No Peace No War: An Anthropology of Contemporary Armed Conflicts
In: Polemos: časopis za interdisciplinarna istraživanja rata i mira ; journal of interdisciplinary research on war and peace, Band 9, Heft 18, S. 169-172
ISSN: 1331-5595
840 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Polemos: časopis za interdisciplinarna istraživanja rata i mira ; journal of interdisciplinary research on war and peace, Band 9, Heft 18, S. 169-172
ISSN: 1331-5595
In: Međunarodne studije: časopis za međunarodne odnose, vanjsku politiku i diplomaciju, Band 2, Heft 3, S. 165-167
ISSN: 1332-4756
In: Međunarodne studije: časopis za međunarodne odnose, vanjsku politiku i diplomaciju, Band 4, Heft 1, S. 115-118
ISSN: 1332-4756
In: Politicka misao, Band 32, Heft 2, S. 216-221
In: Međunarodne studije: časopis za međunarodne odnose, vanjsku politiku i diplomaciju, Band 3, Heft 1, S. 145-148
ISSN: 1332-4756
In: Politicka misao, Band 50, Heft 4, S. 228-231
In: Politologický časopis, Band 20, Heft 1, S. 101-106
ISSN: 1211-3247
In: Politicka misao, Band 39, Heft 1, S. 194-198
Hibridno ratovanje ne predstavlja nov i revolucionaran pristup u ostvarivanju političkih ciljeva. Navedeno je temeljna pretpostavka ove doktorske disertacije koja je potvrĎena kroz znanstveno istraţivanje i komparativnu analizu tri studije slučaja. Pokušaj stvaranja Velike Srbije, zbog činjenice da se relativno nedavno odvijao na teritoriju Republike Hrvatske, najrelevantniji je slučaj kada govorimo o aktualnim vanjskopolitičkim i obrambenim izazovima Republike Hrvatske. Izraelsko-libanonski rat iz 2006. godine smatra se oglednim primjerkom hibridnog rata izmeĎu drţavnog i nedrţavnog aktera. Rat Rusije i Ukrajine i aneksija Krima najrecentniji je primjer hibridnog rata izmeĎu dva drţavna aktera, i katalizator koji je aktualizirao pojam hibridnog rata, pokrenuo meĎunarodnu zajednicu i NATO savez da preispitaju svoj pristup suvremenom ratovanju. Ova disertacija temelji na se razmatranju ratova s vojnopolitičkog stajališta, a kombiniranjem tri teorijska okvira odabrano je 16 čimbenika koji karakteriziraju hibridnog aktera. Teorijskom analizom sve tri studije slučaja potvrĎeno je da hibridnom ratu prethodi period političkih, ideoloških ili sličnih neslaganja izmeĎu suprotstavljenih strana, tijekom kojeg hibridni akter nastoji širiti vlastiti narativ i otvoreno ili prikriveno provodi aktivnosti koje će mu dati prednost u ratu. Provedbom istraţivanja u tri rata testirana je prisutnost svakog pojedinog čimbenika hibridnog modela, a komparacijom rezultata utvrĎeno je da su odreĎeni čimbenici bili, u većoj ili manjoj mjeri, prisutni u sva tri rata. Unatoč činjenici da slučajevi pripadaju različitom geopolitičkom kontekstu, da su se odvijali u različitom vremenskom razdoblju i na različitoj zemljopisnoj lokaciji, prisutnost čimbenika u sva tri rata potvrĎuju pretpostavku da hibridni rat nije ništa novo. ; Hybrid warfare does not represent a new and revolutionary approach to the realization of political goals. This is the central hypothesis of this doctoral dissertation which has been tested by scientific research and comparative analysis of three post Cold War, geographically and chronically dispersed case studies. The first case study encompasses the initial attempt to create a Greater Serbia at the territorial expense of the Republic of Croatia which occurred in the early 1990's within the context of Yugoslavia's dissolution. The second case study details the Israeli - Hezbollah war of 2006 which is considered by many to be a textbook example of a state versus non-state actor conflict. Finally, the third case study analyzes the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine (including the Russian annexation of Crimea) which has popularized the term "hybrid warfare" and acted as a catalyst in initiating NATO re-examination of its approach to contemporary security threats. This dissertation analyzes the manifestation of hybrid war from a military and political perspective, and to characterize hybrid actors, it makes use of sixteen individual factors derived from three established theoretical frameworks. Theoretical analysis of the three case studies suggests that in all three cases open warfare was preceded by a period of political, ideological or other conflict between the opposing parties. In all instances, the hybrid actor made use of this period to promulgate its narrative, while at the same time covertly or overtly undertaking activities designed to ensure an advantage upon the onset of violence. The presence of each individual factor of the combined theoretical framework was determined through research, and a comparison of the results proves that certain characteristics are present, in varying degree, in all three conflicts. Despite occurring in different geopolitical circumstances, in different chronological periods, and in different geographical locations, the presence of hybrid factors in all three conflicts confirms the initial hypothesis that hybrid warfare is not a new phenomenon.
