Lecture
Objectives: To analyze the difficulties of defining international conflicts.
To examine the types of international conflicts. To clarify the specifics of the phases of international
conflicts. To examine contemporary problems of resolving military conflicts. To analyze
the essential features of the problem of the scientific definition and interpretation of the concept of «international
order» and the main approaches to the scientific study of international order.
International conflict and war as a form of international relations.
1. The concept of "force". Force as an attribute of the subjects of international relations. Force as a feature of the state of relations between subjects. Factors and components of force.
2. The phenomenon of the balance of power in the international system. Centers of world politics. Features of the process of the application of force under conditions of IR.
3. Problems of defining international conflicts.
4. Types of international conflicts.
5. Phases of international conflicts.
6. Problems of resolving military conflicts.
7. Problems of the scientific definition and interpretation of the concept of «international order».
The problem of force and the threat of its use have accompanied the entire existence of humanity.
The history of humanity is filled with a struggle for power. According to rough estimates, over
the last 5,000 years more than 14,000 wars have taken place on our planet, in which
approximately 4 billion people died. In the 20th century there were two world wars, numerous revolutions and
counter-revolutions, and the collapse of the colonial and socialist systems, which were also accompanied
by the use of force and numerous victims. According to incomplete estimates, in the 20th century
more than 170 million people died for political reasons alone.
Political science has done much to comprehend these tragic processes.
A huge number of theories, concepts, and hypotheses have been proposed, addressing
the problem of force in international relations from different positions. Even Saint Augustine believed that
the cause of constant conflicts in society is man's free will, his licentiousness.
Even later, K. Marx saw the cause of the use of force in the historical necessity
of social development (class struggle – the source of progress). Beginning with T. Hobbes,
it was believed that power struggles and military conflicts are an innate human
trait. In the thinker's opinion, "the war of all against all" corresponds to the inner essence of man.
There are no few hypotheses connected with the struggle for survival, with overpopulation, and the shortage of
resources, etc. However, gradually more and more theorists and practitioners began to
link military conflicts with political problems. Indeed, as early as the beginning of the 19th century, K. Clausewitz
came to the conclusion that war is nothing other than the forceful continuation of policy. He was
convinced that "force can only be restrained by force".
Unfortunately, humanity has not managed to develop effective political mechanisms for countering
brute force in interstate relations. After the Second World War, the restraining
mechanism was the confrontation between two systems and two military blocs (NATO and
the Warsaw Pact). Nuclear weapons and the threat of world catastrophe were the most powerful
restraining factor. The nuclear states tried not to push the situation to the extreme,
in which even a local conflict could trigger global confrontation. The "Cold
War" maintained the balance of power and the threat of the use of force for many decades.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union, an armed power struggle began on its periphery–
Chechnya, Abkhazia, and Karabakh.
After the end of the "Cold War", no powerful international structure was created that
would regulate and prevent the use of force. The UN, as numerous contemporary
conflicts show, is not coping with this task. Of the two superpowers, the USA
remained the sole military leader. However, for one state, however powerful, it is difficult to cope with
the threat of international violence.
One of the factors activating violence is the process of globalization,
above all – the globalization of the economy. The advantage of transnational corporations presupposes,
not least, forceful pressure on competitors. Violence is fed to a large extent by
inequality and the struggle in the world market, and competition for markets. The dominance of Western
culture, the "Westernization" of cultural values, provokes among many peoples resistance and
attempts to defend their national and cultural identity. The mass media also
contribute to the intensification of violence. A fierce struggle is being waged in the world for the
redistribution and control of the international information network.
The use of force over many centuries has led to the formation of the image of the enemy.
Very diverse social groups, political parties, states, and peoples have been considered the enemy. The "image
of the enemy" reinforced a psychology of hostility and hatred; it gradually acquired specific
features and addresses, though it more often remained impersonal. It is buried under such labels as
"world imperialism", the "European-masonic conspiracy", "Muslim
fundamentalism", etc. All these and other labels have their own inertia and push toward
the escalation of tension and hostility. The "image of the enemy" in interstate relations
pushes toward distrust and suspicion of the policies of other states, and morally and psychologically
prepares the masses for conflicts and wars.
In the opinion of many thinkers, the problem of violence (revolutions, wars, uprisings)
arises above all as a result of the redistribution of material resources. This reveals a peculiar
barbaric form of human progress under conditions of scarcity. Wars have often ended in
revolutions, which contributed to the progress of society. Thus, in their opinion, force under the appropriate
conditions is a necessary condition for the realization of human progress.
Terrorism (from the Latin teror – fear, horror) – a policy and tactic of achieving political
goals through especially cruel means and forms of political violence. Science has no unified
view on the essence of terror. In the modern sense, the concept of "terror" appeared at the end of the
18th century, during the period of the Great French Revolution. The main thing in terrorism is the methods
of achieving goals, based on the use or threat of the use of violence.
Terrorism has become one of the symbols of the contemporary world. A turning point
were the events of September 11, 2001, in New York, where more than two thousand innocent
people died. However, terrorism has long since become a commonplace phenomenon. Press, radio,
and television reports about terrible and cruel terrorist acts have already become habitual and
routine. Political science distinguishes domestic, international, political, religious, ethnic, and
state forms of terror. Terror is divided into individual and collectively organized.
