Conflict situations in the world. The nature of modern international conflicts, the problems of their peaceful settlement and resolution. Europe, Russia and Transcaucasia
2. Forms and methods of influencing the conflict with a view to its prevention and peaceful settlement
1. Features of conflicts in the late XX - early XXI century.
The history of the development of conflictological thought, and scientific research of conflicts, begins in the 19th century. All works can be roughly divided into five groups for different reasons. The first group includes works that reveal general theoretical problems, ideological and methodological aspects in the study of the conflict, various foundations of the conflict are considered. This direction is most fully presented in the works of K. Marx (the theory of class struggle), E. Durkheim (the concept of deviant behavior and solidarity), G. Simmel (the theory of the organic relationship of the processes of association and dissociation), M. Weber, K. Mannheim, L. Koser (functionality of conflict), R. Dahrendorf (theory of polarization of interests), P. Sorokin (theory of incompatibility of opposing values), T. Parsons (theory of social tension), N. Smelzer (theory of collective behavior and innovation conflict), L. Krisberg, K. Boulding, P. Bourdieu, R. Arona, E. Fromm, E. Bern, A. Rapoport, E.J. Galtung and others. The second group includes the work of researchers of the conflict in specific spheres of life.
These works analyze conflicts at the macro level: strike movements, social tension in society, interethnic, ethnic, political, economic, environmental, interstate, etc. conflicts. The third group includes works that investigate conflicts in labor collectives, in the production sphere, in management. The fourth group is represented by the most numerous literature of foreign and domestic researchers. These are works on management methods and technologies, conflict resolution, negotiation technologies, analysis of dead-end and hopeless conflict situations. The fifth group is represented by studies of conflicts in the field of world politics. Conflicts are as old as the world. They were before the signing of the Peace of Westphalia - the time taken as the birth point of the system of nation states, they are now. Conflict situations and disputes, in all likelihood, will not disappear in the future, because, according to the aphoristic statement of one of the researchers R. Lee, a society without conflicts is a dead society. Moreover, many authors, in particular L. Coser, emphasize that the contradictions underlying conflicts have a number of positive functions: they draw attention to the problem, make them look for ways out of the current situation, prevent stagnation - and thereby contribute to world development.
Indeed, conflicts are unlikely to be avoided altogether; it is another matter in what form to resolve them - through dialogue and the search for mutually acceptable solutions or armed confrontation. Speaking about the conflicts of the late XX - early XXI centuries, one should dwell on two most important issues that have not only theoretical but also practical significance. 1. Has the nature of conflicts changed (how is it manifested)? 2. How can armed conflicts be prevented and managed in modern conditions? The answers to these questions are directly related to the definition of the nature of the modern political system and the possibility of influencing it. Immediately after the end of the Cold War, there was a feeling that the world was on the eve of a conflict-free era. In academic circles, this position is most clearly expressed by F. Fukuyama when he announced the end of history. It was quite actively supported by official circles, for example, the United States, despite the fact that the Republican administration, which was in power in the early 1990s, was less inclined, in comparison with the Democrats, to profess neoliberal views.
Only in the post-Soviet space, according to the estimates of the domestic author V.N. Lysenko, in the 1990s there were about 170 conflict zones, of which in 30 cases the conflicts proceeded in an active form, and in 10 cases it came to the use of force. In connection with the development of conflicts immediately after the end of the Cold War and their appearance on the territory of Europe, which was a relatively calm continent after World War II, a number of researchers began to put forward various theories related to the growth of the potential for conflict in world politics. One of the most prominent representatives of this trend was S. Huntington with his hypothesis of the clash of civilizations. However, in the second half of the 1990s, the number of conflicts, as well as conflict points in the world, according to SIPRI, began to decrease. So, in 1995 there were 30 major armed conflicts in 25 countries of the world, in 1999 - 27, and the same in 25 points of the globe, while in 1989 there were 36 - in 32 zones.
It should be noted that data on conflicts may differ depending on the source, since there is no clear criterion for what the “level of violence” should be (the number of those killed and injured in the conflict, its duration, the nature of relations between the conflicting parties, etc.), so that what happened is considered a conflict and not an incident, criminal showdown or terrorist action. For example, Swedish researchers M. Sollenberg and P. Wallenstein define a major armed conflict as “a prolonged confrontation between the armed forces of two or more governments, or one government, and at least one organized armed group, resulting in the death of at least 1000 people. during the conflict. "
Other authors cite a figure of 100 or even 500 deaths. In general, if we talk about the general trend in the development of conflicts on the planet, then most researchers agree that after a certain surge in the number of conflicts in the late 1980s and early 1990s, their number began to decline in the mid-1990s. and since the end of the 1990s, it has continued to be at approximately the same level. And nevertheless, modern conflicts pose a very serious threat to humanity due to their possible expansion in the context of globalization, the development of environmental disasters (suffice it to recall the burning of oil wells in the Persian Gulf during the Iraqi attack on Kuwait), serious humanitarian consequences associated with a large number of refugees who suffered among civilians, etc.
