Key international conflicts examples. The nature of modern international conflicts, the problems of their peaceful settlement and resolution
During the lesson, everyone will be able to get an idea on the topic "Political conflicts in the modern world." At the beginning of the lesson, we will give a definition of conflict, i.e. the clash of two or more groups that pursue incompatible goals. After that, we will consider in more detail the causes of political conflicts in the modern world.
Theme: Society
Lesson: Political conflicts in the modern world
Hello. Today's lesson is about political conflicts. Unfortunately, it is not yet possible to avoid them in the modern world.
A conflict is a clash of two or more forces pursuing incompatible interests.
Positive (Marxism) and negative (functionalism) attitudes towards conflict. Functionalism is a direction in philosophy, whose supporters do not recognize the positive role of social conflict and emphasize cooperation and stability. Revolution as a form not only of development, but also of conflict. Technological revolution - good, but political -?
“He who knows how to deal with conflicts by recognizing and regulating them takes control of the rhythm of history. Anyone who misses this opportunity gets this rhythm as his opponents ”(R. Dahrendorf, Fig. 1).
Rice. 1. R. Dahrendorf
The science of conflictology deals with the study of conflicts.
Conflicts intrastate and interstate. We will consider interstate conflicts.
It is customary to divide all conflicts into political, economic, social and cultural, but now more than before, conflicts in the social sphere are complex.
Example: The Arab-Israeli conflict is considered political, but it also has economic, social, cultural and religious content.
The second characteristic feature of modern conflicts is their globalization. If earlier, as a rule, two countries were the subjects of conflicts, then since the beginning of the 20th century, entire groups of countries have taken part in conflicts - the Entente, the Triple Alliance, the Warsaw Treaty Organization, NATO and others. Therefore, almost any modern political conflict affects the interests of many states. The Entente is a military-political bloc of England, France and Russia (1904-1919), one of the main participants in the First World War. The Triple Alliance is a military-political bloc of Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire and a number of other countries (1879-1918), which took part in the First World War.
In turn, the globalization of conflicts gives rise to the need for their international settlement. Various groups of countries create joint forces to carry out peacekeeping activities.
An example of such organizations is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (2001). CSTO (1992).
Of course, the most important role in resolving international conflicts is played by the United Nations. The UN Security Council may decide to create a peacekeeping mission in a particular region and send the UN "blue helmets" there.
Preventive diplomacy - measures aimed at preventing disagreements between the parties and preventing disputes from escalating into military conflicts.
The third feature of modern political conflicts is that the geography of their distribution has changed significantly. If during the new time there were active wars in European countries, now, after 1945, the developed countries of the West practically do not fight among themselves. "Trade wars" between them happen, but they always end through negotiations.
However, Western countries at the same time faced another problem, also international character. This problem of international terrorism is one of the most acute global problems.
Events 09/11/2001 in the USA.
Explosions in Moscow in 1999.
Stages of resolving political conflicts:
Institutionalization of the conflict - recognition of its existence;
Legitimization of the conflict resolution procedure - the adoption of certain rules for conflict resolution and their observance by all participants;
Structuring conflicting groups - determining the composition of the participants in the conflict and their leaders, the formation of bodies to resolve the conflict.
In any case, a dialogue between all its participants is necessary to resolve the conflict. If people do not want to resolve the conflict, it will last forever.
In addition to interstate conflicts, there are also intrastate conflicts in the form of a struggle for power between various political groups. In the early 1990s, Russia became the scene of the most active struggle for power. We'll talk about this in the next lesson. Our lesson for today is over. Thank you for your attention.
United Nations peacekeeping operations
Currently, there are about 15 UN peacekeeping operations in the world (more than 60 missions in total) (Fig. 2). The largest number of operations are carried out in Africa (Sudan, Darfur, Western Sahara, Côte d'Ivoire, DRC) and Asia (Israel, Lebanon, Cyprus, Afghanistan, the Indo-Pakistani border, East Timor). In America, an operation is being carried out in Haiti. There is a UN mission in Kosovo in Europe.
Rice. 2. UN Operations
Soldiers of UN missions are informally called "blue helmets" (Fig. 3). Currently, about 100 thousand people are involved in operations - most of the countries participating in the conflict. The maximum Russian contingent existed in 1996 and amounted to 1600 people (more than 1300 in Bosnia). Russia is currently represented by about 250 peacekeepers.
Rice. 3. Blue helmets
"Banana War"
In 1993, an economic conflict erupted between Europe and the Americas over the adoption by the EU of common rules for fruit imports. Negotiations were conducted until 1999 and ended with an agreement according to which the EU countries opened their markets for fruits from all over the world and paid compensation to the injured party.
Former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said after another round of talks, "Never in my life did I think I would spend so much time talking about bananas."
The sharp increase in wars in recent decades has outstripped the world's ability to stop them and deal with the consequences. In addition to military conflicts, it is also worth noting the refugee crisis and the growing threat of terrorism.
share
From the global refugee crisis, the spread of terrorism and hybrid wars, our collective failure to resolve conflicts is giving rise to new threats and emergencies.Even in a peaceful society, the politics of fear leads to dangerous polarization and demagogy. Newly elected world leaders such as Theresa May and Donald Trump have embraced a Europe frightened by terrorist attacks and refugees, blazing wars in Syria, Yemen, Africa and Iraq, a protracted conflict in eastern Ukraine, Saudi Arabia and Iran, an aggressive Russia, and a general rise in populism and nationalism in the world.
Nationalist forces have gained momentum and the upcoming elections in France, Germany and the Netherlands will test the future of the European project. The potential for the collapse of the European Union is one of the biggest problems we face today, a fact that is lost in the midst of many other disturbing developments competing for attention. The world needs a new, inclusive security and conflict prevention strategy.
Whether we like it or not, globalization is a fact. We are all connected. The war in Syria has sparked a refugee crisis that has fueled the vote for Brexit, whose deep political and economic consequences will be visible for a very long time to come.Countries may become more isolated and focused on domestic politics, but there is no peace and prosperity without greater joint management of world affairs.
This list of 10 conflicts to watch in 2017 not only illustrates some of the broader trends, but also explores ways to reverse a dangerous dynamic.
1. Syria and Iraq
After almost six years of fighting, half a million dead andabout 12 million refugeesSyrian President Bashar al-Assad is likelyretain power for the moment. But even with the help of Iran and Russia, he will not be able to end the war and regain full control over the country.
An obvious example of this is the capture of Palmyra by ISIS in justnine months after the Islamic State forces as a resultRussian-backed military campaignwere thrown back from the ancient city.Assad's strategy to counter militant groups has worked to strengthen Islamist movements, primarily ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra. Pthe rebels were further weakened by the recent defeat in Aleppo. The evacuation of civilians and opponents of Assad was carried out with great interruptions, provocations and problems.
Deal about ceasefire was reached withmediation of Russia and Turkey at the end of December. Butas the regime continued its military offensivesin the suburbs of Damascus, there were fears that the truce would not last long.Despite significant challenges infuture, this new diplomatic move offers the best opportunity to reduce violence in Syria.
In Iraq, the fight against IS has further undermined the ability of the authorities to govern the country, caused massive destruction, militarized youth and traumatized Iraqi society. It has fractured Kurdish and Shiite political parties into rival factions dependent on regional patrons and competing for Iraqi resources.
To avoid even worse scenarios, Baghdad and the Kurdistan Regional Government need support and pressure to rein in the paramilitary groups.
While the Islamic State has lost some territory in Iraq over the past year, it still maintains its brutal caliphate over the rest. Even if it fails militarily, some other radical group may well re-emerge if the issues underlying governance are not resolved. The Islamic State itself grew out of a similar setback in Iraq. It spreads an ideology that still mobilizes young people around the world and poses a threat far beyond Iraq and Syria, as the recent attacks in Istanbul and Berlin have shown.
2. Turkey
Day of the attack night club in Istanbul in New Year, which killed at least 39 people, seems to be a harbinger of more violence to come. "The Islamic State claimed responsibility for the attack, departing from the group's common practice in Turkey, in a move that could signal an escalation.In addition to being involved in the wars in Syria and Iraq, Turkey also faces Kurdish militants from the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party).Politically polarized, amid economic strain, Turkey is poised for a bigger upheaval.
The conflict between the state and the PKK continues to worsen after the failure of the July 2015 ceasefire. Since then, the confrontationentered one of the deadliest chapters in its history in three decades; at least 2,500 militants, security forces and civilians were killed on both sides.Collisions and operationssecurity have supplanted more350,000 civiliansfrom their territories and laid siege to several Kurdish-majority urban areas in the southeast of the country.
For terrorist attacks the government is respondingalternate times planting inimprisoning representatives of the Kurdish movement, blocking the decisive channel for a political settlement,which should includethemselves defending fundamental rights for Kurds in Turkey. P The government of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan continues its crackdown on political opposition and dissent and pushes for constitutional changes to create a the country's presidential system. Such a proposal will be put to a referendum in early spring. As a result of the coup attempt last July, the government launched a massive crackdown: they were fired and arrested over 100,000 officials.
In November, Erdogan responded angrily to criticism from Brussels, threatening to rip off the deal,under which Ankara agreed to prevent the flow of Syrian refugees from advancing to Europe. More2.7 million Syrian refugeescurrently registered in Turkey,their integration creates significant problems for both the state andand for host communities.
3. Yemen
The war in Yemen has created anotherhumanitarian catastrophedestroying the countrywhich was already the poorest in the Arab world. A problem withmillions of peopleon the brink of starvation, the need for a comprehensive ceasefire and a political settlement is becoming increasingly urgent.Yemenis suffered huge lossesfrom aerial bombardment, rocket attacks and economic blockades.According to the UN, about 4,000 civilians were killed, most at the hands ofSaudi Arabia at the head of coalition airstrikes. All parties to the conflict are accused of committing war crimes,including chaotic attacks on civilian areas.
Both sides find themselves locked in a cycle of escalations and provocations to derail UN-sponsored peace talks.In November, the Saudi-backed Yemeni governmentled by President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi rejected the UN's proposed plan.In the same month, the Houthi movement and its allies, inmostly forces ledformer President Ali Abdullah Saleh formed a new government.Despite the difficulties, it is still possibleconvince the parties to accept the road map inas a basis for compromise,that will end the war.
Much depends on Saudi calculations and the willingness of the United States and Britain to encourage Riyadh to fully support the political compromise. Failure to put this process on track carries risks for all involved. So, a few militant jihadist groups, including al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and the Islamic State, are thriving in the region during the turmoil in Yemen.
4. Greater Sahel and the Lake Chad Basin
Conflicts in the Greater Sahel and the Lake Chad Basin have caused widespread human suffering,including forcedrun away from their homes.Jihadists, armed groups and criminal networks are vying for power overthroughout an impoverished region where borders are open and governments have limited power.
In 2016 jihadists of the Central Sahellaunched deadly attacks in western Niger, Burkina Faso and Ivory Coast, what highlights the vulnerability of the region. " Al- Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb" and "Al-Murabitun" remain active inwhile new groups emerge that swear allegiance to IS.Mali is the most dangerous UN peacekeeping mission:70 employeeshave already died from "malicious acts" since 2013.
Mali could face a major crisis inthis year, as it is observedspread of armed groups tocentral Mali. Regional powers should use the upcoming African Union summit in January,to restart the peace process.Algeria is an important pledgestabilityin the region, plays a key role inas the main intermediary of the transaction.
In the Lake Chad Basin, the security forces of Nigeria, Niger, Cameroon and Chad have stepped upfight against the Boko Haram rebels". At the end of December, the Nigerian Presidentannouncedabout the "final suppression of terrorists in their last enclave" in the Sambisa forest. But until the group was completely defeated and still able to strike.
Boko Haram and other insurgents, as well as the lack of effective assistance to those stranded in the conflict zone, threaten to create an endless cycle of violence and despair. States must also invest in economic development and strengthening local government to close opportunities for radical groups.
5. Democratic Republic of the Congo
The Democratic Republic of the Congo received good news just before midnight on New Year's Eve, when Catholic bishops announced that a deal had been reached to resolve the country's political crisis.President Joseph Kabila has yet to sign an agreement that requires him to step down after elections and has until the end of 2017. Despite high levels of mistrust between the parties, a deal brokered by the Congolese Catholic Church remains the best chance for peace.The main task now is to prepare for elections and a peaceful transfer of power in a short time.
African and Western powersshould coordinate effortsto pull the Congo back from the brink and prevent further regional instability.
MONUSCO, the largest UN peacekeeping mission, does not have the capacity to deal with such problems,and it would be more efficient to create a mission withnarrow mandatemoving away from institution building and good offices to the control ofobservance of human rights.
In September last year at least53 peoplewere killed in mainly by the security forces, when demonstrations against the rule of Kabila, even after the expiration of his mandate, turned into violence which is likely to continueif the elections are again postponed.The main opposition coalition, Rassemblement, will be ready to use the power of the street,to try and get Kabila to leave.Political tensions in Kinshasa are also fueling violence in throughout the country, in including in the conflict east of the DR Congo.
6. South Sudan
After three years of civil war, the youngest country in the worldstill tormented by numerous conflicts. They resulted in 1.8 million internally displaced persons and more1.2 million were forced to leavecountry. cameimplementation messagesmass atrocitiesand lack of progress onways to implement the 2015 peace agreement. In December, President Salva Kiir called for a renewed ceasefire and a national dialogue to promote peace and reconciliation.
On the international levelthe peace agreement was derailed in July 2016, whenfighting broke out in the capital Jubabetween government forces and former rebels.Leader of the Opposition and Former VicePresident Riek Machar, who only recently returned to Juba inin accordance with the terms of the deal, left the country.Kiir has since strengthened its position in the capital and the region as a whole, which createsopportunity to advance negotiationswith armed opposition.
The situation in the fieldsecurity in Juba has improved in recent months, although fighting and ethnic violence continue in other places. International diplomatic efforts are focused on deploying a protective regional contingent of 4,000 soldiers.The existing UN peacekeeping mission in South Sudan, UNMISS, is in need ofurgent reform - which became especially clear after itsfailure to protect the civilian populationduring the outbreak of violence inJuly last year in Juba.
7. Afghanistan
War and political instability in Afghanistan pose a serious threat to international peace and security for more than15 years afterUS-led coalition forces pushed the Taliban out of power as part of a broader campaign to defeat " Al-Qaeda". Today the Taliban are reinforcing their positions, the Haqqani network is responsible for attacks in major cities, andThe Islamic State has carried out a series of attacks on Muslims Shiites, incitingsectarian violence.
The number last year reached the highest level since records of incidents began in 2007, with large quantity civilian casualties. Further weakening of the Afghan security forces will leave the jihadists with large unruly spaces. They can be used by regional and transnational militant groups.
Relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan have long been strained due tofor Islamabad's support for the Taliban and other militant groups.Tensions escalated last fall,when thousands of Afghan refugees in Pakistan were forced to flee toamid rising violence, detentions and harassment. Afghanrefugee crisisexacerbated by the EU plan to deport 80,000 asylum seekers back to Afghanistan - a political response tohumanitarian emergency. All this in the backgroundeconomic crisisexerts strong pressure on a dangerously weakened state.
8. Myanmar
The new civilian governmentled by the laureate Nobel Prize Peace Aung San Suu Kyi promised peace and national reconciliation inas their top priorities. T I don't eat However, recent outbreaks of violence have jeopardized efforts to stopalmost 70 years of armed conflict.In November, the "Northern Alliance" of four armed groups carried out unprecedented combined attacks in a key trade zone on the border with China, sparking a military escalation.