Violence is an inherent characteristic of any form of terror. Political science pays particular attention
to studying the essence and subjectivity of terror. The lowest level of the subjectivity of terror –
is a specific individual. The next level – an organized group of terrorists. An even higher level -
state-organized. The highest level belongs to the international form of terrorism.
The subject of terror always pursues certain specific goals. Most often such goals
are political changes and the actions of politicians. Terrorists always use illegitimate
violence to achieve political goals.
The scale of terrorism is evidenced by data from the US CIA. From 1968 to 1980, more
than 6,700 acts of international terror were committed in the world. According to this authoritative
body, terrorism is constantly spreading territorially. In 1970, terrorist acts
were committed in 48 countries; in 1975 - 57; in 1980 - 76; and by 1995 - already in more than 100 countries.
Contemporary terrorism employs fundamentally new methods. The sabotage methods of the special services
have been transferred into the sphere of political relations.
Among the causes of the emergence and spread of terrorism are:
- the absence, in a specific situation, of non-violent methods of resolving political,
economic, social, ethnic, religious, and other problems;
- the commitment of one of the sides in a confrontation to violent ideologies and methods; -
prolonged spiritual stagnation of society;
- religious confrontation, at the basis of which lies extremism, including Islamic
extremism (as opposition to the West);
- prolonged ethnic and racial conflicts;
- the presence of an extremist charismatic leader (Bin Laden in Al-Qaeda, Renato
Curcio in the Italian "Red Brigades", Ulrike Meinhof in the West German faction
of the "Red Army", etc.).
State terrorism has characteristic features, namely:
- such terrorism solves specific state tasks;
- the secret services of certain states organizationally and financially support terrorism,
as S. Hussein did in Iraq; – this form of terrorism is of the most secretive character;
- terrorist acts are carried out through the special services or with their support;
- state-supported terrorists are better armed and act more effectively.
However, as experience shows, an effective fight against terrorism is possible only through
the application of comprehensive approaches by many parties. Above all it is necessary to pay attention
to eliminating the preconditions for the emergence and existence of terrorism.
Problems of defining international conflicts
From the origins of the theory of international relations, the problem of conflict and international security,
or, as it was formulated earlier, of war and peace, has been a cornerstone of any
research. A characteristic feature of the study of international conflicts has always been
the focus of scholars' attention on attempts to clarify the main causes of conflicts and to find
ways to avoid them, in order to achieve peaceful, crisis-free coexistence of the participants
in international relations.
A conflict is a situation in international relations that has the property
of periodically recurring, alternating with more or less lengthy periods
of stability.
The regular alternation of periods of stability and confrontation (as well as the conflicts
arising from it) is one of the most important issues of research in the theory of international
conflicts, that is, the actual theoretical content of the problem consists in determining the place of conflict
among the causal relationships that make up the content of international relations.
The practical content of the question is connected with the perception of conflict as a destructive phenomenon
(in the material and moral sense) and the study of the possibility of its prediction,
avoidance, or the formulation of concepts providing for adequate actions on the part of states
as well as on the part of collective participants in international relations.
However, the most important conceptual problem of defining international
conflicts must be recognized as the question of their boundaries. Given the widespread understanding that
an international conflict is always a clash of opposing sides — participants
in international relations, the content of the disagreements mostly comes down to the problem
of distinguishing the concepts of the phenomena of conflict and confrontation. The issue is what to consider
a conflict — either the opposition of sides with the consequences arising from it, or, properly speaking,
a direct clash. That is, ultimately one of the most important problems of contemporary
conflictology is the difficulty of distinguishing and understanding the concepts of "crisis" and "conflict".
According to the American sociologist L. Coser, a conflict is a "clash between
collective actors over values, status, power, and in some cases resources, in
which the goals of each side consist in weakening or destroying its rivals". N.
Doronina identifies such criteria, characteristic of American sociology, for defining
conflict:
1. The presence of at least two sides in contact with one another.
2. Mutually opposed or incompatible interests due to a shortage of resources.
3. Behavior aimed at destroying the plans, intentions... of one side or both sides, as well as such
relationships in which one side can gain something at the expense of the other.
4. Retaliatory hostile actions directed against the other side.
5. Attempts to gain control over scarce resources by force, etc.
One of the definitions closest to the truth is the definition of international conflict as "...a state
of very serious deterioration (aggravation) of relations between participants in international life,
who, with the aim of resolving disputes between them, threaten each other with the use of
armed forces or directly use them". Given the above, a conflict
can be considered a situation of active or passive struggle between two participants (or groups)
in international relations for the possibility of realizing their vitally important (or fundamental)
interests.
1) "...a clash of opposing or incompatible interests, actions, views, and goals of individual
persons, social groups or communities, political parties or organizations, states or their unions,
different social (political or economic) systems (a socio-political interpretation)";
2) "...the most acute way of resolving significant contradictions that arise in the
process of interaction, consisting in opposition between the subjects of the conflict..."