Concern is also caused by the emergence of armed conflicts in Europe - a region where two world wars broke out, an extremely high population density, many chemical and other industries, the destruction of which during the period of hostilities can lead to man-made disasters.
What are the causes of modern conflicts? Various factors contributed to their development. 1. Problems associated with the proliferation of weapons, their uncontrolled use, uneasy relations between industrial and resource-based countries, while increasing their interdependence. 2. Development of urbanization and migration of the population to cities, for which many states, in particular Africa, were not ready. 3. The growth of nationalism and fundamentalism as a reaction to the development of globalization processes. 4. During the Cold War, the global confrontation between East and West to some extent "removed" conflicts of a lower level.
These conflicts were often used by the superpowers in their military-political confrontation, although they tried to keep them under control, realizing that otherwise regional conflicts could escalate into a global war. Therefore, in the most dangerous cases, the leaders of the bipolar world, despite the fierce confrontation among themselves, coordinated actions to reduce tensions in order to avoid a direct confrontation. Several times such a danger, for example, arose during the development of the Arab-Israeli conflict during the Cold War. Then each of the superpowers exerted influence on "its" ally in order to reduce the intensity of conflict relations.
After the collapse of the bipolar structure, regional and local conflicts to a large extent "took on a life of their own." 5. Special attention should be paid to the restructuring of the world political system, its "departure" from the Westphalian model, which prevailed for a long time. This process of transition, transformation is associated with the key moments of world political development.
In the new conditions, conflicts have acquired a qualitatively different character. First, “classical” interstate conflicts, which were typical for the flourishing of the state-centrist political model of the world, have practically disappeared from the world arena. Thus, according to the researchers M. Sollenberg and P. Wallenstein, out of 94 conflicts that occurred in the world for the period 1989–1994, only four can be considered interstate. In 1999, only two out of 27, according to the estimates of another author of the SIPRI yearbook, T.B. Saybolt were interstate.
In general, according to some sources, the number of interstate conflicts has been declining for quite a long period of time. However, a reservation should be made here: we are talking about “classic” interstate conflicts, when both sides recognize each other as a state. This is also recognized by other states and leading international organizations. In a number of modern conflicts aimed at the separation of a territorial entity and the proclamation of a new state, one of the parties, declaring its independence, insists precisely on the interstate nature of the conflict, although it is recognized by no one (or almost no one) as a state. Secondly, interstate conflicts have been replaced by internal conflicts occurring within one state.
Among them, three groups can be distinguished:
Conflicts between central authorities and ethnic / religious group (s);
Between different ethnic or religious groups;
Between the state / states and a non-governmental (terrorist) structure. All of these groups of conflicts are so-called identity conflicts, as they are associated with the problem of self-identification.
At the end of the XX - beginning of the XXI century. identification is built primarily not on a state basis, as it was (a person saw himself as a citizen of a particular country), but on another, mainly ethnic and religious. According to the American author J.L. Rasmussen, two-thirds of the conflicts of 1993 can be defined precisely as "identity conflicts."
At the same time, as noted by the famous American politician S. Talbott, less than 10% of the countries of the modern world are ethnically homogeneous. This means that problems can be expected in more than 90% of states only on an ethnic basis. Of course, this opinion is an exaggeration, but the problem of national self-determination, national identification remains one of the most significant. Another significant parameter of identification is the religious factor, or, more broadly, what S. Huntington called civilizational. It includes, in addition to religion, historical aspects, cultural traditions, etc. In general, the change in the function of the state, its impossibility in a number of cases to guarantee security, and at the same time the identification of the individual, to the extent that it was earlier - during the heyday of the state-centrist model of the world, entails increased uncertainty, the development of protracted conflicts, which then fade out, then flare up again.
At the same time, not so much the interests of the parties are involved in internal conflicts as values (religious, ethnic). On them, reaching a compromise turns out to be impossible. The intra-state nature of modern conflicts is often accompanied by a process associated with the fact that several participants (various movements, formations, etc.) are involved in them at once with their leaders, structural organization. Moreover, each of the participants often comes up with their own requirements. This makes it extremely difficult to regulate the conflict, since it presupposes the achievement of agreement at once by a number of individuals and movements. The larger the area of coincidence of interests, the more opportunities for finding a mutually acceptable solution.
A decrease in the area of coincidence of interests as the number of parties increases. In addition to the participants, the conflict situation is influenced by many external actors - state and non-state. The latter include, for example, organizations involved in providing humanitarian assistance, tracing missing persons during the conflict, as well as business, the media, etc. The influence of these participants on a conflict often introduces an element of unpredictability in its development. Due to its versatility, it acquires the character of a “multi-headed hydra” and, as a result, leads to an even greater weakening of state control.
In this regard, a number of researchers, in particular A. Mink, R. Kaplan, K. Bus, R. Harvey, began to compare the end of the twentieth century with medieval fragmentation, talked about the "new Middle Ages", the coming "chaos", etc. ... According to such views, to the usual interstate contradictions are added today also due to differences in culture, values; general degradation of behavior, etc. The states turn out to be too weak to cope with all these problems. The decrease in the manageability of conflicts is also due to other processes taking place at the level of the state, in which the conflict breaks out.
