished for Yugoslavia (Helsinki Final Act, 1975, https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/5/c/39501.pdf. [Accessed May 30, 2021]; see also Rizman, Reference Rizman1979). The irrelevance of Principle VII for/in Yugoslavia was also commented on by the U.S. Helsinki Watch Committee in 1986. On p. 1, it states that “[m]ost troubling for Yugoslavia’s multinational society is severe ethnic and religious discrimination.” U.S. Helsinki Watch Committee. 1986. Violations of the Helsinki Accords: Yugoslavia. A Report Prepared for the Helsinki Review Conference. Vienna: Helsinki Watch. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 1948. A/RES/2017 (III).

8 For more on the complex relations between the two states in the past and today and/or the Italian minority in (former) Yugoslavia compare a few recent studies such as Abram (Reference Abram2018, 2021a, 2021b), Bajc (Reference Bajc2014, Reference Bajc2017), Bajc and Matjašič Friš (Reference Bajc and Friš2019), Bucarelli et al. (Reference Bucarelli, Micheletta, Monzali and Riccardi2016), Dato (Reference Dato2010), Furioso Cenci (Reference Furioso Cenci2023), Godeša (Reference Godeša2014), Grgič and Popič (Reference Grgič2023), Hrobat Virloget (Reference Hrobat Virloget2019, Reference Hrobat Virloget2021, Reference Hrobat Virloget2023), Jurić Pahor (Reference Jurić Pahor2012, Reference Jurić Pahor2018), Klabjan (Reference Klabjan2011), Lampe (Reference Lampe2018, Reference Lampe2019, Reference Lampe2023), Lenassi and Paolucci (Reference Lenassi and Paolucci2020), Mišić (Reference Mišić2013, Reference Mišić2018, Reference Mišić2021, Reference Mišić2022), Mezgec (Reference Mezgec2023), Montini and Mišić (Reference Montini Tenca and Mišić2017), Orlić (Reference Orlić2015, Reference Orlić2019), Pelikan (Reference Pelikan2022), Pirjevec (Reference Pirjevec2015, Reference Pirjevec2016), Poropat Jeletić (Reference Poropat Jeletić2017), Pupo (Reference Pupo2005, Reference Pupo2012), Purini (Reference Purini2012), Ramšak (Reference Ramšak2016), Reglia (Reference Reglia2012, Reference Reglia2016), Režek (Reference Režek2016), Tomaselli, Engl, and Lupinc (Reference Tomaselli, Engl and Lupinc2021), Umer Kljun (Reference Umer Kljun2015), Zaccaria (Reference Zaccaria2019), and Žitko (Reference Žitko2015, Reference Žitko2023).

9 Kymlicka (Reference Kymlicka2000, 187–188) understands minorities much more statically as ethnic “groups that formed complete and functioning societies in their historic homeland prior to being incorporated into a larger state.”

10 Kemp (Reference Kemp and Ieda2006, 112) explains the difference between the kin-state and the nationalizing state as follows: “The idea of the kin-state is based on the rather nineteenth century premise that nations are bonded by ties of ethnic kinship. This notion of blood and belonging presupposes a primordial, almost tribal, linkage that, when given a political expression, provides argumentation—if not legal justification—for leaders and defenders of the nation to take action on behalf of all those linked by kinship. […] In promoting a nation-based agenda, a kin-state may behave like a nationalising state, but on a grander scale. Whereas the nationalising state’s ambitions are confined to its own borders, a kin-state may seek to protect ‘co-nationals’ (on the basis of kinship rather than citizenship) wherever they live (usually in a neighbouring state).” For more on the issue of kin-state in Southeast Europe, see Stjepanovic (Reference Stjepanovic2015).

11 In his case, the fourth component was Euro-Atlantic integration.

12 Germane (Reference Germane2013, 29), for example, adds a fifth element to the quadratic nexus—the relational interplay among different national minorities in the same state.

13 Interestingly, the analysis of German–Romanian relations by Cercel (Reference Cercel2017) uses the triadic nexus in the first part of the analysis but later expands it into the quadratic nexus.

14 Abram (Reference Abram2021a, 19) argues that tendencies toward Yugoslavism, or building a uniform Yugoslav nation, could be seen as early as the late 1950s. We are skeptical about this and believe the Communist Party leaders abandoned the idea once it became clear that the constitutive nations of Yugoslavia could not be merged, replacing the idea with a relativization of the importance of nations and ethnic identity in the new, socialist sociopolitical order. Therefore, this is not a case of abandoning but downplaying the role of national and ethnic identity in relation to the sociopolitical order (which, of course, was international).