An international conflict is a conflict that arises with the participation of two or more
international actors and has international-political consequences; the object of the conflict
extends beyond the jurisdiction of any of the participants.
International conflict is characterized by the following features:
• the participants in a conflict can be both states and other international actors,
capable of pursuing political goals; • an international conflict may begin as an
internal one, but its escalation can bring the object of the conflict beyond the jurisdiction of its
participants, as a result of which the conflict leads to international consequences; • the development
of an international conflict occurs under the specific conditions of anarchy of the international system,
which reduces the effectiveness of international legal instruments for its resolution;
an international conflict can take various forms, and often concepts associated with
conflict denote only one of the possible ways of resolving it (for example,
an ultimatum). Functions of conflict. • The integrative function of conflict consists in facilitating
the overcoming of internal disputes and inconsistencies... • The informational function of conflict
manifests itself in facilitating the exchange of information between elements of social systems...
• Serving as a means of formulating and resolving contradictions, conflict performs an
organizational function... • Conflicts perform another function, connected with the
preceding one – a stabilizing one. Thanks to conflicts, the sharpest
contradictions capable of destroying the system find an outlet... • The innovative function of conflict, like the two
preceding ones, is connected with its contribution to maintaining the viability of systems of social
relations. Conflict forces subjects and participants to generate ideas about how to achieve
victory or resolve the conflict.
Not one of the international conflicts in world history has been an exact copy of another
that occurred earlier. Each conflict had certain peculiarities both as to the cause of its
emergence, the means used, and the composition of the conflicting sides, as well as to the specifics of the course of events.
Among the classifications of international conflicts proposed to date,
the schemes of K. Boulding, J. Galtung, and A. Rapoport are recognized as the most successful.
K. Boulding built his classification on the criterion of the type of social unit that
enters into conflict. This criterion was proposed as early as the 1920s of the 20th century by P. Sorokin and E.
Ross, who believed that the defining parameters of any interactions are the parameters
of the social units that cause them. In K. Boulding's opinion, in conflict interactions
three groups of the following units can be distinguished: the individual, the group, the organization (groups and
organizations are distinguished by degrees of organization and complexity).
Social conflicts can occur between individual persons;
territorially isolated groups; mixed groups; homogeneous organizations;
heterogeneous groups; individuals and groups; individuals and organizations; groups
and organizations. In the international environment, social types of conflict undergo certain
modifications, since they occur at the level of communities, and their sides can be
tribes, feudal societies, universal agrarian communities, industrial states,
superpowers, and world powers.
J. Galtung attempted to develop a simpler and more applicable
classification, based on a systems approach. In social
conflict, which can occur at the intra- and inter-system levels, he
distinguishes only two types of units: the individual and the collective.
By sphere of contradiction, international conflicts can be defined as political,
economic, and ideological, which as a whole corresponds to the main spheres of interaction of the participants
in international relations.
Political conflicts arise from the traditional opposition, in the sphere of foreign policy,
of states over the division of power (dominance) and prestige in international
relations.
Political conflicts occur mainly for the following reasons:
1. Jurisdiction over a certain territory, that is, conflict over the inclusion of a certain
piece of land, which is the subject of dispute, within the state borders of the states — participants
in the conflict.
2. Sovereignty, that is, attempts by one side to realize or defend its
political independence in opposition to the attempt of the other side to maintain control and not
allow a change in the status quo.
3. Domination in the international system, expressed in the desire of the ruling elites
of several powerful states to establish or maintain their determining influence on the foreign and
domestic policy of other countries of the world. Economic conflicts, compared to political ones,
are characterized by a much wider circle of participants. Alongside states, their sides
can also include any business entities, especially TNCs, which have
extensive interests abroad.
Economic conflicts traditionally arise for the following reasons:
1. Control over raw-material, energy, and fishing regions of the world,
the predominant possibility of exploiting which constitutes a significant economic benefit.
2. Competition in the markets for manufactured industrial products. In
such conflicts a leading role is played by business entities, but quite often
states become involved when their trade policy takes the form of full or partial
protectionism.
3. An international economic order which, in the opinion of political leaders
of a number of states, discriminates against their national producers and puts the latter in
an inherently disadvantageous position.
Ideological conflicts manifest themselves in hostility between peoples and states,
the cause of which is the incompatibility of dominant systems of values and views on society and
the world. The incompatibility of prevailing ideologies affects the mood of broad circles of citizens,
the positions of political parties and movements, and the ruling elites of competing states of the world.
Interethnic conflicts are traditionally associated with clashes between representatives
of different ethnic communities, organized movements, groups, and even individuals.
Conflict is in fact inherent in the relations between ethnic groups given their proximity within
a narrow geographic area of their habitation.
The problem of classifying wars does not have significant scholarly urgency in the international theory
of relations, since it has been fairly thoroughly developed in military science. It is only worth
emphasizing the necessity of avoiding the widely practiced division of wars into just
and unjust as far-fetched and artificial. This is correct if only because, since wars
are always connected with armed violence, they cannot be just under any circumstances.
Besides this, such a classification is also inappropriate for two other reasons:
1) the criterion of aggressiveness is extremely speculative and amorphous;
2) the conflicting parties, pursuing their own national interests, cannot
be considered right or guilty, since each side, in justification of its position,
brings forward numerous quite relevant and exhaustive arguments.