BASE
ISSN: 2303-8462
The paper analyzes the European Community/ European Union experience in the Western Balkans in the period from 1990 onwards in different context in order to assess different mechanisms which the European Union has gained with building the Common Foreign and Security Policy and within the Enlargement Policy in the process of conflict prevention and conflict resolution. Additionally, the paper makes an assessment of the EU's involvement in the conflict prevention and conflict resolution in the Balkans after the Stabilization and Association Process was launched in 1999. The authors argue that in the case of the military conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, when the European Community was confronted with serious and hard security issues at the very beginning of creating its Common Foreign and Security Policy and in a period of time when the region was not part of the enlargement process, the Community and the Union afterwards proved to be extremely ineffective. In the second part, through three case studies, the paper demonstrate that with the combined use of CFSP mechanisms and SAP, positive examples of the EU acting as a provider of peaceful dispute settlement in the Western Balkans have been established. ; The paper analyzes the European Community/ European Union experience in the Western Balkans in the period from 1990 onwards in different context in order to assess different mechanisms which the European Union has gained with building the Common Foreign and Security Policy and within the Enlargement Policy in the process of conflict prevention and conflict resolution. Additionally, the paper makes an assessment of the EU's involvement in the conflict prevention and conflict resolution in the Balkans after the Stabilization and Association Process was launched in 1999. The authors argue that in the case of the military conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, when the European Community was confronted with serious and hard security issues at the very beginning of creating its Common Foreign and Security Policy and in a period of time when the region was not part of the enlargement process, the Community and the Union afterwards proved to be extremely ineffective. In the second part, through three case studies, the paper demonstrate that with the combined use of CFSP mechanisms and SAP, positive examples of the EU acting as a provider of peaceful dispute settlement in the Western Balkans have been established.
BASE
Tema disertacije je analiza djelovanja putem pravnopolitičkih mehanizama međunarodne zajednice, a prvenstveno misleći Europske ekonomske zajednice (kasnije Europske unije) na sprječavanje sukoba i postizanje mira na prostoru bivše Jugoslavije u vremenu od 1990. g., tj. od trenutaka prvih znakova početaka krize, pa sve do kraja oružanih sukoba/ratova 1995. g. i potpisivanja Daytonskog mirovnog sporazuma. Upravo vrijeme prvih znakova krize i početaka prvih oružanih sukoba na prostoru bivše Jugoslavije bilo je vrijeme kada je Europska ekonomska zajednica stvarala Zajedničku vanjsku i sigurnosnu politiku. Ujedno jugoslavenska kriza odvijala se paralelno s stvaranja nove ujedinjene Europe koja se našla pred izazovom dokazivanja uloge regionalnog i globalnog igrača u kreiranju svjetske politike, te u dokazivanju mogućnosti samostalnog rješavanja eventualnih sukoba na svom teritoriju bez upliva politike Sjedinjenih Američkih Država. Jugoslavenska kriza reflektirana kasnije kroz oružane sukobe i ratove predstavlja je test institucionalnom sistemu dotadašnje i buduće ujedinjene Europe, te je ista bila indikator, smjernica institucijskom razvoju Europske ekonomske zajednice, a uslijed same činenice nemogućnosti implementacija usvojenih politika/odluka kojima bi rješila krizu i spriječila sukobe. Oružani sukobi/ratovi i sama kriza na prostoru bivše Jugoslavije s vremenom je bila u suprotnosti s duhom buduće ujedinjene Europe nakon pada Berlinskog zida, a nemogućnost uporabe rješenja za kraj krize, oružanih sukoba i postizanje mira povlačilo je za sobom i pitanje održivosti takve zajednice. Prekrajanje granica silom od strane lokalnih politika na području bivše Jugoslavije s ciljem osiguranja življenja jednog naroda u jednoj državi bili su u suprotnosti s načelom uti possidetis iuris i vladavinom prava na koje se u stvaranju suvremene Europe nakon II. Svjetskog rata ista pozivala. Upravo kroz navedeno načelo međunarodnog prava, Europska ekonomska zajednica, a i kasnije Europske unija, kao i svi ostali dionici međunarodne zajednice uključeni u sprječavanju sukoba i postizanje mira na prostoru bivše Jugoslavije svojim pravnopolitičkim mehanizmima navedeno načelo koje predstavljalo razloge/polazište svih oružanih sukoba na prostoru bivše Jugoslavije nisu znale i mogle zaštiti. Činjenica