15 The terms Yugoslavia, Italy, and Slovenia are used generically regardless of the changes in their political systems.

16 Osimo Treaty, 1975, U.N.T.S. 1466.

17 Some fragments of Soviet influence also remained relevant until the end of Yugoslavia in 1991. The Yugoslav Army in 1990/1991 waited for a signal from Moscow to act against the activities of the Slovenian and Croatian leadership. However, despite several calls from Belgrade, Moscow did not react. The Yugoslav Army then chose to act on its own accord, starting the war in Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina.

18 For historical clarity, we must briefly contextualize the events in the territories of Yugoslavia and Italy in the 20th century. After WWI, Italy received parts of what were then Austrian territories, inhabited by mostly Slovenians. According to some estimates, around one-third of Slovenians remained outside their “national country.” In the ensuing years, fascism in Italy rose to power, introducing harsh measures against people speaking Slovenian (changing names on graves, changing names at birth, persecuting people speaking Slovenian in churches, teaching in Slovenian, and killing some of them because they spoke Slovenian). This period is first and foremost marked by TIGR (Trst–Istra–Gorica–Reka), an organization that fought for the freedom of Slovenians oppressed by fascism, and the two Trieste processes (I and the II) against Slovenian compatriots. This was followed by WWII. In the last days of the war, Tito and his comrades passing through Istria went to Trieste and entered the city on May 1, 1945. Nevertheless, the Yugoslav army members committed atrocities, killing civilians, and throwing them in sinkholes known as foibe. In 2020, the presidents of Slovenia and Italy made a symbolic gesture of peace by visiting the Bazoviška fojba. For more on foibe, see Pirjevec et al. (Reference Pirjevec, Dukovski, Troha, Bajc and Franzinetti2012).

19 Treaty of Peace with Italy [Paris Peace Treaty], 1947, U.N.T.S. 49 and 50, article 19, ¶ 1.

20 Paris Peace Treaty, Article 19, ¶ 2.

21 According to a 1910 census, the greater area of present-day Slovenian coastal municipalities (Koper, Izola, and Piran) had a population of 24,669 Slovenians and 31,706 Italians (Troha, Reference Troha2000, 205). Official post-1945 data show the following picture: whereas 18,324 Italians (52.7% of the population) and 16,347 Slovenians lived in the area in 1945, the ethnic composition had changed completely by 1956, with 34,306 Slovenians and 3,073 Italians (7.6%) living in this area. In 1959, the number of Italians living there is reported to have decreased further to just 2,475 (Komac, Reference Komac2022).

22 Komac (Reference Komac2022) points out that the approaches in the Slovenian and Croatian parts of Zone B of the Free Territory of Trieste were completely different. While authorities in the Slovenian part allegedly made efforts for as many Italians as possible to move to Italy, the Croatian part of Zone B was supposedly more reserved to “encouraging” the Italian population to leave, stating economic reasons. A document of the Federal Secretariate for Foreign Affairs supports this line of thought, given by the Croatian administrators of Zone B, arguing that “those who had compromised themselves at the time of Fascism and during the war have already left.” Arhiv ZSZZ, 1955, Dokument št. 18075, Belgrade, p. 14.

23 Pirjevec (Reference Pirjevec2011b) also points out that Tito insisted on the 9th Corps marching into Trieste to avoid resentment from Slovenians, who expected Trieste to be their window into the world.

24 Constitution of the Federative People’s Republic of Yugoslavia, 1946, Chapter 3, Article 13, https://www.worldstatesmen.org/Yugoslavia_1946.txt. (Accessed May 30, 2021).

25 Abram (Reference Abram2018) analyzes this on the case of Rijeka.

26 Občinska konferenca SZDL Koper, 1988, Ugotovitve, stališča in predlogi Občinske konference SZDL Koper o uresničevanju pravic pripadnikov italijanske narodnosti v Občini Koper, št. 025/33-7, z dne 27. oktober 1988, at 2, Arhiv Slovenije 537-244 (2599).