For example, the side that is the first to begin military action quite often
justifies itself by claiming that it is acting preventively, anticipating aggression on the part of the enemy
or responding to its provocative actions. In military science, wars are classified according to
criteria:
- theaters of military operations (TVD) into: land and maritime;
— the method of conducting military operations into: positional and maneuver;
— the resources involved, into limited and mass-scale.
A fairly original classification is proposed in the work "War and Anti-War" by
the American researchers A. and H. Toffler. They define types of wars by their relation
to types of civilizations:
1. First-wave wars correspond to agricultural societies and
are characterized by the fact that they are conducted at a primitive technological level, in them
irregular units participate, and the scale and resources involved on both sides are
insignificant.
2. Second-wave wars are conducted by industrial societies, for them
a fairly high technological level is characteristic, with the participation in combat operations of massed
regular armies, significant resources, and scale involved in the military conflict.
3. Third-wave wars are waged by post-industrial (information)
societies, or at least those transitioning to them, characterized by an extremely high
technological level (extensive use in combat operations of information systems,
satellites, precision weapons), the conduct of operations by small but
highly professional armed forces, with modest resources but quite significant
scale of operations.
It should be noted that in the modern world, wars of all the above types are waged
simultaneously, which is explained by the uneven level of development of different regions and societies.
Even within the framework of a single war, in the Persian Gulf, the coalition led by the USA used
methods characteristic of both the third and the second wave. A. and H. Toffler note that
two air campaigns were conducted: one using weapons characteristic of the second wave,
intended for mass destruction, and the other — with great precision, while minimizing
collateral damage.
Armed conflicts that occurred after 1990 are characterized by
fundamentally new trends, which above all consist of:
1. The de-etatization of wars, which manifests itself in the loss of the state's monopoly on
armed violence and the expansion of the participation of individual social groups (of a subnational or
international character) in combat operations. Modern military theorists of various countries
around the world are actively studying the newest phenomenon known as asymmetric warfare. They are
characterized by a point-network structure of combat operations, since the warring parties act
using methods of local military or sabotage operations.
The most important features of such wars:
— the absence of a classical front line and TVD, as well as clearly distinguishable combatants
(referring to military uniforms, military insignia, and documents);
— the qualitative difference in means and methods of struggle between the opposing sides, given
the localized nature of combat operations (both on the part of terrorists and the armed forces of states
carrying out counter-terrorist operations);
— the qualitative difference in forces between the opposing sides, since the military potential
of terrorist or insurgent organizations is several orders of magnitude lower than the potential
of the USA, NATO, Israel, or the Russian Federation, which leads to the use of various
tactical operations (terrorist acts, sabotage, precision air strikes, special
operations, mass raids and searches);
— the orientation of the actions of both sides toward achieving maximum informational
effect from carrying out sabotage or counter-terrorist operations
Alongside asymmetric wars, there also arise so-called low-intensity wars, in which
the parties to the combat operations are of a purely non-state character.
2. The internationalization of armed conflicts, which is connected, on the one hand, with
the armed intervention of states of the world and international organizations in internal civil
wars, and on the other — with the emergence of international terrorist and criminal organizations that
act as a warring party.
3. The degeneration of war, which consists in a persistent tendency toward growing casualties among
of the civilian population. Whereas "during the First World War the share of civilian war casualties
149
was 5%, by the Second World War it was already 50%, around 60% during the Korean War,
and 80—85% — in the armed conflicts in the former Yugoslavia".
War as a social phenomenon has always developed and changed, which, however, does not give
grounds to ignore military threats that seem unlikely under current conditions.
Guided by this consideration, Z. Brzezinski identified seven probable threats associated with
the use of armed force:
1. Full-scale nuclear war, which could occur between the USA and Russia, and in
a 20-year perspective – between the USA and China, or China and Russia.
2. Great regional wars, for example between India and Pakistan or Israel and
Iran.
3. Ethnopolitical armed conflicts, for example, in Indonesia or India.
4. Various forms of national liberation wars, which could arise in Latin
America, Russia, or in the Middle East.
5. Unexpected acts of aggression against neighboring states, similar to Iraq's attack on Kuwait
in 1991.
6. Large-scale terrorist attacks against individual states, such as the terrorist attack on
the USA on September 11, 2001.
7. Cyberattacks and terrorist acts directed against the informational and operational
systems of highly developed countries. Unarmed conflicts are characterized by confrontational actions of hostile parties not involving the use of military force.
Among unarmed conflicts, the following are most often identified:
1. Diplomatic ones, expressed in hostile demarches, such as, for example, an exchange
of protest notes, declarations of individual diplomatic officials as persona
non grata, and the severance of diplomatic relations between the conflicting parties.
2. Economic ones, manifesting themselves, above all, in so-called trade wars, which
are carried out through a confrontationally oriented customs policy on the import
of goods, capital, services, and information from countries opposing this situation of conflict.