Regular troops trained for combat in interstate conflicts turn out to be ill-equipped both from a military and psychological point of view (primarily due to the conduct of military operations on their territory) to resolve internal conflicts by force. The army in such conditions is often demoralized. In turn, the general weakening of the state leads to a deterioration in funding for regular troops, which entails the danger of losing control of the state over its own army. At the same time, in a number of cases, there is a weakening of state control over the events taking place in the country in general, as a result of which the conflict region becomes a kind of "model" of behavior. It must be said that in conditions of an internal, especially protracted conflict, not only control over the situation on the part of the center, but also within the very periphery, is often weakened.
Leaders of various kinds of movements often find themselves unable to maintain discipline among their associates for a long time, and field commanders spiral out of control, conducting independent raids and operations. The armed forces split into several separate groups, often in conflict with each other. Forces involved in internal conflicts often turn out to be extremist, which is accompanied by the desire to "go all the way to the end at any cost" in order to achieve goals at the expense of unnecessary hardships and sacrifices. The extreme manifestation of extremism and fanaticism leads to the use of terrorist means and the taking of hostages. These phenomena have been accompanying conflicts more and more lately.
Modern conflicts are also acquiring a certain political and geographical orientation. They arise in regions that can be attributed, rather, to developing or in the process of transition from authoritarian regimes of government. Even in economically developed Europe, conflicts broke out in those countries that turned out to be less developed. Generally speaking, modern armed conflicts are concentrated primarily in the countries of Africa and Asia. The emergence of large numbers of refugees is another factor complicating the situation in the conflict area.
Thus, in connection with the conflict in 1994, about 2 million people left Rwanda, who ended up in Tanzania, Zaire, Burundi. None of these countries were able to cope with the flow of refugees and provide them with basic necessities. The change in the nature of modern conflicts from interstate to internal does not mean a decrease in their international significance. On the contrary, as a result of the processes of globalization and the problems that are fraught with conflicts of the late XX - early XXI centuries, the emergence of a large number of refugees in other countries, as well as the involvement of many states and international organizations in their settlement, internal state conflicts are increasingly becoming international. coloring. One of the most important questions in the analysis of conflicts: why some of them are regulated by peaceful means, while others develop into armed confrontation? In practical terms, the answer is extremely important.
However, methodologically, it is far from simple to discover the universal factors of the escalation of conflicts into armed forms. Nevertheless, researchers who try to answer this question usually consider two groups of factors: structural factors, or, as they are often called in conflict management, independent variables (structure of society, level of economic development, etc.); procedural factors, or dependent variables (policies pursued by both parties to the conflict and a third party; personal characteristics of politicians, etc.). Structural factors are often called objective, and procedural factors are also called subjective. There is an obvious analogy in political science with others, in particular with the analysis of the problems of democratization.
In a conflict, several phases are usually distinguished. American researchers L. Pruitt and J. Rubin compare the life cycle of a conflict with the development of a plot in a play of three acts. The first defines the essence of the conflict; in the second, it reaches its maximum, and then the stalemate, or denouement; finally, in the third act, there is a decline in the conflict relationship. Preliminary research suggests that in the first phase of conflict development, structural factors "set" a certain "threshold" that is critical in the development of conflict relations. The presence of this group of factors is necessary both for the development of the conflict in general, and for the implementation of its armed form. At the same time, the more pronounced the structural factors are and the more they are "involved", the more likely the development of an armed conflict (hence, in the literature on conflicts, the armed form of conflict development is often identified with its escalation), and yet it becomes a possible field of activity for politicians (procedural factors). In other words, structural factors determine the potential for an armed conflict to develop. It is highly doubtful that a conflict, and even more so an armed one, would arise “from scratch” without objective reasons. In the second (culminating) phase, mainly procedural factors begin to play a special role, in particular, the orientation of political leaders towards unilateral (conflict) or joint (negotiation) actions with the opposite side to overcome the conflict. The influence of these factors (i.e. political decisions regarding negotiations or the further development of the conflict) is quite clearly manifested, for example, when comparing the culminating points of the development of conflict situations in Chechnya and Tatarstan, where the actions of political leaders in 1994 entailed armed the development of the conflict, and in the second - a peaceful way of its settlement.
Thus, in a rather generalized form, we can say that when studying the process of forming a conflict situation, structural factors should first of all be analyzed, and when identifying the form of its resolution, procedural ones. Conflicts of the late XX - early XXI century. are characterized in general by the following: domestic character; international sound; loss of identity; the plurality of parties involved in the conflict and its settlement; significant irrational behavior of the parties; poor handling; a high degree of information uncertainty; involvement in the discussion of values (religious, ethnic).
globalism vs protectionism
It must be emphasized that class contradictions have not disappeared from the socio-economic life of society. In a world where the haves and have-nots live, the conflict between these two groups will remain and determine all other conflicts. But it is not the dispute between socialism and capitalism that has come to the fore in the modern world, but the dispute between two versions of capitalism, one of which is called “globalism” and the other “protectionism”.