27 This caused some trouble for Slovenia and Croatia in relations with Italy after the break-up of Yugoslavia.

28 Zapisnik o razgovorih s predstavniki medobčinskih komisij za manjšinska vprašanja v Kopru in predstavniki Unije Italijanov za Istro in Reko z dne 29. 3. 1965.

29 Okrajni komite ZKS Koper, Zapisnik 25, seje sekretariata Okrajnega komiteja ZKS Koper, ki je bila 24. aprila 1959, Arhiv Slovenije 1589-III (872).

30 Okrajni komite ZKS Koper, Zapisnik 25, 1959.

31 Okrajni komite ZKS Koper, Zapisnik 25, 1959, 3.

32 Zapisnik Komisije za manjšinska vprašanja pri CK ZKS, 2.

33 Sekretariat Okrajnega komiteja ZKS Koper, Poročilo 34, seje Sekretariata Okrajnega komiteja ZKS Koper z dne 18. septembra 1959, at 3, Arhiv Slovenije 1589-III (881).

34 Izvršni odbor Glavnega odbora SZDL, Zapisnik 6, seje Izvršnega odbora Glavnega odbora SZDL z dne 1. marca 1962, Arhiv Slovenije 537 (29).

35 Komisija za manjšinska in izseljenska vprašanja ter mednarodne zveze, 1964, O manjšinah in narodnostno mešanih območjih v SR Sloveniji, at 15, Arhiv Slovenije 537-244 (270).

36 Okrajni komite ZKS Koper, Zapisnik 25, 5.

37 Odlok o sistematizaciji delovnih mest v upravnih organih Okrajnega ljudskega odbora Koper—Odlok št. 10, Uradni vestnik okraja Koper 6/1960.

38 Odlok o posebnem dodatku za uslužbence, ki v uradnem poslovanju uporabljajo tudi italijanski jezik, Uradni vestnik okraja Koper 11/1961.

39 To give a better idea of this value, the same document states on p. 147 that the price of 1 kg of bread is 80 dinars. For 5,000 dinars, one could therefore get 62.5 kg of bread. In today’s terms, if 1 kg of bread costs about EUR 2, this would equate to EUR 125.

40 Skupščina občine Lendava, 1977, Zahteva za takojšno dodelitev sredstev za dvojezično poslovanje, Dokument št. 402-27/76-01, Arhiv Slovenije 537-331 (2630).

41 Zapisnik o razgovorih s predstavniki medobčinskih komisij za manjšinska vprašanja v Kopru in predstavniki Unije Italijanov za Istro in Reko, 1965.

42 Izvršni odbor Glavnega odbora SZDL, Zapisnik 6, 1962, point 5 of the justification.

43 Zakon o sistemu državne uprave in o izvršnem svetu Skupščine SR Slovenije ter o Republiških upravnih organih, 1979, Uradni list SRS 24/1979.

44 Urad za narodnosti, 1985, Osebni dohodek in dodatek na osebni dohodek za znanje in uporabo jezika italijanske oz. madžarske narodnosti […], Arhiv Slovenije 2046-47.

45 Enotni kriteriji za zagotavljanje sredstev za dvojezične dodatke delavcev v pravosodnih organih na narodnostno mešanem območju, 1989, Arhiv Slovenije 2046–48; Urad za narodnosti. 1985.

46 Komisija za narodnostna vprašanja, 1959, Dopis (Komisija za narodne manjine CK ZKJ) z dne 3. julij 1959, 2–5, Arhiv Slovenije 1589-III (815).

47 Izvršni odbor Glavnega odbora SZDL Slovenije, 1967, Zapisnik 13, seje Izvršnega odbora Glavnega odbora SZDL Slovenije z dne 3, februarja 1967, Arhiv Slovenije 537 (35).

48 Skupščina Socialistične republike Slovenije, Informacija o uresničevanju posebnih pravic pripadnikov italijanske in madžarske narodnosti v SRS z dne 20. 12. 1976, 2–3, Arhiv Slovenije 537 (104).

49 Selected points from the document that are relevant to our topic.

50 Udovič, Boštjan. 1996. “Discussion with Alda, Dančka and Mother about Slovenians Fleeing across the Border.” Notes according to memory. Sečovlje.

51 “We must speak with everyone [politicians in Yugoslavia/Slovenia], we must demand money from everyone [in Yugoslavia/Slovenia], and we must take money from anyone.” The original statement is written in the Istroveneto (dialect of Istria and Veneto).