In addition, Myanmar is torn apart by confrontations on ethnic and religious grounds. Attacks against the Rohingya Muslim minority are particularly well known. Following an anti-Muslim attack in the Rakhine region last fall against military and police forces along the border with Bangladesh, The security forces struck back. The security forces made little distinction between militants and civilians. There were reports of extrajudicial executions, arson and violence.
By mid-December, according to UN estimates, about 27000 Rohingya fled to Bangladesh. More than a dozen Nobel laureates have published open letter, criticizing Aung San Suu Kyi for her inability to speak out about abuse.
9. Ukraine
After nearly three years of war and some 10,000 deaths, Russia's military intervention is defining every aspect of political life in Ukraine.Divided by conflict and paralyzed by corruption, Ukraine is heading towards even greater uncertainty. Trump's admiration for Vladimir Putin scares Kyiv,as are rumors that the United States may decide to lift sanctions against Russia.The implementation of the Minsk peace agreements of February 2015 is at an impasse. Russia, which started the war in 2014, is effectively engaged in two of its goals in Ukraine: establishing permanent pro-Russian political entities in eastern Ukraine, and normalizing the annexation of Crimea.
The modern modernization of the political picture of the world, which has captured Russia, is characterized by three main factors: the multiplicity of conflicts, accompanied by a huge variety of their forms; the high speed of the spread of changes due to the processes of modern globalization; growing chaos in international relations. Despite the end of the global confrontation, in the modern world the total number of international and domestic political conflicts continues to grow, their new forms (conflicts of values) are emerging, little subject to the stabilizing effect of traditional instruments of diplomacy; “National liberation wars against colonialism and neo-colonialism are being replaced by a new generation of much more dangerous inter-civilizational conflicts” . At the same time, international conflicts become a point of intersection of the interests of the world's largest actors - Russia, the United States, China, the EU - and at the same time a field of contact, interpenetration and clash of values of the world's largest ideologies: Christianity, Confucianism and Islam.
The study of modern international conflicts, their nature, causes and factors influencing their settlement and resolution has made significant progress in recent years. The result of this was not only a qualitative leap in understanding the nature and driving forces of modern conflicts, but also a change in the very attitude towards them: it became clear that conflicts (including political and international ones) play certain functions, without which the development of society is impossible. These functions are equally destructive and constructive: "The productivity of confrontation stems from the fact that conflict leads to change, change leads to adaptation, and adaptation leads to survival."
The modern theory of international relations proceeds from the basic position that conflict is not an anomaly in international relations, but one of the forms of interaction between actors, during which the political picture of the world is updated and modernized.
However, the very concept of international conflict remains largely debatable. So, generally accepted criteria have not yet been developed that make it possible to unambiguously divide political conflicts into international and non-international (internal). This and other problems of classification and typology of political conflicts are related to the complexity of the very nature of the conflict, which requires a synthesis of various methodological approaches. In this regard, the appearance in the Russian press of fundamental works that study international conflicts from the standpoint of various related disciplines: political science, psychology, sociology, ethno-conflictology, etc. Based on the synthesis of various methodological approaches, new paradigms for managing international conflicts began to emerge, in particular, cultural and civilizational, confirmed in the specific practice of international relations.
The understanding that conflict does not always mean “bad” has made a real revolution in the theory of managing international processes. An international conflict began to be seen not only as an object of suppression or resolution, but also as an object of external control. It became clear that the conflict "can be managed, and managed in such a way that its negative, destructive consequences can be minimized, and constructive opportunities can be strengthened" . At the same time, the emergence of technologies such as "controlled chaos" and their spread in the practice of international relations indicate that in international conflictology the value of peaceful conflict resolution has not yet become an absolute category, the main and only goal of external influence on conflicts. The same problems acted as a catalyst for the discussion of such issues of conflict management theory as the universality of values and technologies based on them to influence conflicts, the ability to manage entire regions, plunging them into political chaos, etc.
Any international conflict develops at various levels. This became the basis for applying to modern political conflicts (including international ones) the apparatus of level analysis, first proposed by K. Waltz to study the process of making political decisions. In conflictology, this approach has been expressed in the form of a level scheme, in which a political conflict is considered as an interaction:
- civilizations;
- actors of international relations, their unions and coalitions;
- government agencies various actors authorized to represent their interests in the conflict;
- individual actors - statesmen and persons authorized by the parties to the conflict to act in the conflict on their behalf and represent their national interests.
The Western political tradition has its own understanding of the nature of conflicts and their management, based on the views of the leading schools of American political thought: realism (including its latest trends), liberalism (also including its latest trends) and constructivism. Representatives of all these schools agree that conflicts are based on unresolved fundamental contradictions, but at the same time they demonstrate significant differences in their views on exactly what factors these contradictions are generated by.
Representatives of the school of political realism argue that conflicts are based on the discrepancy between the national interests of its participants. The desire of various actors to build a system of national interests of other participants in international relations in accordance with their own vector of foreign policy gives rise to tension, which then results in a special form of conflict interaction, called the "clash of interests". The conflicts that arise as a result of such a clash of differently directed political forces are called "conflicts of interest".
Representatives of the school of political liberalism believe that the basis of modern political conflicts is the mismatch of values, the bearers of which are their participants. Differences in the value systems of the participants in the conflict, their sometimes complete incompatibility and the desire of individual actors to impose their political values on other participants in international relations, moreover, mainly by force, give rise to a new form of conflict interaction, known as the "clash of values". The conflicts that arise as a result of such a clash of political values and ideologies, generated by fundamental differences in the worldview concepts and doctrines of various civilizations (Anglo-Saxon, Romano-Germanic, East Asian, Middle Eastern, etc.), are called "conflicts of interest".
Representatives of a relatively young school of political constructivism agree with neoliberals that the basis of modern political conflicts is a mismatch of values, but at the same time they argue that the values themselves are not something immutable and civilizational, but can be constructed from any ideological material, on the basis of any cultural and civilizational platform, including for the solution of specific foreign policy tasks. As a result, in a real conflict, it is not adherence to certain sets of values that is decisive for the positions of its participants, but the values with which this or that participant in the conflict relates (identifies) himself and his foreign policy at a particular moment in time.
According to constructivists, there are a great many such sets of values and different participants in conflicts can change or modify them depending on the specific political situation. Even ethnicity in constructivism is presented as “a process of social construction of imaginary communities based on the belief that they are united by natural and even natural ties, a single type of culture and the idea or myth of a common origin and common history. The extent to which these signs are combined into a single whole, called ethnicity, depends on many factors. social factors, and above all from the demand for ethnicity, generated by the epoch and individuals.
Differences in the self-identification of political actors give rise to claims related to the division of society into “us” and “them” on the basis of belonging to a particular ethnic group, clan, clan, diaspora, language group, religious denomination, etc., which, in the opinion of constructivists, the basis of modern political conflicts. Such conflicts are called "identity conflicts".
The Anglo-Saxon classification of political conflicts, dividing them into three main categories - conflicts of interest, values and identification - at first glance seems to be simplified and schematic. However, it really works and allows us to understand the nature of the processes underlying modern conflicts at various levels of their development.
Conflict management from the standpoint of constructivism is nothing more than managing the group behavior of their participants, taking into account their consideration as a social group in which the behavior of its members is regulated by social laws. In modern sociology, group behavior is quite well studied: it is the inclusion (or getting) of an individual in a group that makes him choose a certain role for himself, taking into account the roles of other members of this group, and then play it. Constructivists in their theory emphasize that there is no difference in the laws of social role behavior in groups consisting of individual members of society, or in groups consisting of actors of international relations and world politics, even if these actors are nation-states: their role behavior in the composition of the group is determined by the well-known and well-studied laws of social interaction. This also applies to international conflicts: conflict interaction in them is built on the principles of intra-group social conflict. There is a clear transfer of schemes, theories, laws and practices of social interaction to the sphere of international relations.
Various forms of role-playing behavior in social groups are known: the role of a leader, the role of a subordinate, the role of an arbitrator, etc.; the role of alpha, beta, gamma community members, etc. Despite the fact that the behavior of a free person outside the group can be anything or at least have many variations, inside the group it always corresponds to one of the role schemes adopted in this group, and cannot be arbitrary and variable. The number of such schemes is always, of course, quantized and represents a certain set. It is this nature of social group behavior that allows these schemes (sets) to be successfully identified, defined and classified.
Constructivists, in fact, stand in relation to the behavior of their actors in the same positions: role schemes social behavior in a group they call “cultures”, their theory of “cultural drift” (when the actor changes the scheme of role behavior, the actor chooses a new scheme from a finite set of already existing schemes of group behavior) is an interpretation of the social law of changing the role hierarchy of an individual within the social sphere adapted to the sphere of international relations. groups. At the same time, it is known that in social psychology all patterns of role behavior of individuals in a group, stratum or society are conditioned by cultural and civilizational affiliation.
Technologies of psychological influence on conflicts, from the point of view of constructivists, are technologies for managing roles or role-playing behavior of conflict participants within a group. The management of group behavior in international conflictology based on its (behavior) social nature is, of course, a progressive and innovative step that creates new opportunities for resolving existing and potential conflicts. Social technologies for managing the behavior of world politics actors in a conflict environment open the way to the future, their significance in the formation of tools for peaceful conflict resolution is comparable only with the progress of conflict perception management technologies - political marketing technologies.
The presence of two fundamental factors that determine the foreign policy of a modern state - interests and values - often leads to the fact that between the adherents of realism and liberalism there is a conflict related to the fact that following only national interests or only values in foreign policy involves two fundamentally different formats its implementation. Thus, realists believe that foreign policy should be pragmatic and aimed at extracting specific benefits from interaction with other states, which must be reckoned with only to the extent that this is in the national interests of one's own country. For realists (including modern ones), the formula “there are no allies and partners in foreign policy, there are only interests”, formulated by Winston Churchill, is true.
Liberals, on the contrary, argue that foreign policy should be aimed at bringing together the worldview positions of various actors, which is achieved by exporting liberal values. States that adopt liberal values automatically become allies, partners, and then satellites of the leaders of the liberal world. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to forget for a while about extracting specific momentary benefits and direct our efforts to reforming the political systems and regimes of future allies on the world stage according to our own model, in accordance with liberal values and democratic institutions.
For a long time, US foreign policy towards other countries was built in accordance with two dominant ideological concepts: political realism and political liberalism. Both concepts, while supporting and developing the idea of the global historical mission of the United States, designed to become the resource management center of the entire democratic world, nevertheless differ markedly in the choice of the US political trajectory towards this goal, as well as in the choice of specific means, methods and tools needed to achieve it.
The main differences between the schools of political realism and liberalism (including their latest modifications and trends) lie in the ideas about what factors exactly determine the foreign policy of the state at its basic, fundamental level. If realists consider everything that happens through the prism of national interests, the coincidence of which gives rise to cooperation, and the intersection or collision - conflicts, then the liberals put values at the basis of the foreign policy of any state, arguing that the stability and viability of a political system directly depend on the persuasiveness of its system of values, and political influence - from the ability to carry (export) these values to the world. In this regard, for liberals, foreign policy is seen as a tool for spreading these values to other actors in international relations, and the discrepancy between the values of various actors is the true cause of international conflicts.
As P.A. Tsygankov, one of the most attractive features of the theory of political realism is the desire to substantiate the idea that international politics is based on objective and unchanging laws of political behavior, the roots of which should be sought in human nature itself. The central concept of political realism - "interest defined in terms of power" - connects the existence of the laws of international relations with the needs for security, prosperity and development, which the state must protect in its foreign policy activities. Political realists insist that in the modern world one of the main features of international politics is the constant desire of nation-states to maintain a favorable status quo on the world stage or to change it in their favor. In turn, this leads to a special configuration of international relations, called the balance of power, and, accordingly, to a policy aimed at maintaining this balance.
Political realism is skeptical about the ability to regulate the international community on the basis of legal norms or moral values: the main function of international morality is to use it as a tool of power against potential and real opponents.
From the liberals' point of view, today the ability of great powers to use traditional power potentials to achieve their goals is steadily declining. Force is becoming less used and less coercive, national interests are losing their significance in world politics.
Many modern elements of power elude state authority, leaving the interstate system with a limited number of opportunities to effectively influence ongoing processes, forcing them to resort to indirect and always costly methods of coercion. The main regulators of international relations are universal moral norms or values, which are institutionalized into legal imperatives and become the basis for the formation of relevant international institutions.
The fact that the adherents of the ideology of political realism are mainly representatives of the Republican Party, and the bearers of the ideas of political liberalism are mostly Democrats, leads to the fact that in the United States, with a frequent change of parties in power, the content of foreign policy also often changes. : the US political course, aimed at protecting national interests, suddenly forgets about them and begins to spread universal values, export democracy, build a global society based on the democratic principles of Anglo-Saxon civilization, etc. As a result of such abrupt and unexpected (primarily for potential US allies and partners) turns, US foreign policy not only loses its attractiveness, but also forms the impression of instability, changeability and a tendency to spontaneous, irrational actions.
The volatility of US foreign policy has already become the reason for its general inefficiency in various regions of the world, where the Americans had good chances to firmly and permanently gain a foothold, but have not been able to do so. This is exactly the picture that emerged with the presence of the United States in Central Asia: while the Americans were choosing between “interests” and “values”, radically changing their political course every three or four years, refusing and again returning to already tested schemes, they were slowly forced out of almost all their positions. advancing on the region of China.
In this regard, US policy in Afghanistan is another typical example of a conflict of interests and values, as well as the general inconsistency and confusion generated by this conflict associated with constant fluctuations in the choice between "national interests" and "universal values", between a rational, pragmatic approach to the problem Afghanistan, based on the exploitation of its strategic resources, and an irrationally idealistic approach that seeks to create another democratic society in Afghanistan.
At the same time, it should be noted that international conflicts of the new generation turn out to be structurally more complex than their predecessors, demonstrate the ability to grow rapidly, involve new participants in their sphere, influencing directly their value system and sociocultural archetypes, and quickly develop any, even insignificant clashes to the level of intercivilizational confrontation. Modern conflicts of values are practically immune to the efforts of the world community to appease them externally: the concepts, doctrines and tools of peacekeeping that exist today are primarily focused on traditional forms of conflicts built on a clash of interests of nation-states, and consider the process of conflict resolution as a result of the interaction of international institutions whose real ability to resolve international conflicts today is increasingly being questioned.
The evolution of the conflicts themselves does not stand still: modern conflicts are constantly developing new forms of conflict interaction, more socially dangerous, but at the same time more manageable. A new phase has emerged in the evolution of international conflicts - intercivilizational. In this phase, the consolidation of forces, means and resources of its participants is based on the principle of belonging to a certain culture or civilization that promotes its own system of values, which allows you to unite and mobilize more significant human and material resources, and raise the status of local conflicts to the level of inter-civilizational confrontation.
The concept of the clash of civilizations is a mechanism for mobilizing resources of a new generation: it surpasses the capabilities of a nation-state ideology capable of mobilizing (on a national basis) the resources of one state and its political allies to participate in a conflict. In the conflicts of the new generation, the mobilization of resources takes place at the mental, value level, uniting the cross-border and multinational masses of people belonging to a common civilizational paradigm or cultural tradition.
Intercivilizational conflicts in international practice are everywhere replacing traditional forms of conflicts built on the clash of interests of nation-states (the so-called institutional conflicts). This leads to the fact that the institutional methods of conflict resolution are being replaced by cultural and civilizational models of external management based on technologies of information-psychological impact on the system of values and worldview of the conflicting parties. There are four of these models in the world today: Anglo-Saxon, East Asian, Middle Eastern and Romano-Germanic.
