The Dilemma of War and Peace in the Trend of the XXI Century (Russian – Ukrainian case)

In the presented article the author asks how the essence of the relationship between such states of international relations as war and peace has changed under the influence of the trends of the XXI century. A clear empirical example for such an analysis was the modern Russian-Ukrainian war, a manifestation of which we see on the Donbass. This war was largely the result and manifestation of these new trends in international relations at both the regional and global levels. First of all, these trends and their destructive consequences are typical for the security sphere. From so the dilemma of war and peace takes on a new dimension and becomes one of the most pressing problems of the theory of war and peace and the theory of international relations. The purpose of this article is to understand how the essence of the relationship between such states of international relations as war and peace has changed under the influence of the 21st century trends. In order to properly investigate this problem, was chosen as an object, a striking manifestation of which we see on the Donbass. Research questions relate to changing approaches to understanding the dilemma of war and peace and the nature of the relationship between these states of international relations under the influence of the 21st century trends. To address this research challenge, a systematic review of contemporary research on various aspects of war and peace has been carried out. The answers are based on a study of the criteria for determining the state of war and peace and the determinants that influence the dynamics of change in these states. The study used deductive methods, comparative, political and conflict analysis, as well as neo-realistic and neoliberal approaches to treating the dilemma of war and peace. The article based on the assumption that the modern Russo-Ukrainian war became a consequence and manifestation of these new trends in international relations both at the regional and global levels. The conclusions drawn from this study require a conceptual rethinking and a new reading of the dilemma of war and peace, which are becoming hybrid. Therefore, understanding the new quality of these hybrid forms of war and peace is a very important and necessary task. To solve it, it is necessary to determine how the parameters of the relationship between peace and war have changed. Empirical observations show that one of the new features of this relationship is the blurring of the boundaries of war and peace. The objectives of the study are based on the discovery of a new content of the categories of war and peace and their interdependence due to the influence of 21st century trends in the modern system of international relations. The results of the study are based on the analysis of modern research on various aspects of the war and peace, as well as empirical data on the course of the Russian-Ukrainian war. This article provides an overview of current research on various aspects of war and peace, identifies the interrelationships, interdependencies, and boundaries between hybrid warfare and hybrid peace. The author tried to define the criteria for such a distinction between war and peace, based on the neoliberal and neorealist theory of international relations. The scientific novelty of this publication is that the author clarified the methodological reasons for the unresolved dilemma of war and peace in the current trends of the 21st century. The article concludes with a forecast of the consequences of the unresolved dilemma of war and peace for national and international security. Recommendations are given for a possible solution to the problem of war and peace on Donbass. The research presented in this article is an attempt to conceptually rethink and re-read the dilemmas of war and peace that are becoming hybrid. The article greatly expands the understanding of how the parameters of the relationship between peace and war have changed.

Rivalität, Affekt, Interesse. Ansatzpunkte einer materialistischen Kriegstheorie

In debate with Bernhard H. F. Taureck, Burkhard Liebsch and other authors, we try to develop a materialistic theory of war. Central to this are the rivalries between sovereign states, which have extended and become more complex in the course of globalization. Both political-economic and symbolic-emotional interests are bundled in them. The competition between states, only partially curbed by supranational authorities, also reflects in so-called international law. In contrast to the domestic legal system, this has indeed only limited legal character, as Thucydides’ famous Melian dialogue shows.

Contemporary Challenges for a Philosophical Theory of War. An Exposé

English Editorial of the special Issue on Philosophical Theories of War: Contemporary Challenges and Discussions giving an overview of the latest state of the debate.

The Role of the Ministry of Defense in Preparing Strategic Logistics Reserve for Facing the National Food Emergency

The theme of this article is about the role of the Ministry of Defense in preparing for national food security, especially the role of the Ministry of Defense through the Strategic Logistics Reserve Agency in anticipation of facing a national food emergency, especially in the context of Sishanta. Currently the Ministry of Defense is in the function of preparing universal defense by directing all national potential which is not yet maximized, especially in preparing the logistic needs for the needs of TNI troops as the core force as well as logistical needs for supporting components and reserve components. In this paper, the author tries to use several theories concerning the Strategic Logistics Reserve Agency program, which include the theory of the role of organization, logistics theory, food security theory and Sun Tzu's theory of war in his book The Art of War and submit proposed solutions to these problems in the Strategic Logistics Reserve Agency framework. The research method used is a qualitative method using secondary data, as well as literature study. The data analysis technique used a qualitative descriptive analysis. This article seeks to identify various problems in implementing Strategic Logistics Reserve Agency at the policy and operational levels. From the research results, there are findings that illustrate that logistics supplies in the face of universal defense are unable to support both the needs of the TNI and the needs of its supporters.