52 Ustava Socialistične republike Slovenije, 1974, Ljubljana.

References

References

Abram, Marco. 2018. “Integrating Rijeka into Socialist Yugoslavia: The Politics of National Identity and the New City’s Image (1947–1955).” Nationalities Papers 46 (1): 6985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abram, Marco. 2021a. “Socialist Yugoslavism and National Minorities in a Contested Borderland: Rijeka 1953–1961.” Europe—Asia Studies 74 (6): 897918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abram, Marco. 2021b. Le communità italiane nella crisi (post-)jugoslava: Un approccio esplorativo al Triadic nexus. In OBC TransEuropa et al., Le communità italiane nei Balcani: storia recente e nuove traiettorie, 4179. Roma: Ministero degli affari esteri.Google Scholar
Arhiv ZSZZ. 1955. Dokument št. 18075. Belgrade: Arhiv ZSZZ.Google Scholar
Bačič, Geza. 1977. Skupno zasedanje Zbora združenega dela, Zbora občin in Družbenopolitičnega zbora. Magnetogram. In Sejni zapiski – seje 1. IV. do 31 . V. 1977, edited by Megušar–Borut, Milan, 458459. Ljubljana: Skupščina SR Slovenije.Google Scholar
Bajc, Gorazd. 2014. “Dietro le quinte della visita di Tito a Roma nel 1971: il contesto locale e internazionale letto dalla diplomazia britannica.” Annales—Series Historia et Sociologia 24 (4): 713732.Google Scholar
Bajc, Gorazd. 2017. “Dieci mesi che sconvolsero la Venezia Giulia. Il memorandum di Londra 1915: Questioni storiografiche e dettagli terminologici.” Acta Histriae 25 (4): 825850.Google Scholar
Bajc, Gorazd, and Friš, Mateja Matjašič. 2019. “Prednosti Italije pri zasedbi Julijske krajine ob koncu prve svetovne vojne.” Acta Histriae 27 (3): 513532.Google Scholar
Bebler, Aleš. 1960. Narodnostne manjšine v Jugoslaviji. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba.Google Scholar
Brubaker, Rogers. 1993. National Minorities, Nationalizing States, and External National Homelands in the New Europe. Notes toward a Relational Analysis. Springer: Reihe Politikwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Brubaker, Rogers. 1995. “National Minorities, Nationalizing States, and External National Homelands in the New Europe.” Daedalus 124 (2): 107132.Google Scholar
Brubaker, Rogers. 1996. Nationalism Reframed. Nationhood and the National Question in the New Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucarelli, Massimo, Micheletta, Luca, Monzali, Luciano, and Riccardi, Luca (eds.). 2016. Italy and Tito’s Yugoslavia in the Age of International Détente. Bruxelles: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cercel, Cristian. 2017. “Postwar (West) German–Romanian Relations: Expanding Brubaker’s Analytic Triad.” Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 23 (3): 297317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandler, David. 1999. The OSCE and the Internationalisation of National Minority Rights. In Ethnicity and Democratisation in the New Europe, edited by Cordell, Karl, 6176. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dato, Gaetano. 2010. “Le celebrazioni per gli eroi di Bazovica (1945–1948): alcuni risultati di una ricerca in corso.” Acta Histriae 18 (3): 471498.Google Scholar
Evas, Jeremy, and Cunliffe, Daniel. 2016. Behavioral Economics and Minority Language e-Services: The Case of Welsh. In Sociolinguistics in Wales, edited by Durham, Mercedes and Morris, Jonathan, 6191. Baginstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frey, Bruno S. 1997. Not Just for The Money: An Economic Theory of Personal Motivation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Furioso Cenci, Cecilia. 2023. “Arrivare troppo tardi: oralità perdute (e ritrovate) tra Italia e Slovenia.” Acta Histriae 18 (3): 411420.Google Scholar
Gazzola, Michele. 2016. “Programmazione e controllo della ‘politica del plurilinguismo’ nell’amministrazione federale svizzera.” Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata 45 (3): 479497.Google Scholar