The means of such conflicts also include a full or partial ban (embargo) on trade with
the hostile party, which through political pressure may also be extended to third
countries, as was practiced at the beginning of the 19th century by Napoleonic France with respect to Great
Britain, and in the 1960s–70s of the 20th century — by the USA against Cuba.
3. Information and propaganda ones, connected with active interference in
the information field of the conflicting side with the aim of undermining internal stability,
inciting national, social, or religious discord, and calls for various forms of
disobedience to the authorities. It was in roughly this way that during the "Cold War" the radio stations
"Voice of America", "Radio Free Europe" or the foreign service of Radio Moscow operated,
along with a wide variety of periodical print publications and television companies of the USA and the USSR.
The modern post-bipolar world, characterized by the free circulation of information both within
the information networks of CNN, BBC, NBC, CBS, and ABC, and the global computer
network Internet, is all the more vulnerable to the use of information in so-called informational
and ideological wars, against which modern states are practically defenseless.
4. Conflicts in the field of culture are determined by confrontational measures of states
of the world, connected with a full or partial ban on the distribution in one country or another
of literature, music, film, or video production originating from the hostile country.
An example is measures taken by France aimed at restricting the spread in the country of so-
called American mass culture, or its complete prohibition in a number of Arab countries.
By geographic scale, international conflicts can be divided, in order
of their expansion, into three types: local, regional, and global.
Local conflicts — are those characterized by the spread:
1) in the border areas of neighboring states (such as, for example, the Indo-Pakistani
conflict or the Iraq-Iran War);
2) in individual small geographic locations with respect to their ownership (the conflict
between Great Britain and Argentina over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands);
3) in small territories of the conflicting sides (the Arab-Israeli wars of the 1950s–70s
of the 20th century).
Local conflicts are most widespread in bipolar international systems, which
follows from the above-described indirect confrontation initiated by
the global superpowers. A typical example of such a hidden struggle for
the redistribution of spheres of influence between the USA and the USSR was a whole series of local conflicts during the
"Cold" War.
Regional conflicts spread across most of the countries of a region or
encompass it entirely. This type of conflict is characterized, unlike the
preceding ones, by larger volumes of resources involved in the struggle and, as a rule, medium
duration. There are two most common variants of how they arise:
1) the outbreak of a local conflict leads to the gradual involvement of third states
in it, thereby expanding not only the composition of participants but also its geographic boundaries
and resource scale. An example of such a conflict is the Central American conflict of the 70s–80s
of the 20th century, into which, in one way or another, all states of the region were drawn, as well as
indirectly the USA, the USSR, and Cuba;
2) states of the region, long before the outbreak of the conflict, group themselves into
hostile coalitions, which at the moment the conflict breaks out immediately enter the struggle according to
plans developed in advance, as indeed both world wars broke out.
Global conflicts, or world wars, encompass practically the whole world, since,
if not directly, then at least indirectly, they affect all regions, all countries of the world, even
in cases where they do not take direct part in military operations. Such conflicts
are characterized by enormous territorial and resource scale of the struggle between
coalitions opposing one another. They are, as a rule, also of medium duration, as
is evidenced by the fact that the First World War lasted 4 years, and the Second — 6, which is explained
by the interregional nature of the TVD, which included land, sea, and ocean
areas with a combined territory of several million square kilometers.
International conflicts of this type almost always arise through escalation,
from the local to the global level. Indeed, the First World War developed from a local
conflict between Austria-Hungary and Serbia, while the Second developed from a similar conflict between
Germany and Poland.
By the composition of the conflicting parties, international conflicts can be fairly clearly
divided into: bilateral, multilateral, and coalitional.
Bilateral conflicts, as a rule, stem from territorial, ethnic, and
religious contradictions arising between neighboring states, and therefore they predominantly
have a local and protracted character.
Multilateral conflicts are characterized by the chaotic or gradual
involvement of states in a struggle between one or another grouping, caused
predominantly by political, economic, and military contradictions.
Coalitional conflicts, unlike the previous type, are organized in advance,
rather than involving states in confrontation on short notice. That is, a coalition of states
is formed in advance, and it begins its actions according to the so-called casus foederis, on the basis of previously concluded
allied agreements on mutual military and political security guarantees. Such agreements have a
confrontational character, since they are always directed against a particular state, or
an opposing coalition.
By duration, international conflicts, as follows from the previous classifications,
are divided into: short-term (lightning-fast), medium-duration, and long-term
(protracted).
Short-term, or lightning-fast, conflicts are generally local and
are characterized by insignificant volumes of resources drawn into the confrontation. Their
duration can range from several days to several months.
Medium-duration conflicts occur over a period of 4-6 years and
are characterized predominantly by a regional and global geospatial scale.
They, as a rule, take place on a coalitional basis and are distinguished by the enormous
resources employed in the confrontation.
Long-term or protracted conflicts continue from 6—7 to 10 or more years. They
are characterized by both regional and local geographical scope and modest scales
of the resources used in them. A conflict of this type is, for example, the Iran-Iraq war, which lasted about 10 years. However, as an exception, one could cite
the Japanese-American trade war, which, being interregional in character, continued
for almost twenty years.