Anglo-Saxon model sees the resolution of conflicts in the complete forced transformation of the political systems of the conflicting parties, more precisely, of his opponent, who must accept the political norms and standards of the Anglo-Saxon civilization (“democratic institutions”). Traditionally, the Anglo-Saxons use both methods of forceful pressure (“forced appeasement”, “humanitarian interventions”, “fight against international terrorism”) and methods of non-forced influence (“soft power”, “color revolutions”, “psychological warfare”). The Anglo-Saxon model is based on the Protestant worldview and the ethics of success, the usefulness of the end result.
East Asian model proceeds from the goal of resolving a conflict situation in the gradual, long-term embedding (integration) of the political systems and values of the conflicting parties, opponents into their own system of political relations (for example, the Taiwan problem, the “return” of Hong Kong: “one country - two systems”), gradually dissolving into its system the national identity of the political systems of the weaker participants. The disappearance of entire peoples, ethnic groups in China as a result of prolonged assimilation is known (Manchus, Dinlins - Tashtyk culture, other "barbarians").
Middle Eastern (Islamic) model sees the process of resolving conflicts in the transference, the projection of traditional mechanisms historically established in Islam onto conflict zones by expanding the area of the Islamic world and spreading its influence on socio-political relations, including ideologies. The division of the world according to religious principle revives the spirit of religious wars, jihad, which includes both peaceful means of regulating international conflicts and armed struggle for faith. In the Shiite branch of Islam that dominates Iran, there are generally no calls for jihad against "infidels."
Romano-Germanic model, based on its civilizational, political ethics, is burdened with stereotypes, a set of "generally accepted" or obligatory ethical ideas that do not always coincide with the ideas of other civilizations. Therefore, for example, the dialogues of both the French and the Germans with the Chinese are difficult. The Romano-Germanic model proceeds from the fact that the process of resolving a conflict situation consists in changing the views of its participants, mainly by accepting the prevailing ethical norms and stereotypes that have been established in this civilization. This model of psychological impact on conflicts does not set the task of changing the political systems of its participants, but seeks to control the minds of the political elites in power in the states participating in the conflict, as well as the minds of various segments of the local population and the international community, encouraging them to perceive the conflict in accordance with the proposed image of the conflict, i.e. look at the conflict through the eyes of the European community.
Each of the world's cultural and civilizational conflict management models seeks to transform the political systems of the conflict participants in accordance with its own picture of the world and system of values. Nation-state principles of conflict resolution are gradually becoming a thing of the past; the general decline of the institutional system of conflict management underlines the crisis of the UN as the main institution of peacekeeping.
"Color" revolutions are a typical example of the Anglo-Saxon approach to managing international conflicts. In world politics, technologies of "color" revolutions are one of the types modern technologies information and psychological management of international conflicts. For their successful implementation, the country must necessarily be in a state of political instability: there must be a crisis of power, even better if one or more local armed conflicts develop within the country or the country is drawn into one major international conflict. In other words, there must necessarily be an object of influence - a political conflict in any of the phases of development. If the government is stable and there is no conflict as such, it must first be created.
Modern "color" revolutions are distinguished by a high degree of technological effectiveness and an almost theatrical level of dramaturgy, the purpose of which is to pass off everything that happens as a spontaneous and spontaneous manifestation of the will of the people, who suddenly decided to regain the right to rule their own country. Despite the significant differences in the states in which they flare up (in geopolitical, social, economic terms and international position), they all fit into the same organizational scheme, which involves organizing according to the template of a youth protest movement, transforming it into a political crowd and using this forces against the current government as an instrument of political blackmail.
Technologies of "color" revolutions are constantly evolving. So, if in the early 2000s the goal of the "color" revolutions was to organize a coup d'etat in a single country (Ukraine, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, etc.), now their goal is to control political regimes on the scale of entire regions - the entire Middle East, all of Central Asia, all of North Africa, etc. The scale and danger of technologies of "color" revolutions are constantly increasing, new ways and methods of influencing the traditional societies of the East appear in their structure.
The latest example of an evolutionary breakthrough in the Anglo-Saxon technologies for organizing “color” revolutions is the “color” revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa (December 2010 - present, temp.), better known under the general name of the “Arab Spring revolutions”, in which the classic technologies of "soft power" and the formation of the political crowd were supplemented by the technologies of "controlled chaos" (for the "atomization" of traditional Eastern societies in order to free their members from the protection provided by these societies and make them more susceptible to external control influence) and a special iterative scheme, allowing, with a quick change in objects of influence (with the successive repetition of the same schemes of revolutions in states belonging to the same cultural and civilizational community), to form an effective feedback mechanism designed to track errors, miscalculations and inconsistencies and eliminate them in a timely manner, making the technology itself everything more perfect when going from one "color" revolution to another. Having passed such a test in the Arab countries of Africa and the Middle East, especially in the conditions of the Syrian revolution, these technologies will reach a level of perfection that will allow them to be applied to the most complex and stable object - Iran.
Modern international conflicts, which are in the nature of a clash of value systems of various world civilizations, are "melting pots" of existing doctrines and centers of political modernization. Becoming as a result of the use of special political technologies managed, such conflicts become instruments of political modernization of the system of international relations, the evolution of which can be directed in a certain direction. By managing international conflicts, one can manage political modernization. For the leading world powers striving for global leadership, today it is more profitable to make an international conflict manageable and then use it for their own purposes than to contribute to its peaceful resolution. That is why the ideology of external conflict management is currently being actively developed by all leading world leaders, and the concepts of international conflict management are being put forward by them to the forefront of peacekeeping activities.
Simultaneously with the dominance of the ideology of inter-civilizational and cultural-value confrontation in modern international conflicts in peacekeeping operations, there is a change in goal-setting: instead of an object that needs to be “inclined” or “forced” to peace, international conflicts are beginning to be considered as objects of external political control that does not imply their direct and speedy resolution. A pacified conflict in modern global politics is not interesting or beneficial to anyone (except for the civilian population): in the peaceful phase, it cannot provide a geopolitical advantage in the region for any of the great powers. The value of "peaceful resolution" fades into the background and is replaced by new value orientations - "political necessity" and "political expediency" promoted by Western (mainly Anglo-Saxon) ideology and political propaganda 1 .
However, the change in the basic values and the very nature of goal-setting in modern conflict resolution operations leads to the accumulation of conflict potential, the stimulation of a plurality of conflicts, their mass freezing as a result of modern “peacekeeping” activities and a direct danger of a cumulative effect - simultaneous spontaneous unfreezing of these conflicts in the future.
The current situation requires the world community not only to search for new approaches and ways of influencing conflicts, but also to form new paradigms for managing them. Concepts and models of conflict management with the help of technologies of information and psychological impact, based on cultural and civilizational values and traditions, are becoming such a paradigm today. These values differ noticeably among representatives of different civilizations, even if we compare the Anglo-Saxon countries (USA, Great Britain) and the countries of the Romano-Germanic world (Western Europe), which belong to the same Western cultural tradition. Therefore, it is at least premature to talk about the universality of values today. In addition to the Anglo-Saxon conflict management model, the leading countries of Western Europe (Germany, France), the Asia-Pacific region (China, Vietnam) and the Middle East (Islamic world) offer their own cultural-civilizational and national-state models. Today, all these models are still in the stage of conflict-free coexistence and even in some cases complement each other. However, this temporarily established balance of power can change at any moment.
Each of the four dominant conflict management models in the world today (Anglo-Saxon, East Asian, Middle Eastern and Romano-Germanic) seeks to transform the value systems of the conflict participants in accordance with their own value system, which is considered the best and most perfect by representatives of this model. None of them provides for freedom of choice on the part of the participants in the conflict and the principle of competition among the models themselves in the struggle for the right to resolve the conflict: everywhere we are talking exclusively about the civilizing mission and management "in the dark". Over time, this will inevitably lead to fierce competition between models and a diversion of attention from the actual problem of peaceful conflict resolution.
Against the background of this rivalry, a new component must necessarily enter the system of already existing world models of conflict management, which provides for the participants in conflicts to make a voluntary choice between models based on the best alternative and appropriate guarantees for the exercise of the right to make this choice. The Russian civilizational model can become such a model, since the principles of alternativeness are close to the Russian practice of resolving political conflicts.
Russia returns to world politics as a key player and, more than ever, is interested in strengthening its positions in the strategically significant regions of the globe, where the most dangerous international conflicts take place. The return of Russia to these regions in the form of a peacemaker is a matter not only of economic expediency, but also of international prestige. In addition, Russia has extensive and diverse experience in peacekeeping activities in the CIS space, which is in demand in modern conditions.
However, in addition to experience, the key condition for Russia's success in managing international conflicts is the existence of its own cultural and civilizational model based on national technologies for influencing the value systems of the conflicting parties. Only the development of its own conflict management model will allow Russia to take its rightful place among the foreign policy players already established in this field, each of which relies on its own value, cultural and civilizational paradigm in managing international conflicts. At the same time, the Russian model should not duplicate the already existing Western or Eastern counterparts, but offer the parties to the conflicts a worthy and best alternative.
Unlike the leading Euro-Atlantic models (Anglo-Saxon and Romano-Germanic), the Russian cultural-civilizational model of conflict management considers the process of psychological impact on conflicts as a process of civilizational modernization of the existing picture of the world. Conflicts within the framework of the Russian concept are perceived not only as civilizational breaks and collision points, manifestations of the antagonism of various civilizations, but also as "melting pots" for ideological concepts that claim to control the modern world; as a media reason for volleys of attacks on target audiences and fixing in their minds the values and attitudes of the Russian national model, as well as the introduction of new forms and practices of social and political behavior in world politics.
The main difference from the Anglo-Saxon model is that the Russian model offers its own value vision of the peaceful resolution of international conflicts, which acts as the best alternative under specific prevailing conditions. The Russian model does not impose its own worldview and seeks to ensure that the participants in the conflict themselves make a conscious choice in favor of the Russian model and its value system, voluntarily and without coercion. This practice is justified both in the short and long term development of international relations: the “democratic patterns” of the political behavior of the Anglo-Saxons, forcibly imposed on the participants in the conflict, need constant external power support and cease to operate as soon as this force factor disappears. Consequently, their effect is short-lived and is not capable of qualitatively changing the conflict situation, much less maintaining these changes for a long time.
The main difference from the Romano-Germanic model is that the Russian model sees the resolution of conflicts in the political modernization of the entire system of international relations, both at the regional and global levels. On the contrary, the Romano-Germanic model operates with the image and perception of the conflict in the eyes of its participants, the leading actors of international relations and the world community, while achieving concrete results, which, however, do not lead to revolutionary processes of political modernization of the system of international relations as a whole.
- Kremenyuk V.L. Modern international conflict: problems of management // International processes. 2008. April 24.
- Goddard R. The Healthy Side of Conflicts // Management World. 1986 Vol. 15.P. 8-12. Tsygankov P.A. Headley Bull and the second "great discussion" in the science of international relations // Socio-political journal. 1997. No. 3. Manoilo AV Management of international conflicts: an evolutionary change of paradigms // Crossroads of politics XXI century. M.: DA MID, 2013.
Course work
Conflicts in the modern world: problems and features of their settlement
1st year student
Specialties "History"
Introduction
3. Causes and main stages of the Yugoslav conflict. A set of measures to resolve it
3.1 The collapse of the SFRY. The escalation of the conflict in the Balkans into an armed clash
Conclusion
Introduction
Relevance of the topic. According to military history institutions, there have been only twenty-six days of absolute peace since the end of the Second World War. An analysis of conflicts over the years indicates an increase in the number of armed conflicts, under the prevailing conditions of interconnection and interdependence of states and various regions, capable of rapid escalation, transformation into large-scale wars with all their tragic consequences.
Modern conflicts have become one of the leading factors of instability on the globe. Being poorly managed, they tend to grow, to involve an increasing number of participants, which poses a serious threat not only to those directly involved in the conflict, but to everyone living on earth.
And therefore, this is evidence in favor of the fact that the features of all modern forms of armed struggle should be considered and studied: from small armed clashes to large-scale armed conflicts.
The object of the study is the conflicts that occurred at the turn of the XX-XXI centuries. The subject of the study is the development of conflicts and the possibility of their settlement.
The purpose of the study is to reveal the essence of the armed-political conflict, to clarify the features of modern conflicts and, on this basis, to identify effective ways to regulate them, and if this cannot be done, then localization and termination at later stages of their development, therefore, the objectives of the work are:
Find out the essence of the conflict as a special social phenomenon;
Find the main patterns of conflicts at the present stage of human development;
Explore the main problems and causes of the spread of conflicts as an integral component of the historical process;
Identify and study the main features of conflict resolution;
The degree of knowledge. Both in foreign and domestic science there is a shortage system analysis object of study.
However, it should be noted that the processes of formation of scientific works originate in the second half of the twentieth century, despite the continuing interest of researchers different eras to the problem of conflict (it was addressed by such thinkers of the past as Heraclitus, Thucydides, Herodotus, Tacitus, and later T. Hobbes, J. Locke, F. Hegel, K. Marx and others).
Today, the problem of the emergence, and subsequently the settlement of conflicts, is being studied by both domestic and foreign researchers. The following researchers dealt with the problems related to the possibility of conflict resolution: N. Machiavelli, G. Spencer, R. Dahrendorf, L. Koser, G. Simmel, K. Boulding, L. Krisberg, T. Gobs, E. Carr, T. Schelling , B. Koppeter, M. Emerson, N. Heisen, J. Rubin, G. Morozov, P. Tsygankov, D. Algulyan, B. Bazhanov, V. Baranovsky, A. Torkunov, G. Drobot, D. Feldman, O Khlopov, I. Artsibasov, A. Egorov, M. Lebedeva, I. Doronina, P. Kremenyuk and others.
The published periodicals are also considered, namely: The Journal of Conflict Resolution, The International Journal of Conflict Management, The Journal of Peace Research Research), Negotiation Journal, International Negotiation: A Journal of Theory and Practice.
1. general characteristics and definition of conflicts
1.1 The concept of conflict as a special social phenomenon
Despite the vital importance scientific research conflicts, the concept of "conflict" - has not received a proper definition, and therefore is used ambiguously.
To denote international tensions and disagreements, the concept of "conflict" (French - "conflit") was used actively, but was gradually replaced by the English "dispute" (Russian - "dispute", French - "differend"). Since the adoption of the UN Charter in 1945, international law has used the concepts of "international dispute" and "situation" to denote international tensions and contradictions.
The conflict, as a problem of practical politics, was most developed with the beginning of the Cold War. His methodological basis is a general theory of conflict. The subject of the general theory of conflict is the study of the causes, conditions for the course and resolution of the conflict.
The most common definition of this concept in Western science can be considered the following formulation given by the American J. Ozer: " social conflict- a struggle for values and claims to a certain status, power and resources, a struggle in which the goals of the opponents are to neutralize, damage or destroy the opponent.
But before clarifying the features of conflicts, it is necessary to clarify what, in fact, is meant by the term "conflict". Various researchers interpret this term in different ways, and today there is no dominant interpretation of this concept. Let's take a look at the main ideas.
In his writings, Kenneth Boulding argues that a conflict is "a situation of rivalry in which the parties recognize the incompatibility of positions, and each side tries to take a position that is incompatible with that which the other is trying to take." Hence, obviously, the conflict must be defined as a phenomenon that occurs between the appearance of confrontation in the relations of the parties and its final settlement.
On the contrary, from the point of view of John Burton, "the conflict is mainly subjective ... A conflict that seems to involve "objective" differences of interest can be transformed into a conflict that has a positive result for both sides, subject to such a "rethinking "their perception of each other, which will allow them to cooperate on a functional basis of sharing a contested resource."
According to R. Caste, a conflict is a situation of "a state of very serious deterioration (or aggravation) of relations between participants in international life who, in order to resolve a dispute between them, threaten one another with the use of armed forces or directly use them" as a category of social behavior to designate a situation the existence of two or more parties in the struggle for something that cannot belong to them all at the same time.