Gazzola, Michele, and Grin, François. 2017. Comparative language policy and evaluation: Concepts, indicators and implications for translation policy. In Translation and Public Policy: Interdisciplinary Perspectives and Case Studies, edited by Meylaerts, Reine and Nuñez, Gabriel González, 83112. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazzola, Michele, Grin, François, Moring, Tom, and Häggmann, Johan. 2016. “The EU’s Financial Support for Regional or Minority Languages: A Historical Assessment.” Treatises and Documents, Journal of Ethnic Studies 77:3366.Google Scholar
Germane, Marina. 2013. “The Fifth Element Expanding the Quadratic Nexus?Ethnopolitics Papers 24:133.Google Scholar
Godeša, Bojan. 2014. “Oblikovanje odnosa do sosednjih držav (Italija, Avstrija) v slovenskem/jugoslovanskem partizanskem gibanju (1941–1945).” Annales—Series Historia et Sociologia 24 (4): 749762.Google Scholar
Grgič, Matejka in Damjan Popič. 2023. Procesi jezikovnega separatizma pri čezmejnih jezikovnih manjšinah: prevzemanje, prilagajanje in prevajanje covidne terminologije med Slovenci in Slovenkami v Italiji. Annales—Series Historia et Sociologia 33 (1): 151166.Google Scholar
Grin, François, Moring, Tom, Gorter, Durk, Häggman, Johan, Riagáin, Dónall Ó, and Strubell, Miguel. 2003. Support for Minority Languages in Europe. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
Haug, Hilde K. 2012. Creating a Socialist Yugoslavia. Tito, Communist Leadership and the National Question. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hrobat Virloget, Katja. 2019. “The ‘Istrian exodus’ and the Istrian society that Followed It.” Dve domovini 49:163180.Google Scholar
Hrobat Virloget, Katja. 2021. “Družbene meje in odnosi v istrski družbi po povojnem ‘eksodusu.’” Glasnik Slovenskega etnološkega društvo 61 (1): 3041.Google Scholar
Hrobat Virloget, Katja. 2023. “What does Silence Tell? Traumas and Memorial Conflicts in the Anthropological Research of Istrian Exodus and a National ‘Hero.’Acta Histriae 31 (3): 433452.Google Scholar
Jurić Pahor, Marija. 2012. “Čezmejni in transkulturni imaginariji: Alpsko-jadranski prostor v kontekstu njegovega zamišljanja in o(d)smišljanja.” Annales—Series Historia et Sociologia 22 (2): 409424.Google Scholar
Jurić Pahor, Marija. 2018. “Transkulturnost in kulturna hibridnost v kontekstu migracij: Primer mesta Trst.” Annales—Series Historia et Sociologia 28 (1): 5164.Google Scholar
Kapetanović, Mišo. 2022. “Yugoslav Labor Migrants Emerging as the Austrian Working Class.” Zeitgeschichte 49 (1): 87111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemp, Walter. 2006. The Triadic Nexus: Lessons Learned from the Status Law. In Beyond Sovereignty: From Status Law to Transnational Citizenship? edited by Ieda, Osamu, 109127. Sapporo: Slavic Research Center.Google Scholar
Klabjan, Borut. 2011. “‘Jadran je naš’. Nacionalno prisvajanje Jadranskega morja pred prvo svetovno vojno in po njej.” Annales—Series Historia et Sociologia 21 (1): 4354.Google Scholar
Komac, Miran. 2015a. “Poselitveni prostor avtohtonih narodnih manjšin.” Razprave in gradivo: Revija za narodnostna vprašanja 74:6191.Google Scholar
Komac, Miran. 2015b. “Narodne manjšine v Sloveniji 1920–1941.” Razprave in gradivo: revija za narodnostna vprašanja 75:4981.Google Scholar
Komac, Miran. 2022. Slovenija in narodne manjšine 1920–2020. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Krasniqi, Gezim. 2013. “‘Quadratic Nexus’ and the Process of Democratization and State-Building in Albania and Kosovo: A Comparison.” Nationalities Papers 41 (3): 395411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kübler, Daniel. 2013. Verwaltungsorganisation in einem mehrsprachigen Land. In Handbuch der öffentlichen Verwaltung in der Schweiz, edited by Ladner, Andreas, Chappelet, Jean-Loup, Emery, Yves, Knoepfel, Peter, Mader, Luzius, Soguel, Nils, and Varone, Frédéric, 7592. Zürich: Neue Zürcher Zeitung Verlag.Google Scholar