It is around these two poles that the forces of the supporters of this or that concept will now be grouping. Both proponents of globalism and proponents of protectionism have begun to form their armies of support, which include both left and right forces. On the side of the globalists, left-wing Trotskyists and right-wing liberals are on the side of the protectionists, left-wing Stalinists and right-wing monarchists are on the side of the protectionists.
Between them, a small stratum of moderate conservative liberals, who are running between the trenches and have not yet decided on their location, has crept in. On some issues they are with the globalists, on others - with the protectionists. This is a debate about the just organization of capitalism, not about replacing capitalism with communism.
The union of the pink communists leaning towards social democracy named after Zyuganov-Grudinin with the social democrat leaning towards the right liberalism Babkin and the right-wing monarchist Strelkov, which also included the imperial sovereigns Kvachkov and Kalashnikov-Kucherenko, their ideological kinship with the Izboro-conservative club members and the center-left Starikov - this motley coalition is being formed in response to the consolidation and offensive of right-wing liberal radicals and right-centrist capitalist ministers of the current government.
This is a situational alliance, tactical and reactive in relation to the threat of a liberal revenge of a globalist nature, striving to fix Russia on the path of world globalism. Thus, the maturing change of power does not have the character of a revolution that changes the way of the economic system, but makes significant adjustments to the system that already exists on the basis of a multi-structured economy and a state-regulated market.
The whole struggle takes place between the supporters of a predominantly open or predominantly closed market economic system and the resulting political system.
The global trend is the rise of protectionist tendencies, which are a qualitative transformation of capitalism, which has exhausted quantitative forms of extensive growth by expanding markets. The markets are exhausted, and now there is a struggle for power in the state, which will have to regulate the transition to high-quality, intensive capitalism and determine the positions occupied by the new beneficiaries of the system, that is, the new ruling class.
New - because a global redistribution of the structure and means of influence on society and the economy is coming: restriction of the banking and financial class and the formation of a state-production and redistribution class, using socialist measures of control over the sphere of finance and monetary circulation.
In the new emerging system, financiers will lose their dominant position and move into the status of clerk servants and bookkeepers under the control of the state (security officials) and the productive capital that influences it. This is a revenge of the productive capital over the financial one. It is clear that wresting global power from the financial clans that have developed over the centuries is a long-term and difficult task, but the other way has been exhausted, because the global financial system no longer gives development and leads to the death of human civilization.
The retreat of financiers will last the entire current century and in the end will lead to their displacement to the periphery, where they will gain a foothold, but will significantly lose their positions of power. The existence of private property cannot completely eliminate private banking, but it can significantly redistribute power resources from financiers to industrialists through their influence on officials and politics. It is precisely this kind of consolidation of forces on the eve of the upcoming battle for such a redistribution that is taking place before our eyes.
In the coming years, the ideological and organizational formation of the camp opposing the liberals will take place and the nomination of its frontmen will begin - leaders who form national requirements for the state to curb the globalist financial-liberal forces. After that, these forces will enter into a decisive battle for what the new century will be like, and how the transition from an obsolete structure to a new one will be arranged.
Globalism and protectionism as phenomena will remain, but the distribution of accents between them will be done in a new way. For the right to place these accents, a fierce struggle began, which we now observe everywhere, from remote provinces to the main world centers. New borders will be drawn on the world map, where not the boundaries of certain states will be reflected, but the disposition of two warring armies: territories conquered by protectionists, and bridgeheads on which globalists have taken root.
Behind all the confrontations in the world, one must be able to see exactly this content. In this confrontation we are conscripts mobilized by one or another force. No one will be able to sit on the sidelines this time.
Subscribe to Yandex.Zen!
Click "" to read "Tomorrow" in the "Yandex" feed
September 21 is the International Day of Peace and the Day of a General Ceasefire and Non-Violence. But today there are almost four dozen hot spots in the world. Where and for what humanity is fighting today - in the material TUT.BY.
Gradation of conflicts:
Low intensity armed conflict- confrontation for religious, ethnic, political and other reasons. It is characterized by a low level of attacks and casualties - less than 50 per year.
Medium-intensity armed conflict- episodic terrorist attacks and military actions with the use of weapons. It is characterized by an average death rate of up to 500 per year.
High intensity armed conflict- constant hostilities with the use of conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction (with the exception of nuclear weapons); attraction of foreign states and coalitions. Such conflicts are often accompanied by massive and numerous terrorist attacks. It is characterized by a high level of casualties - from 500 per year or more.
Europe, Russia and Transcaucasia
Conflict in Donbass
Debaltsevo city, Donbass, Ukraine. February 20, 2015. Photo: ReutersStatus: regular clashes between separatists and the Ukrainian military despite the ceasefire
Start: year 2014
The death toll: from April 2014 to August 2017 - more than 10 thousand people
The armed conflict in Donbass began in the spring of 2014. Pro-Russian activists, inspired by the annexation of Crimea by Russia and dissatisfied with the new government in Kiev, proclaimed the creation of the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics. After an attempt by the new Ukrainian authorities to suppress by force the demonstrations in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, a full-scale armed conflict began, which has been dragging on for three years.
