The Soviet Power Play at Changkufeng

1960 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 249-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Blumenson

Power politics and opportunism go hand in hand. Picking the right time to act involves a clear perception of the alternatives, a close estimate of the risks, and a clever gamble on the odds.The Russians have shown themselves adept at the game. Their use of force or the threat of force has been unusually astute. They try to move when the deck is stacked in their favor.

Author(s):  
Johannes Socher

The book concludes with the suggestion that Russia’s approach to the right of peoples to self-determination may be best understood not only in terms of Russian power politics disguised as legal rhetoric but can be seen as evidence of traits of a regional (re-)fragmentation of international law. Even basic agreement on what self-determination as a concept of international law means and what role related concepts such as territorial integrity, secession, referendum, or the prohibition of the use of force do or should play in that context seems almost unattainable, to the effect that international law as a single epistemological frame is arguably in a similar danger as during Soviet times. Today, apart from Lauri Mälksoo’s work and occasional contributions by a handful of other scholars in the West, analyses of Russia’s post-Soviet state practice and doctrine in the international legal discourse usually confine themselves to assess the legality of Russia’s actions in terms of positive international law. Such a limited approach fails to attempt to understand diverging views on international law, something which was perceived as self-evident during the Cold War period.


2021 ◽  
Vol 67 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-26
Author(s):  
Johannes Socher

As a concept of international law, the right to self-determination is widely renowned for its unclarity. Broadly speaking, one can differentiate between a liberal and a nationalist tradition. In modern international law, the balance between these two opposing traditions is sought in an attempt to contain or ‘domesticate’ the nationalist conception by limiting it to ‘abnormal’ situations, i.e. to colonialism in the sense of ‘alien subjugation, domination and exploitation’. Essentially, this distinction between ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’ situations has since been the heart of the matter in the legal discourse on the right to self-determination, with the important qualification regarding the need to preserve existing borders. This study situates Russia’s approach to the right to self- determination in that discourse by way of a regional comparison vis-à-vis a ‘western’ or European perspective, and a temporal comparison with the former Soviet doctrine of international law. Against the background of the Soviet Union’s role in the evolution of the right to self-determination, the bulk of the study analyses Russia’s relevant state practice in the post-Soviet space through the prisms of sovereignty, secession, and annexation. Complemented by a review of the Russian scholarship on the topic, it is suggested that Russia’s approach to the right to self-determination may be best understood not only in terms of power politics disguised as legal rhetoric, but can be seen as evidence of traits of a regional (re-)fragmentation of international law.


Author(s):  
Anna Igorevna Filimonova

After the collapse of the USSR, fundamentally new phenomena appeared on the world arena, which became a watershed separating the bipolar order from the monopolar order associated with the establishment of the US global hegemony. Such phenomena were the events that are most often called «revolutions» in connection with the scale of the changes being made — «velvet revolutions» in the former Eastern Bloc, as well as revolutions of a different type, which ended in a change in the current regimes with such serious consequences that we are also talking about revolutionary transformations. These are technologies of «color revolutions» that allow organizing artificial and seemingly spontaneous mass protests leading to the removal of the legitimate government operating in the country and, in fact, to the seizure of power by a pro-American forces that ensure the Westernization of the country and the implementation of "neoliberal modernization", which essentially means the opening of national markets and the provision of natural resources for the undivided use of the Western factor (TNC and TNB). «Color revolutions» are inseparable from the strategic documents of the United States, in which, from the end of the 20th century, even before the collapse of the USSR, two main tendencies were clearly traced: the expansion of the right to unilateral use of force up to a preemptive strike, which is inextricably linked with the ideological justification of «missionary» American foreign policy, and the right to «assess» the internal state of affairs in countries and change it to a «democratic format», that is, «democratization». «Color revolutions», although they are not directly mentioned in strategic documents, but, being a «technical package of actions», straightforwardly follow from the right, assigned to itself by Washington, to unilateral use of force, which is gradually expanding from exclusively military actions to a comprehensive impact on an opponent country, i.e. essentially a hybrid war. Thus, the «color revolutions» clearly fit into the strategic concept of Washington on the use of force across the entire spectrum (conventional and unconventional war) under the pretext of «democratization». The article examines the period of registration and expansion of the US right to use force (which, according to the current international law, is a crime without a statute of limitations) in the time interval from the end of the twentieth century until 2014, filling semantic content about the need for «democratic transformations» of other states, with which the United States approached the key point of the events of the «Arab spring» and «color revolutions» in the post-Soviet space, the last and most ambitious of which was the «Euromaidan» in Ukraine in 2014. The article presents the material for the preparation of lectures and seminars in the framework of the training fields «International Relations» and «Political Science».