From Constitutionalism to War—and Back Again

This chapter presents Arthur Ripstein’s responses to the authors of the preceding chapters. The chapter follows the order of the contributions, and are divided broadly into responses to the papers in Part I concerning the ways in which facts matter to right, and the relation between the flawed world in which we find ourselves and the ideal case that Kant contemplates, and to those in Part II dealing with more specific issues in the Kantian theory of war and peace.

The lived body, everyday and generative powers of war: toward an embodied ontology of war as experience

This paper examines the emergence of the corporeal turn in International Relations (IR) research on war. It argues that a lack of a sustained ontological investigation leaves open two theoretical gaps, which impedes the development of an embodied theory of war: (1) the core concept of a body and its linkages with war are underdeveloped, and (2) existing research on the embodiment of war slips into discursivism or empiricism. The paper invites the corporeal turn scholarship to bring ontology to the forefront of IR war research and to expand a pool of theoretical resources for analyzing the corporeality of war by turning to existential phenomenology. With the phenomenological concept of the lived body placed at the heart of war ontology, war is conceived as a complex social institution with the generative powers born out of the capacity of the violent politics of injury to disrupt the lived bodies' sense-making and agential capacities, on the one hand, and the potential of individuals and communities to reclaim their interpretive integrity and agency through embodied everyday practices, on the other.

Just War and Just Battle: North Korea’s Attack against the ROKS Cheonan and its Unexplored Discourse of an Unjustified Military Action

In March 2010, a North Korean submarine fired a torpedo against the South Korean ship Cheonan, which resulted in the deaths of 46 sailors. Is its surprise attack justified? The academic examination has rarely been made over whether North Korea’s use of military force is justified in this battle. As the just war theory to date has dealt mostly with major wars, it also can guide us to judge whether this limited warfare is just or not. The just war principles are composed of three axes: before, in and after wars. First, North Korea’s provocation had neither right cause nor right intension because it attacked the Cheonan preventively, not preemptively, and was intended to achieve its domestic objective, the stable succession of the Kim regime. Second, North Korea also did not observe in-war principles in the sense that it attacked and sank the Cheonan unproportionally to maximize the effectiveness of revenge. Third, North Korea was not interested in post-battle settlements but intended to aggravate tensions in the region, which is not compliant with post-war principles. The examination sheds some light on the need to expand the scope of just war principles from war to limited warfare and battles particularly in the sense that it helps restrain unethical warfare and maintain the rules-based international order. This expansion also will contribute to not only the richness of the just war theory but also further leading it to evolve into a grand theory of war.

Orthodox Christianity and War

The subject of this article is the Orthodox Christianity’s approach to war. Christians of other denomination have developed an elaborate theory of war, so-called “Just War Theory” (JWT), which has also been accepted by non-Christians and even secular thinkers regarding the nature and justification of war. A vast literature has been produced in a dire attempt to render perfect the world by insisting on the claim that war is the act of punishment for breaking the law. The result is an epistemological ease from which everything seems evident in advance including who is right and who at fault, who is and who is not favored by God. By removing from war an essential feature – that it is a form of conflict – JWT takes away the concept of reciprocity and introduces an in advance declared inequality which enables removal of uncertainty about the war’s outcome. In Orthodox Christianity, the situation is different. With still live debate whether to persevere or abandon original Christian pacifism, for Orthodox Christianity, war is always a combination of cataclysm and temptation and far less Manichean than anything present in JWT. The aim of war is peace; but, however necessary, justice is an insufficient condition for justification. The difference between “justness” and “justification” is preserved through the uncertainty whom God, at war’s end, loves more, because both victors and vanquished remain and continue to be in His grace. Losing a war, as such, does not turn the vanquished into criminals, nor does victory give the vanquisher the right of revenge for defending oneself. The latter approach to war has significant potentialities: preserving the distinction of ius ad bellum and ius in bello, preserving reciprocity, mutual respect and trust, impossibility of incrimination of war per se, the possibility of honorable defeat, etc.