djelovanja međunarodne zajednice, prvenstveno Europske ekonomske zajednice/Europske unije u skladu s izvorima europskog i međunarodnog javnog prava, te koristeći pravnopolitičke mehanizme koji su upravo proizlazili iz navedenih izvora, a bez mogućnosti fizičke, stvarne primjene istih prema onima na koje se odnosilo, kao i neaktivnost u angažiranju od početaka sukoba od strane Sjedinjenih Američkih Država, stvarali su subjektivni dojam da ne postoji politička volja oko temeljnih pitanja ključnih za sprječavanje sukoba i postizanje mira, kao ni volja zaštite međunarodnog prava na prostoru bivše Jugoslavije. Upravo željom za globalnom dominacijom u novom svjetskom poretku, kao i činjenica dokazivanja Europi da ne može samostalno upravljati i rješavati krize na svom području, Sjedinjene Američke Države preuzele su aktivnu ulogu u rješavanju krize koristeći pravnopolitičke mehanizme u skladu s odredbama međunarodnog javnog prava, čime su spriječile daljnje sukobe/ratove i postigle mir. Političkom reaktivacijom u odnosu na prostor bivše Jugoslavije, Sjedinjene Američke Države jasno su dokazale svoju političku dominaciju u rješavanju i "upravljanju krizom" na tlu Europe, a ujedno su očuvale svoj i kredibilitet NATO-a i same Europske unije. ; The topic of this dissertation is the analysis of acting through legal and political mechanisms of an international community, namely the actions the European Economic Community (later known as the European Union) had undertaken to prevent conflicts and achieve peace on the territory of the former Yugoslavia from 1990 and the first signs of a crisis up to the end of the armed conflicts/wars in 1995 and the signing of the Dayton Peace Agreement. Just when the first signs of the crisis and the first armed conflicts began to appear in the former Yugoslavia, the European Economic Community created the Common Foreign and Security Policy. Also, the Yugoslav crisis took place in parallel with the creation of a new united Europe that faced the challenge of proving to be a regional and global force in the creation of the world policy, as well as proving its ability to independently resolve possible conflicts within its territory without interference from the policy of the United States. The Yugoslav crisis, later manifested in armed conflicts and wars, was a test of the institutional system of the former and future united Europe, a guideline for the institutional development of the European Economic Community, and an indicator of the inability to implement the adopted policies/decisions that would resolve the crisis and prevent conflicts. Armed conflicts/wars and the crisis in the former Yugoslavia were eventually contrary to the spirit of the future united Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the inability to find a solution to end the crisis and armed conflicts, as well as to achieve peace, raised the issue of sustainability of such a community. Redrawing the borders perforce by the local policies in the former Yugoslavia with the aim to ensure the settlement of one nation in one state was contrary to the principle of uti possidetis iuris and the rule of law relied upon by the modern Europe after World War II. The European Economic Community, and later the European Union, as well as all the other members of the international community engaged in conflict prevention and achieving peace in the former Yugoslavia, did not know how to use their legal and political mechanisms to protect the aforesaid principle which represented the reasons/starting point for all the armed conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. The action of the international community, primarily the European Economic Community/European Union in line with the sources of European and international public law, using the legal and political mechanisms stemming from the aforesaid sources, without the possibility of their actual implementation, as well as the USA's decision not to engage in the conflict from the beginning, created a subjective impression that there is no political will to tackle issues crucial for conflict prevention, achieving peace, and protecting international law in the former Yugoslavia. It was the desire for global domination in the new world order and the desire to show Europe the independence in managing and addressing the crises in its territory that enabled the USA to take an active role in addressing the crisis by using legal and political mechanisms in line with international public law provisions, which prevented further conflicts/wars and ensured peace. Political reactivation in the former Yugoslavia enabled the USA to clearly demonstrate its political domination in "crisis management" in Europe, whilst preserving its own credibility as well as the credibility of NATO and the European Union.
