Peace and Security in the Age of Hybrid Wars

2021 ◽  
pp. 399-413
Author(s):  
Maria Raquel Freire ◽  
Licínia Simão
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
State Collapse ◽  
New Wars ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
The Cold War

This chapter deals with peace and security in the age of hybrid wars, making the argument that the concept of hybrid wars, although useful in understanding the complexity of contemporary security dynamics, is not totally new. It is essentially a politically appropriated concept with implications at the local, national, and international levels. The chapter addresses the issue of conceptual vagueness and novelty of hybrid wars, linking it to other concepts used to analyze (in)security since the end of the Cold War, including the so-called new wars, state collapse, and the more recent focus on resilience.

The ‘Good War’ after September 11

2002 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 151-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Lawler
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
September 11 ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
The Political ◽  
Media Technology ◽  
Military Technology ◽  
Diverse Range ◽  
New Wars ◽  
The Cold War

Rather Than Signalling The End Of War, As Many Liberal Minds had hoped, the end of the cold war has seen ‘hot’ war moving firmly to centre-stage, while at the same time presaging a reclassification of its predominant forms and purposes. Since 1990 there has been a rash of what Kaldor calls ‘new wars’. Although often highly localized, they confound settled understandings of inter-state or civil war by virtue of the diverse range of protagonists involved, the issues over which they are fought, and their consistently brutal impact upon civilians. A virtual revolution in media technology has also made such wars publicly visible to an unprecedented degree. In spite of the fact that new wars are often fought without recourse to the most sophisticated or destructive of military technology, the horrific impact upon populations caught up in them has clearly assaulted public sensibilities worldwide and generated a chorus of demands that something should be done about them. Consequently, the political and ethical dimensions of going to war in response to such threats have also moved in from the periphery to the centre of public and intellectual debate. As Walzer has recently observed, the ‘chief dilemma of international politics is whether people in danger should be rescued by military forces from outside’. From the point of view of the key members of the international community at least, armed ‘humanitarian intervention’ is no longer just a form of war but has become virtually synonymous with permissible war itself.

United Nations Security Council Resolutions 2321, 2371, & 2375

2017 ◽  
Vol 56 (6) ◽  
pp. 1176-1208
Author(s):  
Meredith Rathbone ◽  
Pete Jeydel
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Economic Sanctions ◽  
The United States ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Military Threat ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Trade And Investment

As concerns grow that North Korea's nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs are nearing the point of becoming an unacceptably dire threat to international peace and security, the United Nations, acting with unprecedented collective resolve, has imposed potentially suffocating international economic sanctions on North Korea. These sanctions are bolstered by even more stringent measures imposed unilaterally by the United States. The international community has not in recent memory come together in this way to seek to cut a country off from nearly all trade and investment. This will be a test of the effectiveness of economic sanctions in achieving a nonmilitary solution to what is arguably the most significant military threat impacting global interests since the end of the Cold War.

A Clash of Normativities: International Society and International Community

2008 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Russell Buchan
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Society ◽  
World Order ◽  
International Community ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Contemporary World ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
Normative Standard ◽  
The Cold War

AbstractThis paper will suggest that since the end of the Cold War liberal states have instituted a new regime of international relations and of international peace and security in particular. Historically, legitimate statehood could be situated virtually exclusively within international society; in their international relations all states subscribed to a common normative standard which regarded all states qua states as legitimate sovereign equals irrespective of the political constitution that they endorsed. With the end of the Cold War, however, an international community of liberal states has formed within international society which considers only those states that respect the liberal values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law as legitimate. Non-liberal states are not only denigrated as illegitimate but more significantly they are stripped of their previously held sovereign status where international community, motivated by the theory that international peace and security can only be achieved in a world composed of exclusively liberal states, campaigns for their liberal transformation. Finally, it will be suggested that despite the disagreement between liberal states over the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 international community survives, and thus its (antagonistic) relationship with non-liberal states continues to provide a useful method for theorising international peace and security in the contemporary world order.

scholarly journals The United Nations is grounded on the Westphalian state system. Throughout the de-colonizationperiod, the Organization ceased to be peculiar to the West only, and soon became the prevalent model in theentire globe. The Cold War also solidified and institutionalized the Westphalian State as the fundamentalprinciple in international relations. The end of the Cold War, however, along with the collapse of theEastern bloc, the challenges of peace and security in Africa, and the failure of the states in coping withhumanitarian crises increasingly made the three fundamental principles of Westphalian state, namely the“non-interventionism”, “sovereign-equality” and “territoriality” disputable among political scientists. Newapproaches and arguments on the end of the Classical Westphalian state and the emergence of a so-called“New Medieval Age” have widely been circulated. This paper alternatively suggests that, since the end of thecold war, the world politics has gradually and decisively been evolving into a system of states that could becalled Neo-Westphalian.