Summarizing all the above theories of conflict, it should be pointed out that the conflict is considered as a special political relationship of two or more parties - peoples, states or a group of states - which concentratedly reproduces in the form of an indirect or direct collision economic, social class, political, territorial, national, religious or other interests of the nature and character.
Of course, a conflict is a special, and not a routine, political relationship, since it means both objectively and subjectively the resolution of heterogeneous specific contradictions and the problems they generate in a conflict form, and in the course of its development it can give rise to international crises and armed struggle of states.
Conflict is often identified with crisis. However, the ratio of conflict and crisis is the ratio of the whole and the part. The crisis is only one of the possible phases of the conflict. It can arise as a natural consequence of the development of the conflict, as its phase, which means that the conflict has reached in its development to the point that separates it from an armed clash, from a war. At the stage of crisis, the role of the subjective factor incredibly increases, since, as a rule, very responsible political decisions are made by a narrow group of people in conditions of acute shortage of time.
However, a crisis is by no means an obligatory and inevitable phase of a conflict. Its course can remain latent for quite a long time without directly giving rise to crisis situations. At the same time, a crisis is by no means always the final phase of a conflict, even in the absence of direct prospects for it to develop into an armed struggle. This or that crisis can be overcome by the efforts of politicians, while the international conflict as a whole is able to persist and return to a latent state. But under certain circumstances, this conflict can again reach the crisis phase, while crises can follow with a certain cyclicity.
The conflict reaches its greatest acuteness and extremely dangerous form in the phase of armed struggle. But armed conflict is also not the only or inevitable phase of conflict. It represents the highest phase of the conflict, a consequence of irreconcilable contradictions in the interests of the subjects of the system of international relations.
The use of the concept of "conflict" should follow the following definition: a conflict is a situation of extreme aggravation of contradictions in the field of international relations, manifested in the behavior of its participants - subjects of international relations in the form of active opposition or collision (armed or unarmed); if the conflict is not based on contradiction, it manifests itself only in the conflict behavior of the parties.
1.2 Structure and phases of the conflict
It should be noted that the conflict, as a system, never appears in a "finished" form. In any case, it is a process or a set of development processes that appear as a certain integrity. At the same time, in the process of development, there may be a change in the subjects of the conflict, and, consequently, the nature of the contradictions underlying the conflict.
The study of the conflict in its successively changing phases allows us to consider it as a single process with different but interrelated sides: historical (genetic), causal and structural-functional.
The phases of conflict development are not abstract schemes, but real, historically and socially determined specific states of the conflict as a system. Depending on the essence, content and form of a particular conflict, the specific interests and goals of its participants, the means used and the possibilities for introducing new ones, involving others or withdrawing existing participants, the individual course and general international conditions for its development, an international conflict can pass through a variety of including non-standard phases.
According to R. Setov, there are three most important phases of the conflict: latent, crisis, war. Coming out of the dialectical understanding of the conflict as a qualitatively new situation in international relations, which arose due to the quantitative accumulation of mutually directed hostile actions, it is necessary to designate its boundaries in the interval from the emergence of a dispute between the two participants in international relations and the confrontation associated with it to the final settlement of issues or in a different way.
The conflict can develop in two main variants, which can be conditionally called classical (or confrontational) and compromise.
The classical version of development provides for a forceful settlement, which underlies relations between the warring parties and is characterized by an aggravation of relations between them, close to the maximum. This development has four phases:
Aggravation
Escalation
De-escalation
The fading of the conflict
A full course of events takes place in the conflict, from the appearance of disagreements to their resolution, including the struggle between the participants in international relations, which, to the extent that it includes resources of the maximum possible volume, escalates, and after reaching it, it gradually fades away.
The compromise option, unlike the previous one, does not have a forceful character, since in such a situation the aggravation phase, reaching a value close to the maximum, does not develop in the direction of further confrontation, but at a point where a compromise between the parties is still possible, continues through detente. This option for resolving disagreements between the participants in international relations provides for the achievement of agreement between them, including through mutual concessions, which partially satisfied the interests of both parties and, ideally, does not mean a forceful settlement of the conflict.
But basically they share six phases of the conflict, which we will consider. Namely:
The first phase of the conflict is a fundamental political attitude formed on the basis of certain objective and subjective contradictions and the corresponding economic, ideological, international legal, military-strategic, diplomatic relations over these contradictions, expressed in a more or less acute conflict form.
The second phase of the conflict is the subjective definition by the immediate parties of the conflict of their interests, goals, strategies and forms of struggle to resolve objective or subjective contradictions, taking into account their potential and possibilities for the use of peaceful and military means, the use of international alliances and obligations, assessment of the general internal and international situation. At this phase, the parties determine or partially implement a system of mutual practical actions that are in the nature of a struggle of cooperation in order to resolve the contradiction in the interests of one or another party or on the basis of a compromise between them.
The third phase of the conflict consists in the use by the parties of a fairly wide range of economic, political, ideological, psychological, moral, international legal, diplomatic and even military means (without using them, however, in the form of direct armed violence), involvement in one form or another in struggle directly by the conflicting parties of other states (individually, through military-political alliances, treaties, through the UN) with the subsequent complication of the system of political relations and actions of all direct and indirect parties in this conflict.
The fourth phase of the conflict is associated with an increase in the struggle to the most acute political level - a political crisis that can cover the relations of the direct participants, the states of a given region, a number of regions, major world powers, involve the UN, and in some cases become a global crisis, which gives the conflict an unprecedented previously poignant and contains a direct threat that military force will be used by one or more parties.
The fifth phase is an armed conflict that begins with a limited conflict (limitations cover the goals, territories, scale and level of hostilities, the military means used, the number of allies and their world status), capable of developing under certain circumstances to a higher level of armed struggle using modern weapons and the possible involvement of allies by one or both sides. It should also be pointed out that if we consider this phase of the conflict in dynamics, then we can distinguish a number of semi-phases in it, which signify the escalation of hostilities.
The sixth phase of the conflict is the phase of fading and settlement, involving a gradual de-escalation, i.e. reducing the level of intensity, more active involvement of diplomatic means, the search for mutual compromises, reassessment and adjustment of national-state interests. At the same time, the settlement of the conflict may be the result of the efforts of one or all parties to the conflict, or begin as a result of pressure from a "third" party, which may be a major power, an international organization or the world community represented by the UN.
Insufficient resolution of contradictions that led to the conflict, or the fixation of a certain level of tension in relations between the conflicting parties in the form of their acceptance of a certain (modus vivendi) is the basis for a possible re-escalation of the conflict. Actually, such conflicts are of a protracted nature, periodically fading away, they explode again with renewed vigor. A complete cessation of conflicts is possible only when the contradiction that caused its occurrence is resolved in one way or another.
Thus, the signs discussed above can be used for the primary identification of the conflict. But at the same time, it is always necessary to take into account the high mobility of the boundary between such phenomena as the actual military conflict and war. The essence of these phenomena is the same, but it has a different degree of concentration in each of them. Hence the well-known difficulty in distinguishing between war and military conflict.
2. Opportunities and challenges for conflict resolution
2.1 Third party means of influencing the conflict
Since ancient times, to resolve conflicts, a third party has been involved, which has risen between the conflicting parties in order to find a peaceful solution. Usually the most respected people in society acted as a third party. They judged who was right and who was wrong, and made decisions on the conditions under which peace should be concluded.
The concept of "third party" is broad and collective, usually including such terms as "intermediary", "observer of the negotiation process", "arbiter". "Third party" can also be understood as any person who does not have the status of an intermediary or observer. A third party may intervene in the conflict on its own, or may - at the request of the conflicting parties. Its impact on the participants in the conflict is very diverse.
The external intervention of a third party in the conflict has received the designation "intervention". Interventions can be formal or informal. The most well-known form of intervention is mediation.
Mediation, as a rule, is understood as the assistance carried out by third states or international organizations on their own initiative or at the request of the parties to the conflict to facilitate the peaceful settlement of the dispute, which consists in conducting direct negotiations with the mediator on the basis of his proposals with the disputants in order to peacefully resolve differences.
The purpose of mediation, like other peaceful means of resolving disputes, is to resolve differences on a basis mutually acceptable to the parties. At the same time, as practice shows, the task of mediation is not so much the final resolution of all disputed issues, but the general reconciliation of the disputants, the development of the basis of an agreement acceptable to both parties. Therefore, the main forms of assistance to third states in the settlement of a dispute through mediation should be their proposals, advice, recommendations, and not decisions binding on the parties.
Another common, restrictive and coercive means by a third party to influence conflict participants is the imposition of sanctions. Sanctions are quite widely used in international practice. They are introduced by states on their own initiative or by decision of international organizations. The imposition of sanctions is provided for by the UN Charter in the event of a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace, or an act of aggression by any state.
There are different types of sanctions. Trade sanctions apply to the import and export of goods and technology, with particular attention to those that can be used for military purposes. Financial sanctions include bans or restrictions on loans, credits, and investments. Political sanctions are also used, for example, the exclusion of an aggressor from international organizations, the severing of diplomatic relations with him.
Sanctions sometimes have the opposite effect: they generate not cohesion, but polarization of society, which in turn leads to consequences that are difficult to predict.
Thus, in a polarized society, the activation of extremist forces is possible, and as a result, the conflict will only escalate. Of course, another variant of the development of events is not ruled out, when, for example, as a result of polarization, forces oriented toward compromise prevail in society - then the likelihood of a peaceful settlement of the conflict will increase significantly.
Another problem is that the imposition of sanctions damages not only the economy of the country against which they are imposed, but also the economy of the state imposing sanctions. This happens especially in cases where, before the imposition of sanctions, these countries had close economic and trade ties and relations.
Thus, the use of sanctions is complicated by the fact that they do not act selectively, but on the whole of society as a whole, and the most vulnerable sections of the population suffer predominantly. To reduce this negative effect, partial sanctions are sometimes used that do not affect, for example, the supply of food or medicine.
The settlement of the conflict by peaceful means, with the participation of only the subjects of the conflict themselves, is an extremely rare phenomenon. To help in this hard work, a third party often comes to the rescue.
In the arsenal of means of influence of a third party on the participants in the conflict, various means of restriction and coercion are not excluded, for example, the refusal to provide economic assistance in the event of a continuation of the conflict, the application of sanctions against the participants; and all these means are used intensively in situations of armed conflict, usually in the first (stabilization) phase of the settlement, in order to encourage the participants to stop the violence. Coercive and restrictive measures are sometimes applied even after reaching an agreement in order to ensure the implementation of agreements (for example, peacekeeping forces remain in the conflict zone).
2.2 Forceful method of conflict resolution
Of all the means of restraint and coercion used by a third party, the most common are peacekeeping operations (the term was introduced by the UN General Assembly in February 1965), as well as the application of sanctions against conflicting parties.
When using peacekeeping operations, peacekeeping forces are often brought in. This happens when the conflict reaches the stage of armed struggle. The main goal of the peacekeeping forces is to separate the opposing sides, to prevent armed clashes between them, and to control the armed actions of the opposing sides.
As peacekeeping forces, they can be used as military units of individual states (for example, in the second half of the 80s, Indian troops were as peacekeepers in Sri Lanka, and in the early 90s, the 14th Russian army- in Transnistria) or a group of states (according to the decision of the Organization of African Unity, inter-African forces participated in the settlement of the conflict in Chad in the early 80s), and armed formations of the United Nations (UN armed forces were repeatedly used in various conflict points).
Simultaneously with the introduction of peacekeeping forces, a buffer zone is often created in order to separate the armed formations of the opposing sides. The introduction of non-flying zones is also practiced in order to prevent air strikes by one of the participants in the conflict. third-party troops help to resolve conflicts, primarily due to the fact that the hostilities of the opposing sides become difficult.
But it should also be taken into account that the capabilities of the peacekeeping forces are limited: for example, they do not have the right to pursue an attacker, and they can use weapons only for self-defense purposes. Under these conditions, they can become a kind of target for opposing factions, as has repeatedly happened in various regions. Moreover, there were cases of the capture of representatives of the peacekeeping forces as hostages. So, in the first half of 1995, Russian servicemen who were there on a peacekeeping mission were also taken hostage in the Bosnian conflict.
At the same time, granting greater rights to peacekeeping forces, including giving them police functions, allowing them to carry out air strikes, etc., is fraught with the danger of expanding the conflict and involving a third party in internal problems, as well as possible civilian casualties, division opinions within a third party regarding the appropriateness of the steps taken.
Thus, the actions of NATO, sanctioned by the UN and related to the bombing in Bosnia on the positions of the Bosnian Serbs in the mid-1990s, were highly ambiguously assessed.
The presence of troops on the territory of another state is also a problem. It is not always easily solved within the framework of the national legislations of the countries that provide their armed forces. In addition, the participation of troops in the settlement of conflicts abroad is often negatively perceived by public opinion, especially if there are casualties among the peacekeeping forces.
And, finally, the biggest problem is that the introduction of peacekeeping forces does not replace the political settlement of the conflict. This act can only be regarded as temporary - for the period of the search for a peaceful solution.
2.3 Negotiation process in conflict. Negotiation functions
Negotiations have the same ancient history like wars and mediation. This tool was used to resolve them long before the advent of legal procedures. Negotiations are a universal means of human communication, which allows you to find agreement where interests do not coincide, opinions or views diverge. However, the way the negotiations are conducted - their technology - has been left unattended for a long time. Only in the second half of the 20th century did negotiations become the object of a broad scientific analysis, which is primarily due to the role that negotiations have acquired in the modern world.
It should be pointed out that the negotiation process in the context of conflict relations is quite complex and has its own specifics. An untimely or incorrect decision taken at the negotiations often leads to the continuation or even intensification of the conflict with all the ensuing consequences.
Negotiations in conflict tend to be more successful if:
The subject of the conflict is clearly defined;
The parties avoid using threats;
The relations of the parties are not limited to the settlement of the conflict, but cover many areas where the interests of the parties coincide;
Not too many issues are discussed (some issues do not "slow down" the solution of others);
One of key features negotiations is that the interests of the parties partially coincide, and partially diverge. With a complete divergence of interests, competition, competition, confrontation, confrontation and, finally, wars are observed, although, as T. Schelling noted, even in wars the parties have a common interest. However, it follows from the presence of common and opposing interests of the parties that in the case of an extremely pronounced forceful dictate, negotiations cease to be negotiations, giving way to conflict.
The focus on a joint solution of the problem is at the same time the main function of the negotiations. This is the main reason why negotiations are being held. The implementation of this function depends on the degree of interest of the participants in the search for a mutually acceptable solution.
However, in almost all negotiations on the settlement of the conflict, along with the main one, there are other functions. The use of negotiations for various functional purposes is possible due to the fact that negotiations are always included in a broader political context and serve as a tool for solving a whole range of domestic and foreign political tasks. Accordingly, they can perform various functions.
The most significant and often implemented functions of negotiations, in addition to the main one, are the following:
Information and communication function is present in almost all negotiations. An exception may be negotiations that are undertaken to "distract eyes", but in them the communication aspect, although to a minimal extent, is still present. Sometimes it happens that the parties to the conflict, entering into negotiations, are only interested in exchanging views and points of view. Such negotiations are often considered by the parties as preliminary, and their function is purely informational. The results of preliminary negotiations serve as the basis for developing positions and proposals for their next, main round.
The next important function of negotiations is regulatory. With its help, the regulation, control and coordination of the actions of the participants is carried out. It also provides for the detailing of more general solutions with a view to their specific implementation. Negotiations in which this function is implemented play the role of a kind of "tuning" of the relations of the parties. If the negotiations are multilateral, then "collective management of interdependence" takes place at them - the regulation of the relations of the participants.