2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 431-450
Author(s):  
Conor Foley

Over 100,000 un peacekeeping personnel are deployed on missions with authority from the Security Council, under Chapter vii of the un Charter, to use force to protect civilians. Nevertheless, they have repeatedly failed to do so and yet there does not appear to be a single case where the un has taken disciplinary action against senior staff for failing to act in line with a mission mandate in this regard. This article argues that the ´positive´ and ´negative´ obligations of international human rights law, protecting the right to life and physical integrity, provide the most appropriate guidance to the tactical use of force by un peacekeeping soldiers. Mechanisms also need to be created to improve the accountability of un missions to those that they are responsible for protecting.


Retos ◽  
2015 ◽  
pp. 14-18
Author(s):  
Pablo García-Marín ◽  
Francisco Manuel Argudo Iturriaga ◽  
José Ignacio Alonso Roque

El objetivo de este estudio fue conocer la influencia de los periodos de juego en la dinámica de la acción de juego en desigualdad numérica temporal simple con posesión en waterpolo. Para ello se utilizó un diseño nomotético, multidimensional y de seguimiento. Se analizaron 1230 desigualdades en 95 partidos del Campeonato del Mundo de Waterpolo de Barcelona 2003. Se utilizó la prueba de Kruskal-Wallis para discriminar las categorías con diferencias entre periodos. Posteriormente la prueba U de Mann-Whitney permitió localizar qué periodos de los cuatro diferían entre sí. En la categoría masculina se encontraron diferencias significativas (p < .05) en: lanzamiento frente tenso, posición de lanzamiento izquierda delante, posición de lanzamiento derecha delante, y exclusión sin posesión. Las diferencias alcanzadas en el campeonato femenino fueron: posición de lanzamiento desde el palo derecho, pase previo al lanzamiento desde izquierda detrás, pase previo al lanzamiento desde el palo derecho, duración, parada e introducción del móvil en la portería por el lateral derecho. Se concluye que existe poca variación de la dinámica de la acción de juego en desigualdad entre periodos. El análisis del adversario previo y durante el partido puede ayudar a reducir la incertidumbre de los jugadores y aumentar el rendimiento del equipo.Palabras clave. waterpolo, desigualdad, periodo de juego, masculino, femenino.Abstract. The aim of this study was to determine the influence of game periods on dynamics of the game action during power play in water polo. A nomothetic, multidimensional and longitudinal design was used. Power play situations (n = 1230) were analyzed in 95 matches from World Water Polo Championships in Barcelona 2003. To discriminate the categories with differences by periods the Kruskal-Wallis test was used. Then the specific differences among periods were found with U Mann-Whitney test. Significant statistical differences (p < .05) were found in men championship: drive shot, origin of shot from left forward, origin of shot from right forward, and exclusion fouls without possession. Differences found in women championships were: origin of shot from right pole, last pass before throwing from left backward, last pass before throwing from right pole, duration, detention and goals on the right side. It was concluded that there were little changes on dynamics of the game in power play between periods. The previous and live match analysis of the opponent team could reduce the incertitude of players and increase team performance.Keywords. water polo, power play, game period, male, female.