The situation in Donbass is on the global agenda, since Kiev accuses Moscow of helping the self-proclaimed republics, including through direct military intervention. The West supports these accusations, Moscow has consistently denied them.
The conflict has moved from the active phase to the medium intensity phase after the start of "" and the beginning.
But in the east of Ukraine, shooting continues, people are dying from both sides.
Caucasus and Nagorno-Karabakh
There are two more hotbeds of instability in the region, which are classified as armed conflicts.
The war in the early 1990s between Azerbaijan and Armenia led to the formation of the unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (). Large-scale hostilities were last recorded here, then about 200 people were killed on both sides. But local armed clashes, in which Azerbaijanis and Armenians die,.
Despite all the efforts of Russia, the situation in the Caucasus remains extremely difficult: counter-terrorist operations are constantly being carried out in Dagestan, Chechnya and Ingushetia, the Russian special services report on the elimination of bandit formations and terrorist cells, but the flow of messages does not decrease.
Middle East and North Africa
The whole region was shocked in 2011 by "". From then to the present, Syria, Libya, Yemen and Egypt are the hot spots of the region. In addition, the armed confrontation in Iraq and Turkey has been going on for many years.
War in Syria
Status: constant fighting
Start: 2011
The death toll: from March 2011 to August 2017 - from 330,000 to
Panorama of eastern Mosul in Iraq, March 29, 2017. For this city, the fighting continued for more than a year. Photo: Reuters After the US invasion in 2003 and the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime, a civil war and revolt against the coalition government began in Iraq. And in 2014, part of the country's territory was seized by Islamic State militants. Now a motley company is fighting the terrorists: the Iraqi army with the support of the US troops, the Kurds, local Sunni tribes and Shiite formations. This summer, the largest city that was under the control of "IS", is currently fighting for control over the province of Anbar.
Radical Islamist groups are fighting Baghdad not only on the battlefield - in Iraq they are constantly with numerous casualties.
Libya
Status: regular clashes between different factions
Start: 2011
Aggravation: year 2014
The death toll: from February 2011 to August 2017 - from 15,000 to 30,000
The conflict in Libya also began with the Arab Spring. In 2011, protesters against the Gaddafi regime were supported by the United States and NATO with airstrikes. The revolution won, Muammar Gaddafi was killed by a mob, but the conflict did not die out. In 2014, a new civil war broke out in Libya, and since then a dual power has reigned in the country - in the east of the country in the city of Tobruk the parliament elected by the people sits, and in the west in the capital of Tripoli, a government of national accord formed with the support of the UN and Europe, led by Faez, rules. Sarraj. In addition, there is a third force - the Libyan national army, which is fighting the militants of the "Islamic State" and other radical groups. The situation is complicated by the internecine strife of local tribes.
Yemen
Status: regular missile and airstrikes, clashes between different groups
Start: year 2014
The death toll: from February 2011 to September 2017 - more than 10 thousand people
Yemen is another country in which the conflict dates back to the 2011 Arab Spring. President Ali Abdullah Saleh, who ruled Yemen for 33 years, handed over his powers to the country's vice-president, Abd Rabbo Mansour al-Hadi, who won early elections a year later. However, he failed to retain power in the country: in 2014, a civil war broke out between Shiite rebels (Houthis) and the Sunni government. Al-Hadi is supported by Saudi Arabia, which, together with other Sunni monarchies and with the consent of the United States, helps both ground operations and air strikes. Former President Saleh, who is supported by some of the Shiite rebels and Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, also joined the fight.
Double in Ankara on October 10, 2015, at the venue of the rally of trade unions “Trud. Peace. Democracy". Its participants advocated an end to hostilities between the Turkish authorities and the Kurds. According to official figures, the number of victims was 97. Photo: Reuters The armed confrontation between the Turkish government and the fighters of the Kurdistan Workers' Party, who are fighting for the creation of Kurdish autonomy within Turkey, has lasted from 1984 to the present. In the past two years, the conflict has escalated: the Turkish authorities accused the Kurds of several, after which they carried out a sweep.
The Knife Intifada and Lebanon
There are several other hotspots in the region that military experts refer to as “armed conflicts” of low intensity.
First of all, this is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the next aggravation of which was called "". Between 2015 and 2016, there were more than 250 attacks by Islamic radicals armed with melee weapons on Israelis. As a result, 36 Israelis, 5 foreigners and 246 Palestinians were killed. Knife and screwdriver attacks have subsided this year, but armed attacks continue: in July, three Arabs of one Israeli police officer on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.