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 235-266
Author(s):  
Öner Buçukcu
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
International Relations ◽  
United Nations ◽  
World Politics ◽  
State System ◽  
The West ◽  
Sovereign Equality ◽  
The World ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
The Cold War

The United Nations is grounded on the Westphalian state system. Throughout the de-colonizationperiod, the Organization ceased to be peculiar to the West only, and soon became the prevalent model in theentire globe. The Cold War also solidified and institutionalized the Westphalian State as the fundamentalprinciple in international relations. The end of the Cold War, however, along with the collapse of theEastern bloc, the challenges of peace and security in Africa, and the failure of the states in coping withhumanitarian crises increasingly made the three fundamental principles of Westphalian state, namely the“non-interventionism”, “sovereign-equality” and “territoriality” disputable among political scientists. Newapproaches and arguments on the end of the Classical Westphalian state and the emergence of a so-called“New Medieval Age” have widely been circulated. This paper alternatively suggests that, since the end of thecold war, the world politics has gradually and decisively been evolving into a system of states that could becalled Neo-Westphalian.

scholarly journals Global studies and the New Zealand Centre: meaning and potential

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kennedy Graham
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
International Relations ◽  
20Th Century ◽  
Global Studies ◽  
Sovereign Equality ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
Dominant Actor ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
United Nations Charter ◽  
Century Thought

Things change with the passage of time. In the late decades of the 20th century, international relations were naturally founded on 20th-century thought – the nation state as dominant actor; sovereign equality as central principle; international organisation as neutral arena; politicalmilitary strategy as guarantor of peace and security; selfdetermination, economic and social development and human rights as emerging norms. The United Nations Charter was the lodestar, despite the paralysis of the Cold War. The challenge was to make the charter work politically.

Part 2 The United Nations: What it is, 3 The Security Council

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Higgins Dame Rosalyn, DBE, QC ◽  
Webb Philippa ◽  
Akande Dapo ◽  
Sivakumaran Sandesh ◽  
Sloan James
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Member States ◽  
Primary Responsibility ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Cold War

The Security Council is unique among the principal organs of the UN in two important ways: member states agree to accept and carry out the decisions it takes in accordance with the UN Charter, and member states have conferred upon it primary responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security. It is also the most influential of the UN principal organs. Since the end of the Cold War the productiveness of the Security Council has increased dramatically. In the 1990s, it adopted an average of 64 resolutions a year. In 2016, it adopted 76 resolutions. This chapter discusses the Security Council’s membership, procedure, meetings, non-members, non-state entities, voting, presidency, and functions (oversight and peace and security).

Nuclear Non-Proliferation

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
María José Cervell Hortal
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Nuclear Proliferation ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Cold War

The concept of nuclear nonproliferation was coined in a formal way at the beginning of the 1960s, though the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, or Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), signed in 1968, would be the text that would consolidate it. After the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, humanity was conscious of the danger of these weapons, and nuclear proliferation turned into one of the main problems of the Cold War period; their control and the implementation of strategies to limit them have become a priority since then. During the Cold War, nuclear weapons and deterrence policy were crucial elements in the peaceful coexistence of the two power blocs, and the initiatives to control them grew, as both countries were conscious of the danger that this accumulation could cause. The NPT created two categories of states: the “officially” nuclear ones, which could maintain their weapons (China, France, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and the United States) and the nonnuclear ones, which were not allowed to acquire or develop them. Two more concepts emerged: vertical proliferation (that of the five official nuclear states) and horizontal proliferation (that of the states that had nuclear weapons but rejected to be a NPT party). Other treaties—multilateral, regional, and bilateral—which also sought to control the nuclear proliferation (see Treaties and Agreements Preventing Nuclear Weapons Proliferation) were subsequently added. The end of the Cold War did not eliminate the danger. In fact, the Security Council considered in 1992 (Document S/23500, 31 January) that the proliferation of nuclear weapons “constitutes a threat for the international peace and security” (p. 4) that permitted it to activate, if necessary, chapter VII of the United Nations (UN) Charter and all the consequences derived from it. With the new millennium, the United Nations Secretary-General described mass destruction arms (nuclear included) as one of the threats to peace and security in the 21st century (see United Nations General Assembly 2005, cited under Security Council, General Assembly, and Secretary-General, para. 78). Nowadays, the nuclear question is still of great relevance. The nuclear problems in the 21st century’s international society are wide and varied and include states that withdrew the NPT (North Korea), states that fail to comply with it (Iran), states that have not yet ratified it (Israel, India, Pakistan), and non-state actors (such as terrorist groups), which are more and more interested in the wide destructive power of nuclear weapons. The adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons of 7 July 2017 was a significant step, but the low number of state accessions shows that nuclear weapons are still a relevant threat.

The UN Security Council and Non-state Actors

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 ◽  
pp. 209-212
Author(s):  
Kristen Boon
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Security Council ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Substantial Impact ◽  
Practical Matter ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
State Actors ◽  
The Cold War

Since the end of the Cold War it has become clear that non-state actors (NSA)1 can have a substantial impact on situations affecting international peace and security.2 Although the authority of the Security Council to directly address NSA is not uncontroversial, it is clear that as a practical matter the Council does exercise this authority regularly.3 My remarks will address this practice and explain its legal significance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document