Kübler, Daniel, Kobelt, Émilienne, and Andrey, Stéphanie. 2011. “Vers une bureaucratie représentative. La promotion de la représentation et de la diversité linguistiques dans l’administration fédérale en Suisse et au Canada.” Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique 44 (4): 903927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuzio, Taras. 2001. “‘Nationalizing States’ or Nation Building? A Critical Review of the Theoretical Literature and Empirical Evidence.” Nations and Nationalism 7 (2): 135154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kymlicka, Will. 2000. “Nation-Building and Minority Rights: Comparing West and East.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 26 (2): 183212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulyk, Volodymyr. 2001. “The Politics of Ethnicity in Post-Soviet Ukraine: Beyond Brubaker.” Journal of Ukrainian Studies 26 (1–2): 197221.Google Scholar
Laakso, Johanna, Sarhimaa, Anneli, Åkermark, Sia Spiliopoulou, and Toivanen, Reetta (eds). 2016. Towards openly multilingual policies and practices assessing minority language maintenance across Europe. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Lampe, Urška. 2018. “Guerra gelida a Belgrado. Le deportazioni in Jugoslavia dalla Venezia Giulia nel secondo dopoguerra. La questione degli elenchi e nuove fonti.” Acta Histriae 26 (3): 691712.Google Scholar
Lampe, Urška. 2019. “Posredniška vloga delegacije Mednarodnega odbora Rdečega križa v Jugoslaviji pri reševanju usode italijanskih vojnih ujetnikov in deportirancev v Jugoslaviji v letih 1945 in 1946.” Acta Histriae 27 (4): 835864.Google Scholar
Lampe, Urška. 2023. “Some Methodological Reflections on Oral History in the Borderlands: a Slovene-Italian Case Study.” Acta Histriae 31 (3): 377397.Google Scholar
Lenassi, Nives, and Paolucci, Sandro. 2020. Italijanski in slovenski jezik ekonomije in poslovanja: Anglicizmi med citatnimi zapisi in pomenskimi kalki. Annales—Series Historia et Sociologia 30 (3): 485498.Google Scholar
Lusa, Stefano. 2021. “Cominciano le danze.” RTV SLOVENIJA, November 27, 2021. https://www.rtvslo.si/capodistria/radio-capodistria/notizie/commento/cominciano-le-danze/602760. (Accessed May 23, 2022.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mezgec, Maja. 2023. “Slovensko-italijanski obmejni prostor: dejavniki vpliva na izbiro šole in vrtca v sosednji državi.” Annales—Series Historia et Sociologia 33 (1): 167180.Google Scholar
Mišić, Saša. 2013. “ОБНАВЉАЊЕ ОДНОС А ИЗМЕЂУ САВЕЗА КОМУНИСТА ЈУГОСЛАВИЈЕ И КОМУНИСТИЧКЕ ПАРТИЈЕ ИТАЛИЈЕ 1955–1956. ГОДИНЕ.” Tokovi istorije 2 (2013): 121145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mišić, Saša. 2018. “‘Per non rimanere soli’. La Jugoslavia e la sinistra italiana, 1948-1957.” Nuova rivista storica 102 (1): 133162.Google Scholar
Mišić, Saša. 2021. “Serbian Orthodox Church Municipality in Trieste in Yugoslav-Italian Relations 1954–1971.” Balcanica 52: 179192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mišić, Saša. 2022. “Не може се више поновити 1948. година! Југославија и италијански комунисти и социјалисти 1957–1962.” Tokovi istorije 2 (2022): 153185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintrom, Michel. 2019. “So You Want to Be a Policy Entrepreneur?Policy Design and Practice 2 (4): 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montini Tenca, Federico, and Mišić, Saša. 2017. “Comunisti di un altro tipo: le simpatie filo-jugoslave in Italia (1948–1962).” Acta Histriae 25 (4): 785812.Google Scholar
Novak Lukanovič, Sonja. 2011. Jezik in ekonomija na narodno mešanih območjih v SlovenijiAnnales—Series Historia et Sociologia 21 (2): 327336.Google Scholar
Orlić, Mila. 2015. “Se la memoria (non) mi inganna … l’Italia e il ‘confine orientale’: riflessioni sulla storia e sul suo uso pubblico.” Acta Histriae 23 (3): 475486.Google Scholar
Orlić, Mila. 2019. “Né italiani né slavi. State- e Nation-building jugoslavo nel secondo dopoguerra in Istria.” Contemporanea 22 (4): 563587.Google Scholar