Another smoldering hotspot is Lebanon. The smoldering conflict in Lebanon is at a low degree of intensity only due to the emphasized neutrality of the authorities regarding the civil war in Syria and the related conflict in Lebanon between Sunnis and Shiites. Lebanese Shiites and Hezbollah support the pro-Assad coalition, Sunnis oppose, and radical Islamist groups oppose the Lebanese authorities. Armed clashes and terrorist attacks occur periodically: the largest of them in recent years was the double terrorist attack in Beirut in 2015, as a result of which.
Asia and Pacific
Afghanistan
Status: constant terrorist attacks and armed clashes
The beginning of the conflict: 1978 year
Aggravation of the conflict: year 2001
The death toll: from 2001 to August 2017 - over 150,000 people
Doctors at a hospital in Kabul examine a boy injured in a terrorist attack on September 15, 2017. On this day in Kabul, a mined tanker truck was blown up at a checkpoint leading to the diplomatic quarter. After the 9/11 attacks, the military contingent of NATO and the United States entered Afghanistan. The Taliban regime was overthrown, but a military conflict began in the country: the Afghan government, with the support of NATO and US forces, is fighting the Taliban and Islamist groups associated with al-Qaeda and IS.
Despite the fact that there are still 13,000 NATO and US military personnel in Afghanistan, and there are now discussions about whether it should be, the activity of terrorists in the country remains high: dozens of people die in the republic every month.
The smoldering Kashmir conflict and the internal problems of India and Pakistan
In 1947, two states were formed on the territory of the former British India - India and Pakistan. The division took place on a religious basis: the provinces with a predominantly Muslim population went to Pakistan, and with a Hindu majority to India. But not everywhere: despite the fact that the majority of the population of Kashmir was Muslim, the region was annexed to India.
Residents of Kashmir province stand on the rubble of three houses destroyed by an artillery strike by the Pakistani military. This blow was delivered in response to the shelling of Pakistani territories by Indian troops, which, in turn, reacted to the attack of militants, in their opinion, arrived from Pakistan. Photo: Reuters Since Kashmir- a disputed territory between the two countries and the cause of three Indo-Pakistani wars and several smaller military conflicts. According to various sources, over the past 70 years, he claimed about 50 thousand lives. In April 2017, the UN Institute for Disarmament Research published an annual report, where the Kashmir conflict was mentioned as one of those that could provoke a military conflict with the use of nuclear weapons. Both India and Pakistan are members of the "club of nuclear powers" with an arsenal of several dozen nuclear warheads.
In addition to the general conflict, each country has several hotspots with varying degrees of intensity, all of which are recognized by the international community as military conflicts.
There are three of them in Pakistan: separatist movements in the western province Baluchistan, the fight against the Tehreek-e Taliban Pakistan in the unrecognized state Waziristan and clashes between Pakistani security officials and various militant groups in the semi-autonomous region " Federally Administered Tribal Areas"(FATA). Radicals from these regions attack government buildings, law enforcement officers and organize terrorist attacks.
There are four hotspots in India. In three Indian states - Assam, Nagaland and Manipur because of religious-ethnic clashes, nationalist and separatist movements are strong, which do not disdain terrorist attacks and hostage-taking.
And in 20 of 28 Indian states there are Naxalites - Maoist militant groups, which demand the creation of free self-governing zones, where they (of course!) Will build the most real and correct communism. Naxalites practice attacks on officials and government troops and organize more than half of the terrorist attacks in India. The country's authorities have officially declared the Naxalites terrorists and call them the main internal threat to the country's security.
Myanmar
Not so long ago, the media, which usually does not pay attention to third world countries, has focused attention.
In this country, in August, the religious-ethnic conflict between the residents of the Rakhine state - Arakanese Buddhists and Rohingya Muslims - escalated. Hundreds of separatists from the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ASRA) attacked 30 police strongholds, killing 15 police and military personnel. After that, the troops launched an anti-terrorist operation: in just one week, the military killed 370 Rohingya separatists, and it was also reported about 17 accidentally killed local residents. How many people died in Myanmar in September is still unknown. Hundreds of thousands of Rohingya fled to Bangladesh, leading to a humanitarian crisis.
Southern thailand
A number of radical Islamic organizations advocate the independence of the southern provinces of Yala, Pattani and Narathiwat from Thailand and demand either the creation of an independent Islamic state or the incorporation of the provinces into Malaysia.
Thai soldiers inspect the explosion site at a hotel in the resort area of the southern province of Pattani. August 24, 2016. Photo: Reuters Bangkok responds to the demands of the Islamists, backed by attacks and, responds with counter-terrorism operations and suppression of local riots. For 13 years of aggravation of the conflict, more than 6,000 people have died in it.
Uyghur conflict
Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region (XUAR, the abbreviated Chinese name for Xinjiang) is located in northwestern China. It occupies a sixth of the entire territory of China, and the majority of its inhabitants are Uyghurs, a Muslim people whose representatives are not always delighted with the national policy of the country's communist leadership. In Beijing, Xinjiang is perceived as a region of "three hostile forces" - terrorism, religious extremism and separatism.