The propagandistic function of negotiations consists in actively influencing public opinion in order to explain one's position to a wide circle, justify one's own actions, make claims to the opposite side, accuse the enemy of illegal actions, attract new allies to one's side, etc. In this sense, it can be considered as a derivative or accompanying function, such as solving one's own domestic or foreign policy problems.
Speaking about the propaganda function and the openness of negotiations, one should not discount the positive aspects due to which the parties are under the control of public opinion.
Negotiations can also serve as a camouflage function. This role is assigned, first of all, to negotiations with the aim of achieving side effects for "averting eyes", when in fact agreements are not needed at all, since completely different tasks are being solved - to conclude agreements in order to gain time, "lull" the attention of the enemy, and at the beginning armed actions - to be in a more advantageous position. In this case, their functional purpose turns out to be far from the main one - the joint solution of problems, and the negotiations cease to be negotiations in their essence. The conflicting parties have little interest in jointly solving the problem, since they solve completely different tasks. An example is the peace negotiations between Russia and France in Tilsit in 1807, which caused discontent in both countries. However, both Alexander 1 and Napoleon considered the Tilsit agreements nothing more than a "marriage of convenience", a temporary respite before the inevitable military clash.
The "camouflage" function is most clearly realized if one of the conflicting parties seeks to calm the opponent, gain time, and create the appearance of a desire for cooperation. In general, it should be noted that any negotiations are multifunctional and involve the simultaneous implementation of several functions. But at the same time, the function of finding a joint solution should remain a priority. Otherwise, negotiations become, in the words of MM Lebedeva, "quasi-negotiations."
In general, when evaluating the functions of negotiations in terms of their constructiveness or destructiveness, one should keep in mind the entire political context and how expedient a joint solution of the problem is (for example, whether negotiations with terrorists who have taken hostages are necessary, or is it better to take actions to free them). The approach to negotiations as a joint search for a solution to the problem with a partner is based on other principles and implies, to a large extent, the openness of both participants, the formation of dialogue relations. It is during the dialogue that the participants try to see the problem and its solution in a different way. In the dialogue between the parties, new relations are being formed, oriented in the future towards cooperation and mutual understanding.
Thus, we can determine that in different historical periods, in different negotiations, certain functions were used and continue to be used to a greater or lesser extent. In the context of conflict relations, the parties are especially inclined to make more intensive use of other negotiating functions other than the main one.
3. Causes and main stages of the Yugoslav conflict and a set of measures to resolve it
3.1 The collapse of the SFRY. The escalation of the conflict on cormorants into an armed clash
The Yugoslav crisis has a deep background and complex contradictory character. It was based on internal (economic, political and ethno-religious) reasons that led to the collapse of the federal state. On the example of the fact that on the site of a united Yugoslavia, six small independent states were formed, fighting each other not so much because of religious and ethnic priorities, but because of mutual territorial claims. It can be said that the causes of the military conflict in Yugoslavia lie in the system of those contradictions that arose relatively long ago and aggravated at the time of the decision to carry out radical reforms in the economy, politics, social and spiritual spheres.
During the long conflict between the Yugoslav republics, which entered the stage of an active crisis, the two republics of Slovenia and Croatia were the first to declare their withdrawal from the SFRY and proclaim their independence. If in Slovenia the conflict took on the character of confrontation between the Federal Center and the Slovenian Republican elite, then in Croatia the confrontation began to develop along ethnic lines. Ethnic cleansing began in Serb-majority areas, forcing the Serb population to create self-defense units. Units of the Yugoslav army were drawn into this conflict, which tried to separate the warring parties. The Croatian leadership denied elementary rights to the Serbian population, moreover, having unleashed a brutal war against the Serbs, the Croats deliberately provoked a response from the federal troops, and then took the position of the victims of the Serbian troops. The purpose of such actions was to attract the attention of the international community, unleashing an information war against the Serbs and the desire to cause pressure from the international community on Serbia for the speedy recognition of Croatian independence.
Initially, the EU countries and the USA, guided by the principle of inviolability of borders, did not recognize the new state associations, rightly evaluating their statements as separatism. However, with the acceleration of the disintegration of the USSR, with the disappearance of the deterrent in the face of the Soviet Union, the West began to lean toward the idea of supporting the "non-communist republics" of Yugoslavia. The collapse of the Department of Internal Affairs, the CMEA, the collapse of the Soviet Union radically changed the balance of power in the world. For the countries of Western Europe (above all, only recently united Germany) and the United States, an opportunity has arisen to significantly expand the zone of their geopolitical interests in a strategically important region.
It can be noted that during the period of the "boiling of the Balkan cauldron" the international community did not have a unanimous opinion. The situation in the Balkans was aggravated by the overlap of national, political and confessional factors. The process of disintegration of the SFRY in 1991 began with the abolition of the autonomous status of Kosovo within Serbia. In addition, the initiators of the collapse of Yugoslavia, among others, were the Croats, while special emphasis was placed on Catholicism as evidence of the European identity of the Croats, who opposed themselves to the rest of the Orthodox and Muslim peoples of Yugoslavia.
As a result of the long process of the conflict escalating into an armed clash of the parties and the inability of the world community to reconcile the parties and find a peaceful solution to the crisis, the crisis escalated into military actions by NATO against the SFRY. The decision to start the war was made on March 21, 1999 by the NATO Council, a regional military-political organization of 19 European states and North America. The decision to launch the operation was made by NATO Secretary General Solana in accordance with the powers granted to him by the NATO Council. The reason for the use of force is the desire to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe caused by the policy of genocide pursued by the authorities of the SFRY against ethnic Albanians. The NATO operation "Allied Force" was launched on March 24, 1999, suspended on June 10, the operation ended on July 20, 1999. The duration of the active phase of the war was 78 days. Participated: on the one hand, the NATO military-political bloc, represented by 14 states that provided armed forces or territory, the airspace was provided by the neutral countries of Albania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Romania; on the other hand, the regular army of the SFRY, the police and irregular armed formations. The third party is the Kosovo Liberation Army, which is a collection of paramilitary units using bases outside the territory of the SFRY. The nature of the hostilities was an air-sea offensive operation on the part of NATO and an air-defensive operation on the part of the SFRY. NATO forces gained air supremacy, bombing and missile attacks on military and industrial facilities were destroyed: the oil refining industry and fuel reserves, communications were disrupted, communication systems were destroyed, energy systems were temporarily disabled, industrial facilities and infrastructure of the country were destroyed. Losses among the civilian population amounted to 1.2 thousand killed and 5 thousand wounded, about 860 thousand refugees.
NATO, through an air-sea offensive operation, achieved the surrender of the leadership of the SFRY in Kosovo on the terms put forward by NATO even before the war. SFRY troops withdrawn from Kosovo. However, the main declared political task - the prevention of a humanitarian catastrophe in the province - was not only not fulfilled, but also aggravated due to the increase in the flow of Serb refugees after the withdrawal of the SFRY army and the introduction of peacekeeping forces. NATO initiated a UN Security Council decision on a peacekeeping operation to return Albanian refugees to Kosovo, which made it possible to secure victory in the war and withdraw Kosovo and Metohija from the control of the SFRY government. The peacekeeping contingent includes about 50,000 troops led by NATO.
3.2 Peacekeeping operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina
In connection with armed conflicts, both in Europe and abroad, NATO in the 90s of the last century began to develop plans for its participation in peacekeeping operations.
In this regard, according to NATO analysts, the need arose to supplement the existing system of collective security with new elements for "peacekeeping activities." In this case, the main tasks can be formulated as follows:
Timely prevention of conflicts and their resolution before their intensive escalation;
Armed intervention to enforce peace and restore security.
Hence, we can conclude that in order to fulfill these tasks, NATO naturally needs a more advanced decision-making mechanism, a flexible command structure of the armed forces. Therefore, the 1991 and 1999 NATO strategic concepts state that “NATO, in cooperation with other organizations, will contribute to the prevention of conflicts, and in the event of a crisis, participate in its effective resolution in accordance with international law, provide, depending on the specific case and in accordance with with its own procedures for conducting peacekeeping and other operations under the auspices of the UN Security Council or under the responsibility of the OSCE, including through the provision of its resources and experience."
So, a number of UN Security Council resolutions already gave NATO the authority to manage the growing conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but in a way that almost no one understood. Most often, NATO was hidden behind the words "regional organizations or alliances."
To resolve the conflict that has arisen in the Republic of BiH, NATO has taken a number of actions.
To begin with, at the request of the Secretary General, flights by NATO aircraft began to be carried out to comply with the "no-fly zone" regime. Then the NATO foreign ministers decided to provide air protection to the UN defense forces in Yugoslavia. And NATO aircraft began to conduct training flights in order to provide close air support.
Thus, the conflict on the territory of Yugoslavia quickly and seriously began to be discussed in NATO, and from a clearly military position. It should be noted that not all Western officials shared this approach. As an example, British Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd can be quoted: “NATO is not an international police force. And it is certainly not an army of crusaders who come out to disengage warring troops by force or hoist a banner on foreign soil. Its powers do not is to impose Western values on non-NATO countries or settle disputes between other states. But NATO cannot replace the UN, the CSCE or the European Community. First of all, the UN, with its special legal authority, is unrivaled"
However, despite the similar position of a number of European countries, NATO began to implement the UN Security Council resolution on Yugoslavia: the ships that are part of the permanent formation of the NATO Navy in the Mediterranean exercised control over compliance with the trade embargo against Serbia and Montenegro and the arms embargo in the Adriatic Sea all former republics; control over the air zone of Bosnia and Herzegovina prohibited for flights was also initiated.
After the Serbs refused to accept the Vance-Owen plan, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization "under a regional agreement" began to conduct preliminary studies on the possibility of NATO military groups "in planning a broad operational concept for the implementation of the peace plan for Bosnia and Herzegovina", or the implementation of tasks military nature as part of the peace plan. NATO has offered to conduct ground reconnaissance and related activities, as well as "consider the possibility of providing a key headquarters structure with the possibility of using other countries that can send their troops."
NATO adhered to such core objectives as conducting naval operations, air operations and operations to protect UN personnel.
Subsequently, NATO, on its own behalf, presented an ultimatum to the Bosnian Serbs to withdraw their heavy weapons 20 km from Sarajevo within ten days. The ultimatum was reinforced by the threat of an air strike. After the announcement of the ultimatum, UN Secretary General B. Boutros-Ghali, at a meeting of representatives of NATO countries in Brussels, supported the idea of inflicting air strikes on the Bosnian Serbs. "I am empowered," he said, "to press the button" regarding air support ... but air strikes will require the decision of the NATO Council ... ". After the airborne battalion entered Gravica (a suburb of Sarajevo), it allowed the Serbs to be divided and The peace agreement was signed in Bosnia, where the Alliance created and led the Multinational Implementation Force (IFOR), which was tasked with implementing the military aspects of the agreement. Joint Endeavor led NATO under the political direction and control of the North Atlantic Council Under the terms of the Peace Agreement, all heavy weapons and troops were to be assembled in cantonment areas or demobilized This was the last step in the implementation of the military annex to the Peace Agreement.
A little later, a two-year plan for the consolidation of peace was approved in Paris, which was then finalized in London under the auspices of the Peace Implementation Council, established in accordance with the Peace Agreement. On the basis of this plan and NATO's exploration of security options, Allied Foreign and Defense Ministers decided that a smaller military presence in the country, the Stabilization Force (SFOR), was required to ensure stability. NATO. SFOR was given the same IFOR directive for the use of force, if necessary, in order to accomplish the task and self-defense.
3.3 Peacekeeping operation in Kosovo
The zone of another peacekeeping operation of NATO forces was Kosovo, when a conflict arose between the military formations of Serbia and the Kosovo Albanian Forces. NATO, under the pretext of humanitarian intervention, intervened in the conflict and launched an air campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia that lasted 77 days. Then the UN Security Council adopted a resolution on the principles of a political solution to the crisis in Kosovo and the dispatch of an international military contingent there under the auspices of the UN, consisting mainly of NATO forces and under a single NATO command.
The main political goal pursued by NATO in the Kosovo conflict was to overthrow the authoritarian regime of S. Milosevic. Stopping the humanitarian catastrophe in Kosovo was also part of NATO's tasks, but was not the main goal of its intervention in Yugoslavia.
NATO's military strategy was built on the implementation of an air offensive operation in order to make the most of its complete dominance in the air and inflict maximum harm on the Yugoslav army, formerly mobile air defense systems and ground forces. The blow inflicted on the economic and transport infrastructure of Yugoslavia was intended to create a certain psychological effect aimed at capitulating S. Milosevic as soon as possible.
In mid-February, the NATO leadership adopted Operational Plan 10/413 (codenamed "Joint Patrol") to deploy a military peacekeeping contingent of NATO and the Alliance's partner countries in Kosovo.
It should be noted that such a pre-planned NATO preparation for a military intervention in Kosovo, regardless of the outcome of the peace talks, leads to the idea that the settlement of the conflict in the country was not the main goal for NATO. After Bosnia, NATO began to openly claim the role of the main security organization in Europe.
On March 24, 1999, in response to official Belgrade's refusal to agree to the terms of resolving the situation in Kosovo, NATO air forces began bombing the territory of Yugoslavia. The air operation of NATO forces (Operation Allied Force) was another option for implementing the controlled escalation strategy. It provided for damage to objects vital for the defense and life of the country. Belgrade's military strategy in the war with NATO forces, whose defense budget was 300 times larger than Yugoslav's, was designed to wage a mass patriotic war. Given the complete dominance of NATO forces in the airspace, S. Milosevic tried to preserve the main forces of his army for the land phase of the war, dispersing them as much as possible across the territory of Kosovo and other regions of Yugoslavia.
However, simultaneously with the deployment of hostilities by the Yugoslav army, Serbian security forces and detachments of Serbian volunteers began to introduce large-scale ethnic cleansing in order, if not to change the ethnic balance in the province in favor of the Serbs, then at least significantly reduce the demographic advantage of the Albanians. As a result of hostilities and ethnic cleansing, the number of refugees from Kosovo reached 850 thousand people, of which about 390 thousand went to Macedonia, 226 thousand to Albania, 40 thousand to Montenegro. Despite this, the consequences of the NATO bombing forced S. Milosevic to make concessions. Since June 1999, with the mediation of the President of Finland, the EU Special Envoy M. Ahtisaari and the Russian Special Envoy V. Chernomyrdin, after many days of political debate, the President of the Yugoslav Federal Republic of Yugoslavia S. Milosevic agreed to sign the "Document on the achievement of peace." It provided for the deployment of international military contingents in Kosovo under the joint command of NATO and the auspices of the UN, the creation of an interim administration for the province and granting it broad autonomy within the SFRY. Thus ended the fourth period of development of the Kosovo conflict. After the adoption of Resolution No. 1244 on June 10, 1999 by the UN Security Council, the stage of escalation of the Kosovo conflict changed to the stage of de-escalation. The resolution contained a demand for an immediate cessation of hostilities and repressions by the SFRY in Kosovo and a phased withdrawal of all military, police and paramilitary formations of the SFRY from the territory of the region. On June 20, 1999, the last units of the Yugoslav army left Kosovo. The obvious fact should also be pointed out - the SFRY was defeated politically and militarily. The losses from the armed confrontation with NATO turned out to be quite significant. The country found itself in international isolation. Official Belgrade has practically lost political, military and economic control over Kosovo, leaving its further fate and the future of the territorial integrity of its country in the hands of NATO and the UN.
It has become quite obvious that the effectiveness of the work of international mechanisms for the settlement of military conflicts has been called into question. First of all, the content of the UN activities has changed significantly. This organization began to lose ground, change its peacekeeping role, ceding part of its functions to NATO. This radically changes the entire system of European and world security.
