The theory differentiates between classical terrorism and mega terrorism that has marked the period of time after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, against New York and Washington. While the classic terror seeks to supplement politics, and to be manifested as its criminalized projection, the mega terrorism is a qualitatively new phenomenon which itself is a policy. The mega terrorism is about high stakes and high disproportion of power possessed by particular parties. The US policy has contributed most to creating such conditions globally, and the United States is strategically responsible for it. For the most part, this is not or will not even be realized by the most prominent critics of international hegemony in the United States policy. Aggressive stance of the great power in international relations almost automatically instigates even greater number of antagonistic responses of other smaller powers, which all leads to more strained international relations. Military responses to mega terrorist threat have exactly caused its escalation, that is to say too aggressive responses to classical terrorist threats have partly brought about the mega terrorism. The greatest blunder of the (US or other influential powers’) response to mega terrorism is taking on the warring model of military aggression, which provides the terrorists with the legitimacy that they have not had before. Corruption affairs in Serbia and Montenegro, Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and some other Balkan countries additionally corroborate that the transition processes in most South East and even East European countries are accompanied by side effects in the forms of the economic and political systems criminalization resulting in serious issues of power distribution in the Balkan transitions. In newly formed democracy, which is in conformity with contemporary trends in the development of the so called "polyarchic" democracy, political decisions are not always and necessarily made by institutions as state representatives, though they are made within these institutions. Public policy is separated from the public and there emerges chronic deficit of government legitimacy. Parts of political establishment, linked to organized crime, create a climate of "the goal justifying the means" or of "anything being allowed what is not strictly forbidden" which helps creating the conditions for legitimizing the corruption and organized crime. The manifested destructive role of organized groups, and the attitude of current authorities even of a part of the public, towards these groups during interethnic conflicts, and later on, have made it quite clear that the links between organized crime and political elites in all parts of the former SFR Yugoslavia are maintained through mutual client relationship, which the international actors have nourished by their inconsistent behavior. The inconsistency of international support contributes to creating client cultures and these cultures lead to building relatively enduring partnerships between political elites and organized crime. Thus a new type of organized crime emerges retaining classic feature (crime for profit), but is also modified into "a new warring entity" that resorts also to the fight against the state aiming to take over the state power. The main problem in legitimizing the violence in international relations in that this entails also legitimizing the terrorist response to the monopolizing of the international relations and to the so called intervention wars. The current US trend of re-legitimizing the violence as a method of combating the terror is historically and safety wise retrograde. In such a way the worldwide terror stigma is just reduced while enlarging room for arguments of "the terrorist having no choice". The same or the similar is true for organized crime in Serbia or any other country under transition in South East Europe. The author believes that the main principle of successful combating terrorism is maintaining the moral status of nonviolence as an imperative in the international relations. Contemporary politics, primarily the U.S. global policy, which is based exactly on re-legitimizing the violence, is in advance doomed to failure in combating the terror.