The Chinese authorities have reason for that - the operating terrorist group "Islamic Movement of East Turkestan", whose goal is to create an Islamic state in China, is responsible for the unrest and terrorist attacks in Xinjiang: over 1000 people have died in the region over the past 10 years.
A military patrol walks past a building that was damaged in an explosion in Urumqi, the largest city in the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. On 22 May 2014, five suicide bombers carried out an attack that killed 31 people. Photo: Reuters Now the conflict is characterized as sluggish, but Beijing has already been threatened with exacerbation of the situation after the Chinese authorities imposed a ban on wearing beards, hijabs and performing marriage and mourning ceremonies according to religious customs instead of secular ones. In addition, the Uyghurs were encouraged to sell alcohol and tobacco in stores and not to publicly celebrate religious holidays.
Armed conflict in the Philippines
For more than four decades in the Philippines, conflict has continued between Manila and armed groups of Muslim separatists in the south of the country, which traditionally advocate the creation of an independent Islamic state. The situation escalated after the position of the "Islamic State" in the Middle East was significantly shaken: many Islamists rushed to Southeast Asia. Two large groups, Abu Sayyaf and Maute, pledged allegiance to IS and captured the city of Marawi on the Philippine island of Mindanao in May. Government forces still cannot drive the militants out of the city. Also, radical Islamists arrange armed attacks not only in the south, but also.
According to the latest data, from May to September this year in the Philippines, as a result of terrorist actions, a total of 45 civilians and 136 soldiers and police officers were killed.
North and South America
Mexico
In 2016, Mexico ranked second in the number of deaths on the list of states where armed clashes continue, second only to Syria. The nuance is that there is officially no war on the territory of Mexico, but for more than ten years there has been a battle between the country's authorities and drug cartels. The latter are still at war with each other, and there is something for that - the income from the sale of drugs in the United States alone is up to 64 billion dollars a year. And about $ 30 billion more a year drug cartels receive from the sale of drugs to Europe.
The forensic expert examines the crime scene. Under a bridge in the city of Ciudad Juarez, the body of a woman was found killed with extreme cruelty. They found a note on the body: "So it will be with informers and with those who steal from their own." Photo: Reuters The world community calls this confrontation in Mexico an armed conflict with a high degree of intensity, and it is justified: even in the most “peaceful” year of 2014, more than 14 thousand people died, and since 2006, more than 106,000 people have become victims of the “drug war”.
"Northern Triangle"
Drugs come to Mexico from South America. All transit routes pass through the three countries of the Northern Triangle in Central America: Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala.
The Northern Triangle is one of the most violent regions in the world, where powerful transnational criminal organizations have flourished, many of which are linked to Mexican drug traffickers; local organized crime groups; gangs like the 18th Street Gang (M-18) and the Pandillas street gangs. All these groups and clans are constantly at war among themselves for the redistribution of spheres of influence.
Members of MS-13, captured as a result of a special operation. Photo: Reuters The governments of Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala have declared war on both organized and street crime. This decision was warmly supported in the United States, where in recent years 8.5% of the population of the Northern Triangle has immigrated due to the high level of violence and corruption.
The countries of the "Northern Triangle" are also recognized as participants in the armed conflict with a high degree of intensity.
Colombia
The confrontation between the Colombian authorities and the left-wing extremist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) lasted for more than 50 years. Over the years, about 220 thousand people have died, about 7 million have lost their homes. In 2016, it was signed between the Colombian authorities and the FARC. Rebels from the Colombian National Liberation Army (ELN) refused to join the treaty, which, together with the problem of large-scale drug trafficking, leaves the military conflict in the country in the status of "medium intensity".
Africa: Sub-Saharan Africa
V Somalia For more than 20 years, lawlessness has reigned: neither the government, nor the UN peacekeepers, nor the military intervention of neighboring countries can stop the anarchy. The radical Islamist group "Al-Shabaab" is actively operating on the territory of Somalia, and the coastal regions began to earn money by piracy.
Children injured in a Mogadishu hospital in a terrorist attack by radical Islamists in the Somali capital on August 4, 2017. Photo: Reuters Radical Islamists terrorize and Nigeria... Boko Haram militants control about 20% of the territory in the north of the country. They are being fought by the Nigerian army, which is assisted by the military from neighboring Cameroon, Chad and Niger.
In addition to jihadists, there is another conflict zone in the country. in the Niger Delta... For more than 20 years, the government troops of Nigeria and mercenaries of oil companies, on the one hand, and the ethnic groups of Ogoni, Igbo and Ijo, on the other, have been trying to establish control over the oil-bearing regions with varying success.
In another country, the youngest recognized state in the world - South Sudan, - the civil war began two years after gaining independence, in 2013, and despite the presence of a 12,000-strong UN peacekeeping contingent. Formally, it goes between government forces and the rebels, but in fact - between representatives of the dominant Dinka people (including President Salwa Kiir) and the Nuer tribe, from which Vice President Riek Mashar comes.