The problem of studying the specific features of the course and qualitatively distinct phases of international
conflicts largely comes down to the lack of a unified understanding of the boundaries of a conflict, i.e.,
a clear definition of the moment of its beginning and end. The question of what exactly should be considered
the conflict — the actual moment of the start of active confrontational actions, or the process
of the deterioration of relations between the parties — is not rhetorical and requires additional attention.
According to R. Setov, there are three major phases of an international conflict: latent, crisis, and
war. The combination of time intervals between individual phases appears to be arbitrary for
each specific conflict, while its total duration, as defined by the author, amounts to 10
units (100%).
A conflict can develop in two main scenarios, which can conventionally be called
the classical (confrontational) and the compromise scenario.
The following moments of a conflict exist:
1. The emergence of a conscious and clearly expressed contradiction in the relations between
the parties, that is, a dispute.
2. The transition from the accumulation of hostile actions to active struggle.
3. The reaching of a "culmination" in the use of resources by the confronting parties and
the scale of the struggle between them
4. The final resolution of the contradiction between the warring parties.
5. The termination of the conflict.
The classical scenario of development presupposes a forceful solution underlying
the relations between the warring parties and is characterized by a deterioration of relations
between them that approaches the maximum. Such a course of events has four phases:
aggravation, escalation, de-escalation, and the fading phase of the conflict. That is, in the conflict
there is a complete course of events, from the emergence of the contradiction to its resolution, including
the struggle between the participants in international relations, which, as resources are drawn into it
in the maximum possible volume, intensifies, and after reaching its peak, gradually fades away.
The compromise scenario, unlike the previous one, is not forceful in character,
since in such a situation the phase of aggravation, upon reaching a value close to the
maximum, does not develop in the direction of further confrontation, but instead, at a point where
compromise between the parties is still possible, continues through so-called detente (for example, in
the 1970s in relations between the USA and the USSR). In general, when considering the full course of
a conflict, that is, its classical scenario, one needs to describe in detail its three
main phases: aggravation, escalation, and de-escalation.
The phase of aggravation (crisis) is the initial one for every conflict, developing
from the moment a conscious contradiction appears between the participants in international relations until the
start of active forceful actions. The emergence of the contradiction is connected with the fact that two participants (or two
coalitions) realize the impossibility of fully satisfying their interests simultaneously.
Crises are not uniform in character and always differ from one another in terms of the
political goals that the warring parties set for themselves. According to this criterion,
crises can occur:
a) as the logical beginning of an armed clash, stemming from the incompatibility
of the parties' strategic interests;
b) as a pretext for an armed attack on the territory of another state according to a previously
made decision;
c) as a simulation by one of the parties for the purpose of exerting forceful pressure on the opposing side;
d) as a simulation by one of the parties in order to create the impression of its readiness for war
and to force the opposing side into positional concessions.
The decision to concede in a conflict situation or to resolve the contradiction through a compromise
path is a precondition for the easing of tension in relations between the parties.
The escalation phase is a qualitative, abrupt continuation of the preceding
deterioration of relations between the parties, in which a non-forceful resolution of the dispute between them becomes
impossible. Characterizing this phase, J. Rubin, D. Pruitt, and S. Kim emphasize that
the concept of escalation has two closely related meanings. On the one hand, it can mean
the use of increasingly harsh tactics, when one of the parties to the conflict constantly
increases pressure on the other party. In addition, this term can mean an intensification
of the conflict's tension as a whole".
The reaction to the same actions of the parties before the start of the conflict and at the moment of extreme
aggravation of relations is, with few exceptions, fundamentally different. At the moment of transition to
active forceful actions, any circumstance in bilateral relations can be used as a
casus belli. In practice, this concept is predominantly used in the sense of a pretext for
the use of armed force, although it is quite suitable for defining a situation in which force is applied
by any participant in international relations. As a casus belli, confronting
parties may use:
a) political decisions of a confrontational nature, such as the unilateral
expansion by Canada of its own economic zone in the Atlantic, the introduction by the USA of an embargo
regime on trade with Cuba, or the expulsion of a number of Soviet diplomatic staff
by Great Britain in the late 1980s. Such actions prompt countermeasures by the governments of the countries
concerned, which, in turn, leads to an escalation of the conflict;
b) an accidental incident, as a result of which one of the parties, with the involvement of another, suffers human
casualties or material or moral damage. Such an incident may be an unauthorized
armed clash, an act of terrorism, or accidental or deliberate shelling of the territory of neighboring
states, and so on;
c) a provocation, that is, an event caused by the deliberate actions of one of the parties, through which
the other is forced to resort to retaliatory forceful actions, which makes it possible to portray it as the initiator
of the conflict, as, for example, during the Gleiwitz incident on the border between Poland and
Germany, or the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which triggered the armed intervention of the USA in Vietnam;
d) an insinuation, that is, the artificial creation by one of the parties of an incident situation against
itself, which is not connected with any actual harm to it (that is, a fabrication), with the
opposing side being blamed for the hypothetical consequences of such a situation. Such a casus belli
is the most dangerous, since even in a case where the passively confronting party
tries to avoid conflict, the use of such a device still makes it
inevitable.