Pelikan, Egon. 2022. “Odstavitev zadnjega slovenskega škofa v Julijski krajini: Frančiška Borgie Sedeja.” Acta Histriae 30 (1): 215238.Google Scholar
Pettai, Vello. 2006. “Explaining Ethnic Politics in the Baltic States: Reviewing the Triadic Nexus Model.” Journal of Baltic Studies 37 (1): 124136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pirjevec, Jože. 1995. Jugoslavija [1918-1992]: nastanek, razvoj ter razpad Karadjordjevićeve in Titove Jugoslavije. Koper: Lipa.Google Scholar
Pirjevec, Jože. 2011a. Tito in tovariši. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba.Google Scholar
Pirjevec, Jože. 2011b. “Dr. Jože Pirjevec: Tito se je kesal zaradi Golega otoka, na katerem so končali “‘tovariši.’” Intervju z Miranom Lesjakom in Ervinom Hladnikom Milharčičem. Dnevnik, August 27, 2011. https://www.dnevnik.si/1042468288/Intervjuji/1042468288. (Accessed May 23, 2022).Google Scholar
Pirjevec, Jože. 2015. “Soočenje kulturnih, državnih, geopolitičnih in ideoloških konceptov na stiku italijanskega in južnoslovanskega prostora (1848–1975).” Acta Histriae 23 (3): 377392.Google Scholar
Pirjevec, Jože. 2016. “Benito Mussolini in Slovenci.” Acta Histriae 24 (4): 721730.Google Scholar
Pirjevec, Jože, Dukovski, Darko, Troha, Nevenka, Bajc, Gorazd, and Franzinetti, Guido. 2012. Fojbe. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba.Google Scholar
Poropat Jeletić, Nada. 2017. “O hrvatsko-talijanskoj dvojezičnosti u Istri i ishodima jezične doticajnosti.” Annales—Series Historia et Sociologia 27 (3): 629640.Google Scholar
Portmann, Michael, and Ruzicic-Kessler, Karlo. 2014. “Yugoslavia and Its Western Neighbours 1945–1980.” Zeitgeschichte 41 (5): 296311.Google Scholar
Pupo, Raoul. 2005. Il lungo esodo. Istria: le persecuzioni, le foibe, l’esilio. Milano: Rizzoli.Google Scholar
Pupo, Raoul. 2012. “La più recente storiografia italiana di frontiera: Alcune questioni interpretative.” Acta Histriae 20 (3): 293306.Google Scholar
Purini, Piero. 2012. “Esodi dalla Venezia Giulia: Cause politiche e motivazioni sociologiche.” Acta Histriae 20 (3): 417432.Google Scholar
Ramšak, Jure. 2016. “‘Avtarkična strogost in preprosta italijanska duša’: Konstrukcija novega rudarskega mesta Raša v vzhodni Istri (1936–1937).” Acta Histriae 24 (4): 855872.Google Scholar
Reglia, Marco. 2012. “La mascolinità fascista e la repressione della sua devianza: L’originalità della Venezia Giulia.” Acta Histriae 20 (3): 351366.Google Scholar
Reglia, Marco. 2016. “La ‘pederastia’ nella ex Venezia Giulia: Il ruolo del confine nella repressione della mascolinità deviante durante il secondo conflitto mondiale.” Acta Histriae 24 (4): 959974.Google Scholar
Režek, Mateja. 2016. “Obmejni fašizem in antifašizem v slovenskih zgodovinskih učbenikih od konca druge svetovne vojne do danes.” Acta Histriae 24 (4): 905918.Google Scholar
Ricento, Thomas. 2006. Language Policy: Theory and Practice—An Introduction. In An Introduction to Language Policy. Theory and Method, edited by Ricento, Thomas, 1023. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rizman, Rudi. 1979. Razvoj nacionalnega vprašanja v jugoslovanski družbeni misli in praksi. Ljubljana: Delavska enotnost.Google Scholar
Rossi, Peter H., Lipsey, Mark W., and Freeman, Howard E.. 2004. Evaluation: A Systematic Approach (7th ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Ruzicic-Kessler, Karlo. 2018. “Avvicinamento e cooperazione interregionale: La Jugoslavia nei rapporti di vicinato con l’Austria e l’Italia (1968–1978).” Acta Histriae 26 (3): 787806.Google Scholar
Smith, David. 2002. “Framing the National Question in Central and Eastern Europe: A Quadratic Nexus?The Global Review of Ethnopolitics 2 (1): 316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, David J. 2020. “The ‘Quadratic Nexus’ Revisited: Nation-Building in Estonia through the Prism of National Cultural Autonomy.” Nationalities Papers 48 (2): 235250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stefanović, Slobodan (ur.). 1982. Savez komunista Jugoslavije i politika nacionalne ravnopravnosti na osnovama socialističkog samoupravljanja. Izbor tekstova. Beograd: Beogradski izdavačko-grafički zavod.Google Scholar