BASE
Papinske poruke mira već imaju svoju polustoljetnu tradiciju. Sve ovore o ugrozi mira među ljudima i narodima, njihovim vanjskim i duhovnim uzrocima, sve predlažu neka rješenja, svaka poziva na poštivanje temeljnih ljudskih prava, na nenasilni put rješavanja svih konflikata, na pravednije društvene odnose i sl. Za razliku od mnogih sličnih svjetskih poruka i poziva, konvencija i dogovora, njihova posebnost leži u teološko-antropološkom pristupu. Autor na primjeru 23 od 51 papinske poruke od 1996. godine istražuje transcendentnu i antropološku gramatiku mira i kulturu dijaloga koje pape u svojim porukama mira neumorno ističu, a svijet stalno zaobilazi. Papinske poruke ukazuju da je transcendentni mir temelj i polazište antropološkom miru. Mir je kao realna mogućnost Božji dar čovjeku, kojemu globalno tržište donosi više nemira, negoli mira, pa je čovjek neprestano pozvan raditi oko mira. Bog je transcendentni izvor mira, a čovjek je antropološko srce mira. Da bi se izgradilo istinsko drvo mira u svijetu, valja nužno mijenjati sliku o čovjeku i sliku o Bogu. Pape stalno upozoravaju da se mir kao opće dobro čovječanstva ne može ostvariti samo pozitivnim zakonima i kojekakvim konvencijama. Stoga zaključuju da moralni i teološki aspekti trebaju prožeti i oploditi one pravne norme i forme, da ljubav treba prožeti istinu i pravdu, a da pravda u pravednosti treba biti povezana ljubavlju. Tako oni grade most između transcendentne i antropološke razine, između mira i ljudskih prava, između ljudskih prava i pravednosti, između pravednosti i praštanja, između praštanja i pomirenja, između pomirenja i mira. Put dijaloga preko praštanja i pomirenja put je do pravoga mira koji se temelji na istini, pravednosti, ljubavi i slobodi. Dakle, kulturu rata i nasilja treba zamijeniti kulturom mira, a ostvarivati kulturom dijaloga i dijalogom kultura i religija. ; Papal messages of peace have already had a half-century tradition. Everybody speaks of threat to peace among people and nations, their external and spiritual causes; everybody proposes some solutions, calls for respecting the basic human rights, for a non-violent way of solving all the conflicts, for just human relationships, and the like. Unlike many similar world messages and calls, conventions and agreements, the specifics of papal messages lie in their theological-anthropological approach. Using the example of 23 of the 51 papal messages from the year 1996, the author investigates the transcendental and anthropological grammar of peace and culture of dialogue that popes tirelessly point out in their messages of peace, but the world constantly avoids them. Papal messages indicate that transcendental peace is the foundation and starting point for anthropological peace. Peace is, as a real possibility, God's gift to man. The global market brings a man more restlessness than peace, and that is why man is called to constantly strive for peace. God is the transcendent source of peace and man is the anthropological heart of peace. To build a genuine tree of peace in the world, it is necessary to change the image of man and the image of God. Popes constantly keep warning that peace as the common good of mankind cannot be achieved only through positive laws and all sorts of conventions. Therefore, they conclude that moral and theological aspects need to pervade and impregnate legal norms and forms, love must permeate truth and justice and justice in righteousness should be related to love. Thus, they build a bridge between the transcendent and anthropological level, between peace and human rights, between human rights and justice, between justice and forgiveness, between forgiveness and reconciliation, between reconciliation and peace. The path of dialogue, through forgiveness and reconciliation, is the path to true peace based on truth, justice, love and freedom. Thus, the culture of war and violence needs to be replaced by a culture of peace, which should be achieved through a culture of dialogue and through a dialogue between cultures and religions.
BASE