The escalation phase begins at the moment force is used and ends
with its maximum possible use, that is, the culmination of the conflict.
Escalation is a constant transformation of the foreign policy situation across six
main parameters:
1. In terms of the means of struggle between the parties to the conflict, in the escalation phase the situation
changes in the direction of applying harsher methods of confrontation.
2. In terms of the scale of the confrontation, since the parties increase the volume of resources
drawn into the conflict actions, as well as the geographical boundaries of the clash between them.
3. In terms of the objects of dispute, in the escalation phase there is an expansion of the range of issues on
which the parties take irreconcilable positions, and moreover, these contradictions tend
toward generalization and the gradual transformation of the rivalry between them into complete mutual
rejection.
4. In terms of the aspirations of the parties, their position is transformed from recognizing the need
to achieve a certain result to a focus on inflicting the maximum possible
harm on the opponent and on exhausting them.
5. In terms of the consciousness of the persons directing the actions of the parties. In this phase, the
consciousness of the countries' political leaders is consistently transformed. This concerns these
persons' perception of the goal of the conflict actions, which at the beginning of the phase is characterized by self-interest or
rivalry, and by the end of the escalation – by antagonism.
6. In terms of the number of participants, escalation is marked by a constant increase in the number
of persons and countries involved in the conflict. Each of the conflicting parties tries to draw
allies to its side, and third states may take the side of one of them.
The escalation phase, beginning with the mutual active forceful actions of the parties and continuing until its
conclusion, is characterized by a constant growth in the scale of the struggle (in particular,
its geographical scale), the intensive involvement of the most diverse means and resources,
aimed at intensifying hostile actions. This process is bidirectional in
character, that is, the scope of the struggle tends toward its maximum possible value. Its critical
intensification is decisive for the entire conflict and serves as the basis for its transition into a different
quality.
The de-escalation phase is inevitable for any conflict, that is, after the
parties reach the maximum possible scale of the struggle, a logical decline in
tension sets in. The de-escalation phase begins at the moment of culmination, when the parties
to the conflict exhaust the resources necessary for the struggle, the struggle fails to produce
the expected results, social support for the government's actions is lost, and the costs of
continuing the struggle grow unacceptably.
In this phase, two variants of the conflict's development are possible.
In the first case, the result of the struggle is the exhaustion of one of the parties, which is
consequently forced to yield in favor of the stronger one. That is, the contradiction is resolved in
favor of the party that has managed to effectively influence the opposing side, forcing it into certain actions or
inaction, or the cause of its defeat.
In the second case, the exhaustion of the conflicting parties leads to a decline in
the level of confrontation, and, consequently, to the fading of the conflict. Such a situation forces both parties
to seek a compromise solution or simply to fix the status quo at a certain level
of tension in relations.
The fading phase of the conflict begins at the moment when the warring parties
stop using force. In order to finally resolve the conflict, they proceed
to negotiations that culminate in the conclusion and signing of a peace treaty between them.
An incomplete resolution of the contradiction that caused the conflict, or the fixing of a certain
level of tension in relations between the conflicting parties (through their adoption of
a certain modus vivendi), forms the basis for a likely renewed escalation of the conflict. Indeed, such
conflicts have a protracted character, periodically fading and then flaring up again with new
force. Complete termination of conflicts is possible only when the contradiction that caused
their emergence is, in one way or another,
Among all types of international conflicts, the most dangerous are military (or armed) ones,
since as a result of them world society has suffered enormous human losses, destruction,
and material damage. The particular danger of such conflicts is also connected with the fact that in the
phases of escalation and initial de-escalation they are very difficult to halt.
In a multipolar system, military conflicts, flaring up at the local level,
are capable of growing into regional and global ones.
In a bipolar system, armed conflicts predominantly occur at the local
level, although they can also be protracted in character. The driving force behind military conflicts is
the systemic confrontation between two superpowers, each of which directly or
indirectly supports one of the opponents.
In a unipolar system, the probability of military conflicts is significantly lower than in
other types of systems. However, the risk increases of internal conflicts,
related to the disintegration and breakup of states (for example, the conflict in the former
Yugoslavia), growing into international ones. Significant armed conflicts (as the experience of the war in Iraq shows)
are also possible during the formation of the system, when the global superpower seeks
to introduce an international order favorable to it, while certain states resist such a
policy.
Superpowers, like any other parties (international organizations or public groups),
are interested in the peaceful resolution of military conflicts if:
— the conflict threatens their own security, that is, it may spill over onto their
territory or cause flows of refugees from the areas engulfed by the conflict toward them (as,
for example, the USA acted in the case of the Central American conflict);
— participation in the peaceful resolution of the conflict allows them to preserve or establish influence
in a particular region (Russia's participation in the conflicts in the Transcaucasus and Central Asia, active US actions
in settling the Arab-Israeli conflict according to the "Road Map" plan);
— resolution of the conflict brings significant economic and political benefits (the participation of the USA,
the Russian Federation, France, and the Federal Republic of Germany in the Yugoslav
conflict);
— ending the conflict in one way or another secures strategically important interests
of the superpowers (the conflict in the Persian Gulf).