Stjepanovic, Dejan. 2015. “Claimed Co-Ethnics and Kin-State Citizenship in Southeastern Europe.” Ethnopolitics 14 (2): 140158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tesser, Lynn M. 2003. “The Geopolitics of Tolerance: Minority Rights under EU Expansion in East-Central Europe.” East European Politics & Societies 17 (3): 483532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomaselli, Alexandra, Engl, Alice, and Lupinc, Helena. 2021. Inquadramento della situazione socio-giuridica, culturale ed economica delle communita’ italiane in Slovenia, Croazia e Bosnia Erzegovina e nuove prospettive. In OBC TransEuropa et al., Le communità italiane nei Balcani: Storia recente e nuove traiettorie, 80123. Roma: Ministero degli affari esteri.Google Scholar
Troha, Nevenka. 2000. “Ukrepi jugoslovanskih oblasti v conah B Julijske krajine in Svobodnega tržaškega ozemlja in Italijani na Koprskem.” Annales—Series Historia et Sociologia 10 (1): 203216.Google Scholar
Turgeon, Luc, and Gagnon, Alain G.. 2013. “The Politics of Representative Bureaucracy in Multilingual States: A Comparison of Belgium, Canada and Switzerland.” Regional & Federal Studies 23 (4): 407425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Udovič, Boštjan. 2022. “‘Going International’: The (Non-)Importance of Non-Aligned Countries’ Markets in the Foreign Economic Relations of Yugoslavia.” Zeitgeschichte 49 (1): 1132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Umer Kljun, Jerneja. 2015. “Dojemanje mešane identitete in kodnega preklapljanja med pripadniki italijanske narodne skupnosti v Slovenski Istri.” Annales—Series Historia et Sociologia 25 (1): 223234.Google Scholar
Vandenabeele, Wouter. 2007. “Toward a Public Administration Theory of Public Service Motivation: An Institutional Approach.” Public Management Review 9 (4): 545556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weibel, Antoinette, Rost, Katja, and Osterloh, Margit. 2010. “Pay for Performance in the Public Sector—Benefits and (Hidden) Costs.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 20 (2): 387412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weimer, David L., and Vining, Aidan R.. 2014. Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Wolczuk, Kataryna. 2000. “History, Europe and the ‘National Idea’: The ‘Official’ Narrative of National Identity in Ukraine.” Nationalities Papers 28 (4): 671694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaccaria, Benedetto. 2019. “Blowing Up the Self-Management Bubble: Yugoslav Propaganda and Italian Reception in The Early 1970s.” Acta Histriae 27 (1): 125142.Google Scholar
Žitko, Salvator. 2015. “Od iredentizma do intervencionizma: Na prelomu 19. in 20. stoletja do vstopa Italije v prvo svetovno vojno.” Annales—Series Historia et Sociologia 25 (4): 861884.Google Scholar
Žitko, Salvator. 2023. “Problematika odtujevanja premične kulturne dediščine istrskega prostora s poudarkom na Piranu v letih 1940–1954.” Annales—Series Historia et Sociologia 33 (2): 215252.Google Scholar
Arhiv Republike Slovenije, Zvezdarska ulica 1, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.Google Scholar
Arhiv ZSZZ [Ministarstvo spolnjih poslova Republike Srbije, Odeljenje za adminstrativne i arhivske poslove], Kneza Miloša 24–26, 11168 Beograd, Serbia.Google Scholar
Arhiv Republike Slovenije, Zvezdarska ulica 1, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.Google Scholar
Arhiv ZSZZ [Ministarstvo spolnjih poslova Republike Srbije, Odeljenje za adminstrativne i arhivske poslove], Kneza Miloša 24–26, 11168 Beograd, Serbia.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Yugoslavia’s reasons for introducing the BB.Source: Author’s illustration.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Methodologically and epistemologically upgrading the triadic nexus into an expanded triadic nexus.Source: Authors illustration.