The Yugoslav problem could not be solved peacefully, because: firstly, there was no mutual agreement and it was difficult to count on a peaceful way; secondly, the right of nations to self-determination was recognized for all the republics that were part of Yugoslavia, while Serbs were deprived of this right even in places of compact residence; thirdly, the right of the Yugoslav Federation to territorial integrity was rejected, while at the same time the right of the seceding republics was justified and protected by the international community; fourthly, the international community and a number of countries (such as the United States and especially Germany) openly took the positions of one side and thus stimulated contradictions and enmity; fifthly, during the conflict it was clear who was on whose side.
Thus, the practical measures taken by the world community in the former Yugoslavia did not eliminate (they only suppressed the conflict for a while) the causes of the war. NATO's intervention temporarily eliminated the problem of contradictions between Belgrade and the Kosovo Albanians, but caused a new contradiction: between the Kosovo Liberation Army and KFOR forces.
Conclusion
The world community's concern about the growing number of conflicts in the world is due both to the large number of victims and the huge material damage caused by the consequences, and to the fact that, thanks to the development the latest technologies, with a dual purpose, the activities of the media and global computer networks, extreme commercialization in the field of the so-called. masses of culture where violence and cruelty are cultivated, an increasing number of people have the opportunity to receive and then use information about the creation of the most sophisticated means of destruction and how to use them. Neither the highly developed nor the economically and economically lagging behind are immune from outbreaks of terrorism. social development countries with different political regimes and state structure.
At the end of the Cold War, the horizons for international cooperation seemed cloudless. The main international contradiction at that time - between communism and liberalism - was fading into the past, governments and peoples were tired of the burden of armaments. If not "perpetual peace", then at least a long period of calm in those areas of international relations where there were still unresolved conflicts did not look like too much of a fantasy.
Consequently, one could imagine that there had been a major ethical shift in the thinking of mankind. In addition, interdependence has also had its say, which has begun to play an increasingly important role not only and not so much in relations between partners and allies, but also in relations between adversaries. Thus, the Soviet food balance did not converge without food supplies from Western countries; the energy balance in the Western countries (at reasonable prices) could not converge without the supply of energy resources from the USSR, and the Soviet budget could not take place without petrodollars. A whole set of considerations, both of a humanitarian and pragmatic nature, predetermined the conclusion shared by the main participants in international relations - the great powers, the UN, regional groupings - about the desirability of a peaceful political settlement of conflicts, as well as their management.
The international nature of people's lives, new means of communication and information, new types of weapons sharply reduce the importance of state borders and other means of protection from conflicts. The variety of terrorist activities is growing, which is increasingly linked to national, religious, ethnic conflicts, separatist and liberation movements. Many new regions have appeared where the terrorist threat has become especially large-scale and dangerous. On the territory of the former USSR, in the conditions of exacerbation of social, political, interethnic and religious contradictions and conflicts, rampant crime and corruption, external interference in the affairs of most CIS countries, post-Soviet terrorism flourished. Thus, the topic of international conflicts is relevant today and occupies an important place in the system of modern international relations. So, firstly, knowing the nature of international conflicts, the history of their occurrence, phases and types, it is possible to predict the emergence of new conflicts. Secondly, by analyzing modern international conflicts, one can consider and explore the influence of political forces of different countries in the international arena. Thirdly, knowledge of the specifics of conflictology helps to better analyze the theory of international relations. It is necessary to consider and study the features of all modern conflicts - from the most insignificant armed clashes to large-scale local conflicts, as this gives us the opportunity to avoid future or find solutions in modern international conflict situations.
Used sources and literature
International legal acts:
1. Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, concerning the protection of victims of international armed conflicts of 1977. // International protection of human rights and freedoms. Collection of documents. M., 1990
2. Convention on the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 1907 // Current international law. / Comp. Yu.M. Kolosov and E.S. Krivchikov. T. 2.
3. Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Weapons Which May Be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, 1980. // Bulletin of the USSR, 1984 No. 3.
4. International law in selected documents vol. II - Art. 6 of the Hague Convention on the peaceful settlement of international conflicts of 1907 - M., 1957. - C.202 - 248.
5. International law. Conducting combat operations. Collection of the Hague conventions and other agreements. ICRC, M., 1995
6. International law. Conducting combat operations. Collection of the Hague conventions and other agreements. ICRC, M., 1995
7. Protocol on the Prohibition or Restriction of the Use of Boobytraps and Other Devices, as amended on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on May 3, 1996), annexed to the Convention on the Prohibition or Restriction of the Use of Certain Types of Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Cause Excessive Injury // Moscow Journal of International Law. – 1997 No. 1. Page 200 - 216.
Main literature:
8. Artsibasov I.N. Armed conflict: law, politics, diplomacy. - M., 1998. - P.151 - 164.
9. Baginyan K. A. International sanctions under the Charters of the League of Nations and the United Nations and the practice of their application. - M.: 1948. - S.34 - 58.
10. Burton J. Conflict and communications. The use of controlled communication in international relations. - M., 1999. – P.134 - 144.
11. Boulding K. Theory of conflict. - L., 2006. - P.25 - 35.
12. Vasilenko V. A. International legal sanctions. - K., 1982. - C.67 – 78.
13. Volkov V. The New World Order" and the Balkan Crisis of the 90s: The Collapse of the Yalta-Post-Ladies System of International Relations. - M., 2002. - P. 23 - 45.
14. Guskova E.Yu. History of the Yugoslav Crisis (1990-2000). - M., 2001. - P.28 - 40.
15. Guskova E.Yu. Armed conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. - M., 1999. - P.22 - 43.
16. Dekhanov S.A. Law and force in international relations // Moscow Journal of International Law. - M., 2003. – P.38 – 48.
17. Lebedeva M.M. "Political settlement of conflicts". - M., 1999. - P.67 - 87.
18. Lebedeva M.M., Khrustalev M. Main trends in foreign studies of international negotiations. - M., 1989. - P.107 - 111.
19. Levin D.B. Principles of peaceful settlement of international disputes. - M., 1977. - S.34 - 56.
20. Lukashuk I.I. International law. Special part. - M., 2002. - P.404 - 407.
21. Lukov V. B. Modern diplomatic negotiations: problems of development. Year 1987. - M., 1988. - S. 117 - 127.
22. Mikheev Yu. Ya. Application of coercive measures under the UN Charter. - M., 1967. - S. 200 - 206.
23. Morozov G. Peacemaking and peace enforcement. - M., 1999. – P.58 – 68.
24. Muradyan A.A. The most noble science. On the basic concepts of international political theory. - M., 1990. - 58 - 67.
25. Nergesh J. The battlefield - the negotiating table / Per, with a Hungarian. - M., 1989. – P.77 – 88.
26. Nicholson G. Diplomacy. M., 1941. – P.45 – 67.
27. Nirenberg J. - Maestro of negotiations. M., 1996. – P.86–94.
28. Nitze P. - A walk in the forest. - M., 1989. – P.119 – 134.
29. Poltorak A.I. Armed conflicts and international law. - M., 2000. - C.66 - 78.
30. Pugachev V.P. Introduction to political science. 3rd ed., revised. and additional - M., 1996 (Ch. 20 "Political conflicts") - P.54 - 66.
31. Setov R.A. Introduction to the theory of international relations. - M.2001. - P.186 - 199.
32. Stepanov E.I. Conflictology of the transitional period: Methodological, theoretical, technological problems. - M., 1996. P.56 - 88.
33. Daring V. Balance of power and balance of interests. - M., 1990. – P.16–25.
34. Ushakov N.A. Legal regulation of the use of force in international relations. - M., 1997. - P.103 - 135.
35. Fisher R. Preparation for negotiations. - M., 1996. – P.90 – 120.
36. Hodgson J. Negotiations on an equal footing. - Mn., 1998. - C.250-257.
37. Tsygankov P.A. Theory of International Relations. - M., 2004. - S.407 - 409.
38. Shagalov V.A. The problem of resolving regional conflicts in the post-bipolar era and the participation of Russian military personnel in peacekeeping operations. - M., 1998. – P.69 – 82.
Joint publications:
39. International law. / Ed. Yu.M. Kolosova, V.I. Kuznetsova. M. 1996. - S. 209 -237.
40. International conflicts of our time. / Ed. V. I. Gantman. M., 1983. P.230 - 246.
41. About the process of international negotiations (experience of foreign studies). /Answer. editors R.G. Bogdanov, V.A. Kremenyuk. M., 1989. P.350 - 368.
42. Modern bourgeois theories of international relations: a critical analysis. / Ed. IN AND. Gantman. M., 1976. P.123 - 145.
Articles in periodicals:
43. War in Yugoslavia. // Special folder NG No. 2, 1999. - P.12.
44. Statement of the Council for Foreign and Defense Policy on the NATO war against Yugoslavia // Nezavisimaya Gazeta 16.04.99. - p.5.
45. Kremenyuk V.A. On the way to conflict resolution//USA: economy, politics, ideology. 1990. No. 12. S. 47-52.
46. Kremenyuk V.A. Problems of negotiations in relations between two powers// USA: economy, politics, ideology. 1991. No. 3. P.43-51.
47. Lebedeva M.M. The difficult way to resolve conflicts. //Bulletin of Moscow University. Series 18: Sociology and Political Science. 1996. No. 2. S. 54-59.
48. Romanov V.A. Alliance: Treaty and Organization in a Changing World//Moscow Journal of International Law. 1992. No. 1. - P.111 - 120.
49. Rubin J., Kolb D. Psychological approaches to the processes of international negotiations / Psychological journal. 1990. No. 2. S.63-73.
50. Simic P. Dayton process: Serbian view // ME and MO. 1998. - p.91
51. Yasnosokirsky Yu.A. Peacekeeping: Some Conceptual Aspects of the Political Settlement of Conflicts and Crisis Situations // Moscow Journal of International Law. 1998. No. 3. p.46
Federal Agency for Education
State Educational institution
Supreme Vocational Education
Chita State University
Law Institute
Faculty of Law
department
international law and
International relations
COURSE WORK
by discipline:
international public law
conflicts and wars in the modern world
Introduction ………………………………………………………….………...3
Chapter Ι The concept of conflict
1.1 The essence of the conflict……………………………………………….….5
1.2 Types of conflicts……………………………………………………..10
Chapter ΙΙ The concept of war
2.1 Essence and causes of occurrence………………………………..18
2.2 Means and methods of warfare…………………………………..23
Chapter ΙΙΙ Protection of the rights of the individual in times of armed conflict
3.1 Legal regime of the wounded and sick………………………………..30
3.2 The regime of military captivity……………………………………………….….32
Conclusion ……………………………………………………………….34
Bibliography …………………………………………………………….37
Introduction
Throughout almost the entire history of mankind, conflicts and wars have been central links, a kind of counterpoint in international relations. In the course of wars, contradictions that had accumulated between states were resolved, a new structure of international relations was established, corresponding to the balance of political, economic and military forces that had developed at one time or another, coalitions and blocs were adjusted. Accordingly, military force was seen as the most important component and factor in the power of the state and the maintenance of the ruling elite in power.
The key role of armed clashes and, accordingly, military force in world politics was largely due to the fact that, as the outstanding military theorist Carl von Clausewitz wrote: “War was a continuation of politics by violent means. War, he emphasized, is only a part of political activity. It is by no means something independent… If war is a part of politics, then the latter determines its character… And since it is politics that gives rise to war, is its guiding mind, then war is an instrument of politics, and not vice versa.”
Hundreds of thousands of people around the world every day become participants and eyewitnesses of large and small conflicts, live for years in war zones or in territories not controlled by legitimate authorities, in an atmosphere of struggle and stress. Politicians, diplomats, businessmen, psychologists, military men, journalists, employees of law enforcement and administrative bodies are racking their brains every day over the problem of resolving large and small conflicts. Millions of people around the world anxiously listen to radio and television news programs, keep their eyes on the pages of newspapers that tell about the trials that have befallen their contemporaries - earthlings. The passionate desire of the citizens of any country is to achieve a state of safety and security, normal conditions for life and work.
Thus, I would like to explain why I took this topic term paper as "Conflicts and Wars in the Modern World". In my opinion, this problem is the most relevant in our time. Against the backdrop of globalization and the development of world terrorism, such concepts as war, conflict and terrorism are, in fact, closely related.
The work consists of an introduction, three chapters, each of which consists of two paragraphs, a conclusion and a bibliography.
The purpose of my work is to study the essence of war and conflict, the causes of their occurrence and ways to prevent and stop them.
Chapter Ι The concept of conflict
1.1 Essence of the conflict
Russia, just like the rest of the world, is an integral part of a complex, self-developing, open system - the system of international relations. The processes taking place in the international arena directly and indirectly affect the nature of the political, social and economic development Russian society. As a result, the study, analysis and forecasting of all the processes taking place in the life of the country are unthinkable without their correlation with international ones.
The most important component international relations - interstate relations (IGO). Their distinctive feature is that the subjects of this system are states or their associations. Like any other organic system, the MHO system has its own structure, i.e. a set of states and their political associations with certain connections, and functions and develops on the basis of a number of patterns. These regularities have a system-wide character and are determined by the nature of its structure within the considered space and time continuum. In other words, the IHO system sets certain "rules of the game" for its subjects, following which is not so much an act of goodwill, but a condition for the self-preservation of each state. Attempts to circumvent these rules not only introduce a serious imbalance in the functioning of the IGO system, but in the first place can have destructive consequences for the initiators of such actions themselves.
From the point of view of the theory of international relations, a conflict is considered as a special political relationship of two or more parties - peoples, states or a group of states - which concentratedly reproduces in the form of an indirect or direct collision economic, social class, political, territorial, national, religious or other in nature. and nature of interests.
International conflicts, therefore, are a kind of international relations that various states enter into on the basis of conflicting interests. Of course, an international conflict is a special, and not a routine, political relationship, since it means both objectively and subjectively the resolution of heterogeneous specific contradictions and the problem they generate in a conflict form and, in the course of its development, can give rise to international crises and the armed struggle of states.
Often an international conflict is identified with an international crisis.
However, the ratio of international conflict and crisis is the ratio of the whole and the part. The international crisis is only one of the possible phases of the conflict.
It can arise as a natural consequence of the development of the conflict, as its phase, which means that the conflict has reached in its development to the point that separates it from an armed clash, from a war. The crisis gives the entire development of the international conflict a very serious and difficult-to-control character, forming a crisis logic of development, accelerating the escalation of the entire conflict. At the stage of crisis, the role of the subjective factor incredibly increases, since, as a rule, very responsible political decisions are made by a narrow group of people in conditions of acute shortage of time.
However, an international crisis is by no means an obligatory and inevitable phase of a conflict. Its course can remain latent for quite a long time without directly giving rise to crisis situations. At the same time, a crisis is by no means always the final phase of a conflict, even in the absence of direct prospects for it to develop into an armed struggle. This or that crisis can be overcome by the efforts of politicians, while the international conflict as a whole is able to persist and return to a latent state. But under certain circumstances, this conflict can again reach the crisis phase, while crises can follow with a certain cyclicity.
An international conflict reaches its greatest acuteness and extremely dangerous form in the phase of armed struggle. But armed conflict is also not the only or inevitable phase of international conflict. It represents the highest phase of the conflict, a consequence of irreconcilable contradictions in the interests of the subjects of the system of international relations.
It should be noted that international conflict as a system never appears in a "finished" form. In any case, it is a process or a set of development processes that appear as a certain integrity. At the same time, in the process of development, there may be a change in the subjects of the conflict, and, consequently, the nature of the contradictions underlying the international conflict. The study of the conflict in its successively changing phases allows us to consider it as a single process with different, but interrelated sides: historical (genetic), causal and structural-functional.