An important factor in the peaceful resolution of military conflicts is the active action of
international organizations, which, operating within multipolar or bipolar systems, given their
confrontational nature, could not be effective mechanisms for resolving international
conflicts.
It is important to understand that the most favorable phases for settlement are:
aggravation (crises) and de-escalation, while the least favorable is — the escalation phase.
Despite the fact that the parties' interest in a peaceful solution decreases as
events develop, there are nevertheless effective means that make it possible to
prevent the outbreak of a military conflict. Among them, first and foremost, one should highlight
international mediation and preventive diplomacy.
Preventive diplomacy is aimed either directly at the development of the situation, or
at solving the problems underlying the conflict. The effectiveness of such actions differs significantly
depending on the phase in which the conflict finds itself.
1. In the escalation phase, a peaceful settlement of an international conflict appears rather
hypothetical, since, given that both sides suffer human and material losses,
their inclination toward reconciliation with each other is insignificant.
2. In the de-escalation phase, the favorability of a peaceful settlement of the conflict is determined
by the fact that: — both parties to the conflict, due to significant losses of human and material resources,
feel a need to end hostilities; — at least one of the parties, primarily the one
suffering military defeat, is interested in ending the conflict.
3. In the aggravation (crisis) phase, a peaceful resolution of the conflict is unlikely, because
both parties, hoping for victory, have little interest in any other
solution.
Settlement of the conflict in such a situation is possible through the sequential use of both
forceful and non-forceful means. At the first stage, forceful pressure is applied to both
participants in the conflict, which forces them to reconsider their positions and agree to a peaceful
solution. At the second stage, the party initiating the resolution of the conflict begins actions
associated with mediation, which aims to encourage the ending of hostilities and
final reconciliation. In such a settlement of the conflict, however, there is a real
possibility of the involvement in hostilities of the armed forces of the party attempting to compel
the conflicting parties to end these actions. The experience of a whole series of military conflicts
of the 1980s-1990s showed the enormous complexity of the process of peaceful settlement. Quite
often conflicts flared up again, affected neighboring countries (the conflict in the former
Yugoslavia), and became chronic. Despite numerous attempts (for example, the creation and
activity of the OSCE), reliable mechanisms for preventing and settling
military conflicts have still not been developed
The study of international conflicts is an important theoretical basis for developing
concepts of national and international security, concepts that must be clearly distinguished and
understood. The concept of "security" is traditionally derived from the Latin se-curitas (without care,
without fear) and in practice always refers to "a certain state of a subject, individual, social group, or
state, in which it does not feel threatened, or is able to effectively counter such a threat"
National security in the international environment can be considered as a state of absence of a
direct or hidden threat to the existence and development of states or their citizens, or
the ability of the latter to effectively withstand it.
According to the Polish scholar P. Michalski, a state's security strategy
consists of "a combination of political, organizational, and functional factors that
provide the conditions for the state to fulfill its fundamental external and internal
functions"
The most important threat to a state's existence has traditionally been considered the military one,
that is, its security consisted in preventing an armed conflict or in armed resistance to
an aggressor. The source of a military threat to the existence and actions of a state has always been considered
the possibility of the use of armed force against it by other states.
According to Y. Kukulka, in the sphere of national security a state seeks to
achieve the following most important goals:
1. Self-preservation, that is, the independent existence of the state and the nation.
2. Territorial integrity.
3. Political independence and freedom of action in the international environment.
4. Quality of life, that is, an independent choice of political, economic, and social order,
as well as ensuring the future in terms of traditions, culture, and other national values.
On the other hand, modern states of the world are not able to independently withstand the newest
challenges and threats to national and international security. According to Z. Brzezinski, "the dilemmas
of global security of the first decades of the 21st century are qualitatively different from the dilemmas of the
20th century. The traditional link between national sovereignty and national security
has been broken"
International security can be considered as a state of absence of a direct or hidden
threat of the emergence of conflicts, or the ability of the world's leading states or collective
international institutions (international organizations) to effectively counter them. It is the
result of the complex interaction of many states, the authority of each of which seeks, above all,
to realize its own security. Ultimately, in international relations,
a certain security system is established, to which every state is forced to adapt. R.
Zięba identified five types of international security systems:
1. Unilateral, realized through the individual efforts of a single state.
That is, the state achieves its own security independently, applying a certain type of foreign
policy, which can be aimed at hegemony, isolation, neutrality, non-alignment,
or even autarky.
2. Balance of power, based on the absence of a single unambiguous pole in the
international system and on the principle of mutual threat. Each state in such a system, by the very
fact of its existence and power, is a threat to other states, and stability in
relations between them stems from a balance of threats. The classical "concert" of states or the bipolar
system of the 1950s-1990s are variants of such a system, what R. Aron called
a "balance of fear".
3. The bloc system of security is a larger-scale variant of the balance-of-power system,
since balance and stability within it depend on the power of the blocs. Each state
tries to ensure its security through participation in the activities of one of the military-political blocs. In this way they receive guarantees of assistance in case of war, but are also forced
to reckon with the risk
продолжение следует...
Часть 1 11. International Conflicts. Power in International Relations
Часть 2 - 11. International Conflicts. Power in International Relations
Comments