2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 79
Author(s):  
Pshtiwan Mohammed Qader

The present paper examines the problem of cyber-attacks under existing international law. It takes the view that the (United Nations) UN Charter provisions on the use of force can be extended to cyber-attacks by means of interpretation although the relevant provisions do not explicitly address such issue. This Article argues that cyber-attacks resulting in material damage or destruction to property, death or injury to persons, or severe disruption of the functioning of critical infrastructures can be characterized as use of armed force and therefore violate the prohibition contained in article 2(4) of the Charter. However, cyber-attacks not resulting in the above consequences may be illegal intervention in the internal affairs of other states if such attacks are coercive in nature. In addition, the current study discusses that a cyber-attack which amounts to a use of armed force per se is not sufficient to give the victim state the right to self-defense, unless its scale and effects are equivalent to those of a conventional armed attack. Finally, the study concludes that an international cyber treaty is truly necessary to more effectively address cyber-attacks.


1985 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-42
Author(s):  
Baruch A. Brody

It seems to me that those who place great value on the right to human freedom can be badly divided on the question of the use of force by states to defend the liberties of those who are not citizens of that particular state. Concerned about the liberties to be defended, they might be enthusiastic supporters of the use of such force by liberty-loving countries throughout the world. Concerned about the liberties that might be violated when the state marshals its forces for use internationally, they might adopt a more isolationist approach to this issue. This paper is an attempt to help clarify this conflict by looking at some of the philosophical issues it raises. Because I wish to avoid factual debates about current conflicts, I will give no real-life examples. However, they are on my mind, and I hope the reader will keep them in mind as well.


Author(s):  
Yu. V. Borets ◽  
◽  
O. V. Palahniuk ◽  

The purpose of the article. Theoretical analysis of personal mediation of manipuiative tendencies. Methodology. The basis of this study is a theoretical analysis, synthesis, generalization, systematization of available scientific literature on the subject. Results. Manipulation of consciousness is one of the ways to dominate and suppress the will of people by acting on them through the programming of their behavior. This action is aimed at the mental structures of man, which is carried out secretly and aims to change the thoughts, motivations and goals of people in the right direction for a certain group of people. In this case, the purpose of manipulation – hiding their true intentions, to encourage another person to take certain actions, change values, ideas and opinions, etc., while maintaining the illusion of independence in general and independence of decisions or actions. In other words, to motivate a person to what he does not want to do, to distract from what he aspires to, but at the same time to create in him the confidence that he is acting of his own free will. Practical implications. The need to study manipulative tendencies is to determine the main ways and methods of manipulation and ways to protect against manipulative action. To reveal the main features of the manipulator’s personality and the category of people who are most prone to manipulative action. Theoretical materials can be used in the training process of the courses “Psychology of personality”, “Age Psychology”, “Differential Psychology”, “Fundamentals psychological correction”. Originality/value. It was found that the criteria for manipulation are: the attitude of the manipulator to the objects of manipulation as a means to achieve their own goal, the desire to gain unilateral advantage, the hidden nature of influence, use of force, motivation, motivation and skill in the process of manipulative influence. Key words: manipulation, coercion, manipulation, subject of manipulation, projection, Machiavellianism, manipulative influence.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-36
Author(s):  
David Little

Abstract The article challenges the fashionable but finally unsupportable opinion in political and academic circles that there exists no compelling, unitary, universally resonant moral and legal justification of human rights. The argument is intimated by two overlooked passages in the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that presuppose the right of self-defense against arbitrary force, understood as both a moral and legal concept, and as relevant both to personal and collective life. It shows how the logic of defensive force underlies the three formative human rights instruments: the UDHR, and the two covenants on political, legal, economic, social, and cultural rights. The underlying claim is that good reasons of a particular kind are required to justify any use of force, a claim that makes perfect sense against the backdrop of the atrocities committed by the German fascists and their allies in the mid-twentieth century. The article also refers to compelling, if preliminary, evidence of the widespread cross-cultural acceptance of the moral and legal right of self-defense, suggesting a basis for the worldwide comprehensibility and appeal of human-rights language.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document