Phases of conflict development These are not abstract schemes, but real, historically and socially determined concrete states of international conflict as a system. Depending on the essence, content and form of a particular conflict, the specific interests and goals of its participants, the means used and the possibilities for introducing new ones, involving others or withdrawing existing participants, the individual course and general international conditions for its development, an international conflict can pass through a variety of including non-standard phases.
First phase of international conflict- this is a fundamental political attitude formed on the basis of certain objective and subjective contradictions and the corresponding economic, ideological, international legal, military-strategic, diplomatic relations regarding these contradictions, expressed in a more or less acute conflict form.
Second phase of international conflict- this is a subjective definition by the direct parties of the conflict of their interests, goals, strategies and forms of struggle to resolve objective or subjective contradictions, taking into account their potential and possibilities for the use of peaceful and military means, the use of international alliances and obligations, assessment of the general internal and international situation. At this phase, the parties determine or partially implement a system of mutual practical actions that are in the nature of a struggle of cooperation in order to resolve the contradiction in the interests of one or another party or on the basis of a compromise between them.
Third phase of international conflict consists in the use by the parties of a fairly wide range of economic, political, ideological, psychological, moral, international legal, diplomatic and even military means (without using them, however, in the form of direct armed violence), involvement in one form or another in the struggle by directly conflicting parties of other states (individually, through military-political alliances, treaties, through the UN) with the subsequent complication of the system of political relations and actions of all direct and indirect parties in this conflict.
Fourth phase of international conflict is associated with an increase in the struggle to the most acute political level - an international political crisis, which can cover the relations of direct participants, the states of a given region, a number of regions, major world powers, involve the UN, and in some cases become a global crisis, which gives the conflict an unprecedented severity and contains a direct threat that military force will be used by one or more parties.
Fifth phase is an international armed conflict that begins with a limited conflict (limitations cover the goals, territories, scale and level of hostilities, the military means used, the number of allies and their world status), which, under certain circumstances, can develop to a higher level of armed struggle using modern weapons and the possible involvement of allies by one or both sides. If we consider this phase of the international conflict in dynamics, then we can distinguish a number of semi-phases in it, which signify the escalation of hostilities.
Sixth phase of international conflict- this is the settlement phase, which involves a gradual de-escalation, a decrease in the level of intensity, a more active involvement of diplomatic means, a search for mutual compromises, a reassessment and adjustment of national-state interests. At the same time, the settlement of the conflict may be the result of the efforts of one or all parties to the conflict, or begin as a result of pressure from a "third" party, which may be a major power, an international organization or the world community represented by the UN.
Thus, the signs discussed above can be used for the primary identification of the conflict. But at the same time, it is always necessary to take into account the high mobility of the boundary between such phenomena as the actual military conflict and war. The essence of these phenomena is the same, but it has a different degree of concentration in each of them. Hence the well-known difficulty in distinguishing between war and military conflict.
1.2 Types of conflicts
international armed conflicts.
Modern international law forbids predatory, aggressive wars (clause 4, article 2 of the UN Charter). At the same time, this does not mean that wars have already been excluded from the life of human society, that the causes and sources that give rise to armed conflicts have disappeared. Although, in addition to illegal wars, in modern conditions there can also be just wars that are not prohibited by international law in the framework of international armed conflicts, as well as the legitimate use of armed force. These include:
· defensive wars in the exercise by a state or a group of states of the right to individual or collective self-defense against aggression in accordance with Art. 51 of the UN Charter;
· national liberation wars of colonial or dependent peoples who rose up in arms to fight for their national liberation and the formation of their own independent state (for example, the Palestine Liberation Organization);
· operations of the UN troops created by the decision of the UN Security Council in accordance with Art. 42 of the UN Charter;
The use of armed force in carrying out contractual obligations(for example, the use of Indian troops against the Tamil Eelam Liberation Tigers in accordance with the agreement between India and Sri Lanka on the settlement of the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka in 1987).
The presence of sources that give rise to wars necessitates the existence in international law of specific legal norms designed to regulate relations between states in the event of armed conflicts and to promote the humanization of the conduct of armed struggle. Their meaning is that they:
· limit the belligerents in the choice of means and methods of conducting military operations;
prohibit or restrict the use of the most barbaric means of warfare;
regulate the position of neutral states, as well as states not participating in an armed conflict;
serve the interests of peace-loving forces, contribute to the exposure of aggressive, reactionary forces;
protect the civilian population in the territory in the zone of armed conflict
International law during armed conflicts regulates the behavior of belligerents, both in the process of international armed conflicts and non-international armed conflicts.
According to the provisions of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, international armed conflicts are recognized as such conflicts when one subject of international law uses armed force against another subject.
Thus, states, nations and nationalities fighting for their independence, international organizations implementing collective armed measures to maintain peace and international law and order can be parties to an armed conflict.
According to Art. 1 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions concerning the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, armed conflicts are also international when peoples fight against colonial domination and foreign occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right to self-determination.
Armed conflict between the rebels and the central government is usually an internal conflict. However, insurgents may be considered a "belligerent" when they:
Have their own organization
They are headed by bodies responsible for their behavior;
Established their power in part of the territory;
· Observe in their actions “the laws and customs of war”.
Recognition of the rebels as a "belligerent" excludes the application to them of the national criminal law on liability for mass riots, etc. The status of prisoners of war extends to those captured. Rebels may enter into legal relations with third states and international organizations and receive from them assistance permitted by international law. Thus, the recognition of the rebels as a "belligerent", as a rule, indicates the acquisition of international status by the conflict and is the first step towards the recognition of a new state.
Armed conflicts of a non-international character.
Armed conflicts of a non-international character are all that do not fall under Art. 1 of Additional Protocol I, armed conflicts taking place in the territory of a State “between its armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out uninterrupted and concerted hostilities and apply the provisions of Protocol II relating to the protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts.
Armed conflicts of a non-international character have the following features:
• the use of weapons and the participation in the conflict of armed forces, including police units;
The collective nature of performances. Actions entailing an atmosphere of internal tension, internal unrest cannot be considered conflicts under consideration;
a certain degree of organization of the rebels and the presence of bodies responsible for their actions;
the duration and continuity of the conflict. Separate sporadic actions of poorly organized groups cannot be considered as armed conflicts of a non-international character;
· exercise by the rebels of control over part of the territory of the state.
To armed conflicts of a non-international character all civil wars and internal conflicts arising from attempts at coup d'état, etc., should be included. These conflicts differ from international armed conflicts, primarily in that in the latter both belligerents are subjects of international law, while in a civil war only the central government is recognized as a belligerent.
States should not intervene in internal conflicts on the territory of another state. However, in practice, certain armed measures are being carried out, which have received the name of “humanitarian intervention”. This is how, for example, armed actions were characterized in Somalia and Rwanda, undertaken with the aim of stopping the internal conflicts that took place there, accompanied by mass casualties.
Such a problem as internal armed conflicts, the causes of their occurrence and their influence on the military-political situation in individual countries, regions and the world, judging by many signs, have not yet found their place in theory and will require for their study and understanding both scientifically and and on the practical side, many more efforts and attention. This is all the more important because in modern conditions it is internal armed conflicts that are increasingly becoming the detonators of serious and dangerous geopolitical explosions. It is also significant that internal armed conflicts very often come into contact, and even merge with such a phenomenon as terrorism, which represents this stage certain threat to international peace and security.
For greater clarity and reduction of time for the presentation of this issue, it is advisable to consider and analyze this problem in a number of theses presented below.
It should be clear that internal armed conflicts can differ quite significantly from each other in terms of their causes, in their essence and content. Probably, all of them are unique in their own way, and therefore their understanding and study each time requires its own approach, a separate specific consideration. Obviously, the same internal conflict can be assessed in different ways, often from polar positions: for some it is, say, a liberation war or something similar to it, for others it is an armed rebellion, and so on. Therefore, it is impossible to approach different internal conflicts with the same standards.
No matter how numerous and irreconcilable the various extremist groupings and movements may be, today they are not in a position to solve their tasks on their own. To do this, they must have a powerful and harmoniously developed economic and scientific and technical a base produced in highly developed states by modern means of armed struggle, logistics and propaganda work, the ability to attract mercenaries and military specialists into their ranks, to have coordinating bodies and their supporters in various states and socio-political structures of the world community and other opportunities. That is, without some support for their actions at the state and international levels, their enterprise, as a rule, is doomed to failure.
There can be only one and quite definite conclusion from this: at the present stage, extremism, including Islamic extremism, can exist and perform its "work" for a relatively long time only as a destructive weapon controlled by more organized and powerful forces. What these forces are, there is no need to explain for a long time.
To do this, it is enough to look at who is behind the Afghan Taliban today, and who previously supported the Afghan Mujahideen, who provides financial and other support to anti-government Islamic groups in the countries of Central Asia, who gave Yugoslav Kosovo into virtually undivided possession of Albanian Muslims, who regularly and persistently puts forward ultimatums before Russia, demanding that it stop the anti-terrorist operation against international terrorist gangs in Chechnya, and so on. That is, when analyzing the role and place of Islamic extremism in the formation of internal and external threats to the national security and territorial integrity of Russia, we should not limit ourselves to considering only its religious-ideological and emotional-destructive components, but look much broader and in essence, into life itself. and the conditions in which this life takes place. Only with this approach will it be possible to understand why, say, the British lords from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) are so dissatisfied with Russia's actions against terrorists on their territory, why the NATO bloc was so persistent in implementing its Kosovo scenario, and so on.
Chapter ΙΙ The concept of war
2.1 Essence and causes
First of all, you need to define the concept of war, what it is.
War- a violent means of resolving interstate conflicts. As a result of a long historical development and the tragic experience of two world wars, the war is now condemned and prohibited by international law, which is also reflected in modern constitutional law. The constitutions of some states, adopted after the Second World War, contain so-called peace clauses proclaiming the unconditional renunciation of war as a means of state policy.
"If you want peace, prepare for war" the Romans said.
"Humanity must end war or war will end mankind" US President John F. Kennedy said. Which of them is right? Hard to say.
Wars cost humanity so dearly that its best representatives sought to find an answer to the question of the causes and possibilities for their prevention.
The causes of wars can be divided into three groups:
1. War as an expression of human nature. Wars spring from selfishness, from aggressive impulses, and from the stupidity of man. Other reasons are of secondary importance compared to this one.
Indeed, to believe that a person, when fighting, acts contrary to his nature, would not be entirely productive. However, one cannot but heed the remark of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who believed that not people, not citizens, but soldiers who are in in a certain sense"Thing of the state".
2. Naturally, therefore, the second group of reasons lies in the state, scientists believe. Disorders and troubles within the state are at the same time the cause of wars between them, war in this case is often seen as a means of consolidating society. Remember the Russo-Japanese War, the autocracy needed victory, or the war in Chechnya, the victory over Dudayev was supposed to strengthen the authority of the center.
3. The third group of reasons is related to international relations, in that "in a system consisting of many states, when each state evaluates its claims and ambitions on the basis of its own understanding and desire, conflicts leading to war are inevitable."
The Prussian general and brilliant military theorist Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1831) in his famous work "On War" gave it the following definition: "War is the continuation of politics only by other means." Today's theoreticians are not far removed from the Prussian general. Hajiyev writes in his textbook that
WAR IS A FORM OF ACHIEVING POLITICAL GOALS WITH THE HELP OF ARMED FORCE.
By the way, Clausewitz in 1812-13. was in the service of the Russian army and in the form of an officer fought near Borodino. He fought bravely, for which he was awarded a golden saber. Later in 1818-1830. was director of the military school in Berlin.
And he had a basis for defining war as a continuation of politics. Peace and war, although they were opposite, but the natural states of the international community. Over the past 56 centuries, peace has reigned on Earth for only three centuries. And the rest of the time there were wars. There were more than 15 thousand of them, more than 4 billion died in the wars. human. Only in Europe they carried away in the 17th century - 3 million people in 231 wars, in the 18th century - 5 million in 703, in the 19th - 6 million in 730, and in the 20th - 100 million in more than 1150 wars.
Interestingly, in the 256 years described in The Tale of Bygone Years, the chronicler writes about only one year as a great miracle: "It was peaceful."
Our compatriot, northerner Pitirim Sorokin, who emigrated to the United States after the revolution, developed a "war intensity index" for 8 European states over 9 centuries (from 1100 to 1925). The index was calculated on the basis of such data as the duration of wars, the size of the use of armed forces, the number of dead and wounded, the number of states involved in the war, etc. As a result, Sorokin got the following table:
Even a cursory glance at this index shows a rapid increase in the intensity of wars.
The total area of theaters of military operations in the war of 1939-1945. amounted to 22 million km 2 (the area of the USSR) or 5 times more than the 1st World War. 110 million people were put under arms, 4 trillion US dollars were spent on the war.
Particularly wasteful in all respects was the confrontation between the two systems in the twentieth century.
Socialism won in Russia under the slogan of world revolution. Tukhachesvskiy in the order of attack on Warsaw in 1920. wrote: "On bayonets we will bring happiness and peace to the working mankind. Forward to the West! To Warsaw! To Berlin!"
L. Trotsky proposed, after the defeat of the Hungarian Soviet Republic, to move the armed corps to India - to the rear of imperialism. Bukharin in 1920 called for "red intervention".
But capitalism also met the birth of socialism as a mistake of history that must be corrected in any way. Suffice it to recall the intervention, which greatly exacerbated the civil war in Russia. In any case, our scientists believe that there would be no civil war in the North without intervention.
It is believed that military spending should not exceed 8-9% of the annual budget. By the way, we still do not know the true figures allocated for military needs, not to mention where they are spent (our budget allocates money for 36 items, while in Germany there are 600).
The military-political confrontation drew many, many countries into the orbit of the arms race. Currently, about $1 trillion is spent on military needs in the world. Approximately the same as during the Second World War.
And this at a time when 1.5 billion people suffer from disease and poverty without medical care, for every 100 thousand people on the planet there are 556 military personnel and only 85 doctors. On average, 20,000 dollars are spent annually per soldier, and 380 dollars per student. The world has accumulated mountains of weapons. A significant contribution to this was made by our gunsmiths. Soviet Union Until 1990, it held first place in the arms trade. Even now, Russia concludes lucrative contracts for the supply of modern weapons to eastern countries, selling the latest developments. But at the same time, we are not able to provide our army with the same weapons. There are not so many new weapons in service with the Russian Federation, most of them are modified models of the old ones, and we sell new developments and “warm the snake on our chest”, because who knows what will happen tomorrow ...
And yet, the arms race that had been going on for decades was replaced in the late 1980s and 1990s by the process of disarmament and destruction certain types armaments, however, so far of the two largest militarily powers. This became possible, first of all, because nuclear missiles to a certain extent severed the link between politics and war. The cost of thermonuclear war could exceed the level of political goals. Back in 1955, in the famous Einstein-Russell manifesto, addressed to the leaders of the largest powers, it was said that the discovery of atomic energy requires all people to "LEARN TO THINK IN A NEW WAY." The essence of this new thinking was very accurately formulated by the American political scientist A. Rapoport, who wittily remarked that "a nuclear war would mean the end of politics, not its continuation." New thinking resulted in:
- Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty 1972
- Treaty on the Reduction of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles
- Treaty on the reduction of strategic arms by 50%
- Treaty on the Destruction of Chemical Weapons
- Treaty on the renunciation of the possession of nuclear weapons by Ukraine (4356 nuclear warheads), Belarus (1222) and Kazakhstan (1790)
- Treaty on the reduction of three times nuclear carriers (2002)
Considering that no one knows the fundamental ways of changing the nature of man, the state and the system of states, then the elimination of wars is impossible.
