Im "Labyrinth der Legitimitäten" und Ethosanalyse. Carl Schmitt und Herfried Münkler über die neuen Kriege und Krieger

In the "Labyrinth of Legitimacy" and Ethos Analysis. Carl Schmitt and Herfried Münkler on the New Wars and New Warriors The article analyzes Münkler's continuation of Carl Schmitt's late work on international law in the book Kriegssplitter and emphasizes its divergent ethical approach.

The New Wars: Terrorism and “Asymmetric” Warfare

The term “new wars” is often used to describe how terrorist groups achieve objectives in addition to the “classic” means of intervention by states. Terrorist organizations use asymmetric methods of warfare to target the weaknesses of Western states. Consequently, conventional wars have also changed into hybrid wars. The legal status of terrorist organizations is a major problem for the rule of law. In responding to terrorist attacks, the distinction between crime and terrorism is difficult. The “war on terror” is governed by different rules and principles and is extremely difficult to wage. Conflicts last a long time and victory against terrorism is rarely possible due to the networked structure of terrorist organizations and the way they intermingle with the population. In addition to an alliance-wide approach, there is a national solution to answer these new threats in form of the comprehensive national defense in Austria.

World’s Economy and Future Post-Covid-19: A Case Study China Will Impose New World Order

The aim of this paper describes world’s future post-COVID-19. Coronavirus resemble pandemics exist in centuries. Exactly, one century ago influenza flu affected the world economy and social order. About millions of people died caused by pandemics along with weak and collapsed economies. The pandemic entirely affected every sphere of life, including, Labor demand and supply, tourism, economy, politics, and nature of the world. There are two possible scenarios of the world post-Covid-19. First one world will enter new wars, hunger, and world order and so on. Second one, whole states collectively tackle this pandemic. Firstly, Economic and military strength determine the political power of a state. The US has been facing severe and critical crises since 2016. Thus, the US will not maintain power more and more. USA’s One Step Back Policy will collapse USA power and Trump loses the election, and new president will impose new wars on Asian land. European Union will disintegrate due to race of power among the powers along with world face. Secondly, China will impose a new world order after COVID-19. Because China policies totally different from previous superpowers. During supremacy, the Great Britain and USA were adopted aggressive political and military policies. In Contrast, China adopted an economic policy which is beneficial for every society. China started to lead the world economically and politically. So, this gap will create a new war in Asia and globally. China Economic Network policy (BRI) would cover world in 2040 years. Thirdly, world economies will face severe economic conditions like 1923, 1929 and 2008. The current recession and political scenarios are knocking a depression on world economic door. Fourthly, emerging economy India will not cover economic power till 2025. Maybe India never achieves economic prosperity due to Jingoistic approach. In this paper, we predicate world’s economic and politics shape post-covid-19. The virus is changed every sphere and every field of life. ? We used NiGEM model. It’s just predication, will what occur in future. About 3% Gross Domestic Product, 10% consumption, 18% manufacturing and 13% to 32% trade declined due to current pandemics. Universal recession also take place. Now, how the world’s powerful state will push the world into new wars. Which one imposed new world order post-covid-19? Does a new Great Depression knock world door

Peace and Security in the Age of Hybrid Wars

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.

Introduction to the Armed Forces & Society Forum on Military Reserves in the “New Wars”

This Armed Forces & Society forum is dedicated to exploring recent trends in the characteristics of military reserves and of the changing character of reserve forces within the armed forces within the military, the civilian sphere, and in between them. To bring new and critical perspectives to the study of reserve forces and civil–military relations, this introduction and the five articles that follow draw on two organizing conceptual models: The first portrays reservists as transmigrants and focuses on the plural membership of reservists in the military and in civilian society and the “travel” between them. The second model focuses on the multiple formal and informal compacts (contracts, agreements, or pacts) between reservists and the military.

“New Wars”: Disappearance of the Future and/or Synchronization of Temporalities

The future-oriented temporal regime of modernity is today being replaced by presentism in the perception of time, not only in Russia or Eastern Europe, but throughout the world. However, this presentism does not always imply subordination of the past and future to the interests of the present. It may involve a conflict among temporalities, which will be settled by a violent synchronization of heterogeneous temporal outlooks or by recognizing radical time gaps. Most often, the politics of time is observable at the macro-level — as subordination of common commemoration practices to dominant narratives or regimes that exercise power over knowledge. In this interpretation, “politics from below” acts as a response to hegemony, but its failure is inevitable. The article points out the artificiality of that dichotomy by studying the writings about “new wars,” which are now becoming a decentralized system for the use of violence to reach extremely varied pragmatic goals. One of those goals is managing the future in a “risk society” or the endless prolongation of a present in which the boundary between ordinary and extraordinary violence is blurred. But at the same time, the “new wars” are also synchronizing “from below.” The politics of time is generated by the incompatibilities between past, present and future without ever reaching a stable symbolic hierarchy. Under these conditions it becomes quite difficult to separate “wartime” and “peacetime”. The article takes up the problematic nature of this demarcation in relation to cotemporary local conflicts in both Russia and the West.