Means of warfare – weapons, shells, substances used by the armed forces of the belligerents to inflict harm and defeat the enemy.
Methods of warfare – it is the procedure for using the means of warfare.
The means and methods of warfare are divided into prohibited (or partially prohibited) and not prohibited by international law. According to Art. 35 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the right of the parties to the conflict to choose the means and methods of warfare is not unlimited. It is forbidden to use weapons, projectiles, substances and methods of warfare capable of causing unnecessary injury or suffering or making the death of combatants inevitable, as well as leading to mass destruction and senseless destruction of property (Article 22 of the Annex to the 1907 Hague Convention on Law and Customs ground war).
International law prohibits the following means and methods of warfare (land, sea, air):
· Poisons or poisoned weapons, asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, similar liquids, substances and processes, as well as bacteriological weapons;
· Means of influencing the natural environment for hostile purposes;
· Any weapon, if its action is to inflict damage with fragments that are not detected in the human body using x-rays (glass, plastic, etc.); mines, booby traps and other devices in the form of children's toys and medical aid items; any incendiary weapon against the civilian population, populated areas and non-military objects;
· Other conventional weapons that may be considered excessively damaging or indiscriminate;
· Carrying out genocide in the occupied territory; treacherous killing or wounding of an enemy who laid down his arms or unarmed; announcing to the defenders that if they resist, they will not be spared;
· The senseless destruction of cities and towns and the destruction of enemy property, if this is not caused by military necessity;
However, international law does not prohibit military stratagem to mislead the enemy or induce him to act recklessly. Examples of such tricks are: the use of camouflage, traps, false operations and disinformation (Article 37 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949).
Among the international legal acts regulating the conduct of naval warfare are the Paris Declaration on Naval War of 1856, the Hague Conventions of 1907, the London Declaration on the Law of Naval War of 1909, the London Protocol of 1936 and a number of other agreements. In 1994, the San Remo Guide to the International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, prepared by a group of international law and maritime experts established by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law, was adopted as an informal codification. The normative restrictions contained in these documents relate to methods (bombardment by naval forces, the use of a naval blockade, the capture of merchant ships), as well as the means of warfare at sea (submarines, sea mines, etc.).
The theater of naval warfare may include, with certain exceptions, the territorial and internal waters of the belligerent states, the high seas and the airspace above it. However, the conduct of a war on the high seas must not interfere with the freedom of navigation of the ships of states not participating in the given war. The naval forces of the belligerents constitute the navy, which, in particular, includes warships of all classes and types (submarine and surface), as well as auxiliary vessels, military aircraft and other aircraft of the navy aviation, merchant ships converted into warships and responsible requirements for the conversion of merchant ships into military ships, enshrined in the VII Hague Convention of 1907. It also states that the arming of merchant ships in wartime should be distinguished from the conversion of merchant ships into warships. The latter is done for the purpose of self-defense and does not entail the transformation of a merchant ship into a military one, which means that such a ship does not have the right to conduct hostilities.
One of the methods of waging war at sea is a naval blockade, which is understood as a system of violent actions of the naval forces of a belligerent state not prohibited by modern international law, aimed at blocking access from the sea to the coast, which is in the power of the enemy or occupied by him.
According to generally accepted norms of international law, the blockade must be efficient and effective, that is, it must actually prevent access to the enemy coast. The blockading State, or maritime authorities acting on its behalf, must make a declaration of blockade, indicating the date on which the blockade began, geographical boundaries blockaded coast, the period given to ships of neutral and other non-belligerent states to leave the blockaded area. The authorities of the blockaded coast or the given area must notify the foreign consuls of the blockade of the given area. The blockade is applied in the blockaded area equally to ships of all flags. A naval blockade is terminated when the blockading state lifts it, the enemy captures the blockaded area, or defeats the blockading forces.
At the same time, it must be emphasized that the observance of the above formalities does not in itself make the blockade lawful. In modern conditions, a blockade is considered legitimate if it is undertaken in connection with the realization of the right to individual and collective self-defense in accordance with the UN Charter. According to the Charter, the UN Security Council has the right to resort to a naval blockade if it is necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.
A naval blockade carried out by an aggressor constitutes as such an act of aggression. Deliberate violation of the blockade entails the confiscation of the vessel and its cargo. The seizure of ships can be carried out not only in relation to the enemy, but also to the ships of neutral states, if they violate the blockade or transport goods and objects classified by the belligerent side as military contraband, lists of which will be published at the beginning of the war. According to the London Declaration on the Law of Naval War of 1909, the possibility of capturing a neutral ship for violating a blockade is determined by its actual or perceived knowledge of the blockade. The capture of neutral ships for violating the blockade can only be carried out in the area of operation of the military courts that ensure the blockade. A ship found guilty of violating the blockade shall be confiscated along with the cargo, unless it is proved that at the time of its loading the person producing it did not know and could not know about the intention to violate the blockade.
The 11th Hague Convention on Certain Restrictions on the Use of the Right of Capture in Naval Warfare of 1907 provides for the absolute inviolability of hospital ships carrying the sick and wounded and marked with a certain emblem, and cartel ships carrying parliamentarians. Also not subject to seizure, except in cases of violation of a duly established sea blockade, are postal ships, coastal fishing vessels, as well as ships performing scientific, religious and philanthropic functions.
International law does not prohibit the use of mine weapons. At the same time, according to the Hague Convention on the Laying of Underwater, Automatically Exploding Mines of 1907, it is forbidden to lay mines that are not anchored (with the exception of those that become safe one hour after they have lost observation by those who set mine), or anchored mines that do not become safe once they are released from the minreps. It is also forbidden to lay mines off the coasts and ports of the enemy in order to disrupt merchant shipping. The Convention obliges all states to take measures to ensure the safety of civilian navigation, and in cases where mine surveillance is terminated, indicate dangerous areas in notices to mariners or other public documents and report them to other states through diplomatic channels.
In connection with the development of scientific and technological progress and an increase in the level in the military-industrial complex, the means and methods of conducting air warfare occupy a special place in the international law of armed conflicts. The provisions of Additional Protocol I are aimed at protecting the civilian population from air attacks. Air attacks can only be directed against military objectives. It is prohibited to attack or threaten to attack the main purpose of which is to terrorize the civilian population.
A special prohibition is established for indiscriminate attack, that is, one that is directed at both military and non-military targets. When attacking from the air, you must:
1. ascertain the military nature of the targets;
2. choose such methods and means that minimize accidental damage to civilian objects and the population;
3. to refrain from an attack if the concrete and direct military advantage from it would be incomparably inferior to the occasional loss of a civilian nature.
In the conduct of hostilities in the air, measures must be taken to minimize damage to civilians and objects, in particular, to warn of attacks that may affect the civilian population.
Additional Protocol I proclaims the principle of respect for and protection of medical aircraft and lays down the conditions for such protection. The parties to the conflict do not have the right to use air ambulances to gain a military advantage over another enemy, in particular, to collect and transmit intelligence information.
The regime of this category of persons is regulated mainly by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 1949 and the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of the Armed Forces at Sea of 1949.
Wounded and sick For the purposes of providing protection under international humanitarian law, civilians and members of the armed forces who are in an area of armed conflict are considered to be in need of nursing care due to injury, illness, other physical disorder or disability and who refrain from any military action. This category also includes women in labor, newborns, infirm, pregnant women. Civilians and members of the armed forces who are in danger at sea or in other waters as a result of an accident with the ship or aircraft carrying them and who refrain from any hostile act are considered to be shipwrecked. Regardless of which side they belong to, these persons enjoy protection and protection and are entitled to humane treatment. They are provided with medical assistance to the maximum extent possible and as soon as possible.
As regards the hostilities themselves, at all times, and especially after the battle, the parties must take all possible measures to find and pick up the wounded and sick and protect them from robbery and ill-treatment. Robbery of the dead (looting) is not allowed. When circumstances permit, truce or cease-fire agreements should be negotiated to pick up the wounded on the battlefield and exchange them.
The parties to the conflict must register all data that would help to identify the wounded, sick, shipwrecked and dead of the enemy side who came into their power. This information must be brought to the attention of the National Prisoner of War Information Bureau as soon as possible for transmission to the Power in which these persons are registered, through a Central Prisoner of War Agency to be established in a neutral country.
It is forbidden to kill or exterminate the wounded, sick, shipwrecked, deliberately leave them without medical care or care, deliberately create conditions for their infection, subject these persons, even with their consent, to physical injury, medical or scientific experiments, removal of tissues or organs for transplantation , except when it is justified by the state of health of the person and complies with generally accepted medical standards. The mentioned persons have the right to refuse any surgical operation. A side compelled to leave the wounded or sick to the enemy must leave with them, as far as military conditions permit, a part of its medical personnel and equipment to assist in their care.
Once in the power of the enemy, the wounded, sick and shipwrecked are considered prisoners of war, and the rules of international law concerning prisoners of war apply to them.
The main international legal document that defines the regime of military captivity is the Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 1949, according to which the following categories of persons who fell into the power of an enemy side during a war or armed conflict are prisoners of war:
the personnel of the armed forces of the belligerent;
partisans, personnel of militias and volunteer detachments;
personnel of organized resistance movements;
non-combatants, that is, persons from the armed forces who are not directly involved in military operations (doctors, lawyers, correspondents, various service personnel);
members of the crews of ships of the merchant fleet and civil aviation;
· A spontaneously revolted population, if it openly bears arms and observes the laws and customs of war.
Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy power, and not of the individuals or military units that have taken them prisoner. They should always be treated humanely. No prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or scientific or medical experiments, and discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, social origin is prohibited. These provisions also apply to participants in civil and national liberation wars.
Prisoners of war must be placed in camps and in conditions no less favorable than those enjoyed by the enemy army stationed in the area. Prisoners of war (with the exception of officers) can be involved in work not related to military operations ( Agriculture, trading activity, housework, loading and unloading in transport). Prisoners of war are subject to the laws, regulations and orders in force in the armed forces of the detaining power. If a prisoner of war has made an unsuccessful attempt to escape, then he only bears a disciplinary sanction, as well as those prisoners of war who assisted him.
Far from all the conditions of detention and the rights of prisoners of war, which are enshrined in the Convention, are given here, but in general they can be described as humane, for violations of which prisoners of war have the right to apply to the protecting power or to the Red Cross Society.
Conclusion
The world community's concern about the growing number of conflicts in the world is due both to the large number of victims and the huge material damage caused by the consequences, and to the fact that, thanks to the development of the latest dual-use technologies, the activities of the media and global computer networks, extreme commercialization in the field of so-called . masses of culture where violence and cruelty are cultivated, an increasing number of people have the opportunity to receive and then use information about the creation of the most sophisticated means of destruction and how to use them. Neither highly developed countries nor countries lagging behind in economic and social development with different political regimes and state structures are immune from outbreaks of terrorism.
Only recently, human and material losses due to conflicts and terrorist attacks have been recorded in Northern Ireland, the USA, Russia, Kenya, Tanzania, Japan, Argentina, India, Pakistan, Algeria, Israel, Egypt, Turkey, Albania, Yugoslavia, Colombia, Iran and several other countries.
The international nature of people's lives, new means of communication and information, new types of weapons sharply reduce the importance of state borders and other means of protection from conflicts. The variety of terrorist activities is growing, which is increasingly linked to national, religious, ethnic conflicts, separatist and liberation movements.
The epicenter of terrorist activity has shifted from Latin American countries to Japan, Germany, Turkey, Spain, and Italy for a number of years.
At the same time, with varying degrees of intensity, terrorist actions were carried out by organizations such as the IRA in England and North America.
Ireland, ETA in Spain. Palestinian and Israeli terrorists, terrorist organizations in a number of countries in Africa and Asia, as well as in the United States, have become more active. In recent years, the Islamic paramilitary terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah, Sikh terrorist movements and groups in India, Algerian and other terrorists have developed great activity in the Middle East. The drug mafia is actively operating, widely using terrorist methods, winning new positions from the official authorities.
Many new regions have appeared where the terrorist threat has become especially large-scale and dangerous. On the territory of the former USSR, in the conditions of exacerbation of social, political, interethnic and religious contradictions and conflicts, rampant crime and corruption, external interference in the affairs of most CIS countries, post-Soviet terrorism flourished.
Russia and other CIS countries, which have recently become almost the main targets of international terrorism, today, perhaps more than others, understand the importance of the task of organizing collective efforts to stop the further spread of the zone of active terror on their territories. In the development of this understanding, the CIS countries are taking specific measures to organize interaction in repelling attacks of internal and external terror against the foundations of statehood and socio-political stability. To this end, a program has been developed and adopted to combat international terrorism and other manifestations of extremism, and a special CIS anti-terrorist center has also been established. It seems that these initiatives and efforts undertaken in the post-Soviet space in order to protect the national security and sovereignty of our states should be met with understanding by the world community, no matter what they say about Russia's disproportionate use of force against Chechen separatists, etc.
Internal armed conflicts will cease to be dangerous for countries and peoples only when there is an end to the practice of using these conflicts by third countries to solve their major geopolitical and other tasks.
Consolidating all of the above, I would like to say that, despite the growing trend in the number of conflicts and wars in the modern world, heads of state and international organizations are making every effort to resolve and suppress them. In our crazy world, one can only hope that our common home, the planet Earth, will not turn into a lifeless desert from incessant wars and armed clashes, as described in countless science fiction novels.
Bibliography
Regulations
1. The Constitution of the Russian Federation, M. - S. - P.: "Gerda", 2004
International legal acts
1. Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, concerning the protection of victims of international armed conflicts of 1977. // International protection of human rights and freedoms. Collection of documents. M., 1990
2. Convention on the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 1907 // Current international law. / Comp. Yu.M. Kolosov and E.S. Krivchikov. T. 2.
3. Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Weapons Which May Be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, 1980. // Bulletin of the USSR, 1984 No. 3.
4. International law. Conducting combat operations. Collection of the Hague conventions and other agreements. ICRC, M., 1995
5. International law. Conducting combat operations. Collection of the Hague conventions and other agreements. ICRC, M., 1995
6. Protocol on the Prohibition or Restriction of the Use of Booby Traps and Other Devices, as amended on May 3, 1996 (Protocol II as amended on May 3, 1996), annexed to the Convention on the Prohibition or Restriction of the Use of Certain Types of Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Cause Excessive Injury // Moscow Journal of International Law. – 1997 No. 1. Page 200 - 216.
Special scientific literature
1. Isakovich S.V. “International legal problems of human rights in armed conflict” // Bulletin of Kyiv University. Series: MO and MP. – 1976 - Number 3. – pp. 27 – 28.
2. International protection of human rights and freedoms. Collection of documents M., 1990
Educational literature
1. Artsibasov I.N. "Armed Conflict: Law, Politics, Diplomacy".
2. Biryukov P.N. "International law: Tutorial”, 2nd edition revised and enlarged. - M .: Jurist, 1999. - 416s.
3. Grigoriev A. G. “International law during armed conflicts.” – M.: Military Publishing House, 2002. - 32s.
4. Gusher A.I. Internal armed conflicts and international terrorism. Relationship and methods of struggle, M: 2000
5. Kolosov Yu.M. "Mass Information and International Law". - M., 1974, p. 152.
6. Kolosov Yu.M., Kuznetsov V.I. "International Law: Textbook". Edition 2nd, add. and prereb. - M .: International relations, 2003. - 624s.
7. Kozhevnikov F. I. Course of international law. T.5 M., 1999
8. Lazarev M.I. “Theoretical issues of modern international maritime law”, M:-1999. 48s.
9. Poltorak A.I. Savinsky L.I. Armed conflicts and international law. M., 2000,
10. Torkunov A. V. Modern international relations. -M 1999. P.312