Restless and in Sudan... In the Darfur region in the west of the country, inter-ethnic conflict has lasted since 2003, resulting in an armed confrontation between the central government, the informal pro-government Arab armed groups "Janjaweed" and local rebel groups. According to various estimates, from 200 to 400 thousand people died as a result of the Darfur conflict, 2.5 million people became refugees.
Armed conflict in Mali between government troops, Tuaregs, various separatist groups and radical Islamists flared up in early 2012. The starting point of events was a military coup, as a result of which the current head of state, Amadou Toure, was overthrown. To maintain order in the country, there are UN peacekeepers and a French contingent, but, despite this, hostage-taking is constantly in Mali.
In the eastern provinces Democratic Republic of the Congo Despite all the efforts of the authorities and peacekeepers, the situation has remained tense for many years. Various Islamist and Christian groups, armed formations of local tribes and gangs from neighboring states operate on the territory of the country. All of them are attracted by the colossal reserves of rich minerals: gold, diamonds, copper, tin, tantalum, tungsten, more than half of the world's proven reserves of uranium. According to the UN Expert Group on the DRC, illegal gold mining "remains by far the main source of funding for armed groups."
V Central African Republic (CAR) in 2013, Muslim rebels overthrew the Christian president, after which sectarian strife erupted in the country. Since 2014, a UN peacekeeping mission has been in the country.
Course work
Conflicts in the modern world: problems and peculiarities of their settlement
1st year student
Specialties "History"
Introduction
3. Causes and main stages of the Yugoslav conflict. A set of measures for its settlement
3.1 Collapse of the SRFYu. The escalation of the conflict in the Balkans into an armed clash
Conclusion
Introduction
Relevance of the topic. Military history institutes estimate that there have been only twenty-six days of absolute peace since the end of World War II. The 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 different 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 in the world. Being poorly managed, they tend to proliferate, involve more and more participants, which poses a serious threat not only to those who are directly involved in the conflict, but also to everyone living on earth.
And therefore, this is evidence in favor of the fact that it is necessary to consider and study the features of all modern forms of armed struggle: from small armed clashes to large-scale armed conflicts.
The object of the research is the conflicts that occurred at the turn of the XX - XXI centuries. The subject of this research is the development of conflicts and the possibility of their settlement.
The aim of the study is to reveal the essence of the military-political conflict, to clarify the features of modern conflicts and to identify, on this basis, effective ways to regulate them, and if this cannot be done, then localization and termination at later stages of their development, therefore, the tasks of the work are:
Find out the essence of the conflict as a special social phenomenon;
Find the main patterns of the emergence 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 lack of system analysis of the object of research.
However, it should be noted that the processes of the formation of scientific works originate in the second half of the twentieth century, despite the continuing interest of researchers from different eras to the problem of conflict (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 studied by both domestic and foreign researchers. The following researchers dealt with problems related to the possibility of conflict resolution: N. Machiavelli, G. Spencer, R. Dahrendorf, L. Coser, G. Simmel, K. Boulding, L. Krisberg, T. Gobs, E. Carr, T. Schelling , B. Coppiter, M. Emerson, N. Heissen, J. Rubin, G. Morozov, P. Tsygankov, D. Algulyan, B. Bazhanov, V. Baranovskiy, A. Torkunov, G. Drobot, D. Feldman, O Khlopov, I. Artsibasov, A. Egorov, M. Lebedeva, I. Doronina, P. Kremenyuk and others.
Also reviewed are the outgoing periodicals, namely: The Journal of Conflict Resolution, The International Journal of Conflict Management, The Journal of Peace 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 crucial importance of the scientific study of conflicts, the concept of "conflict" has not received a proper definition, and therefore is used ambiguously.
To denote international friction and disagreement, the concept of "conflict" (French - "conflit") was actively used, but was gradually replaced by the English "dispute" (Russian - "dispute", French - "differend"). Since the adoption of the UN Charter in 1945, the concepts of "international dispute" and "situation" have been used in international law to denote international friction and contradictions.
Conflict as a problem of practical politics has been most developed since the beginning of the Cold War. Its methodological basis is the general theory of conflict. The subject of the general theory of conflict is the study of the causes, conditions of 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 is a struggle for values and claims to a certain status, power and resources, a struggle in which the goals of opponents are to neutralize the damage or destruction of the rival." ...
But before clarifying the specifics of conflicts, one should find out 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 consider the main ideas.
In his writings, Kenneth Boulding argues that conflict is "a situation of rivalry in which the parties recognize the incompatibility of positions, and each side tries to occupy a position that is incompatible with that which the other is trying to occupy." 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 ... "they have a perception of each other that will enable them to cooperate on a functional basis of sharing the disputed resource."
According to R. Caste, a conflict is a situation "of a very serious deterioration (or exacerbation) 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 all of them at the same time.
Summarizing all of 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 is concentratedly reproducing in the form of an indirect or direct collision of economic, social-class, political, territorial, national, religious or other interests in nature and nature.
Of course, a conflict is a special, not a routine political attitude, since it means both objectively and subjectively resolving various specific contradictions and the problems they generate in a conflict form, and in the course of its development can give rise to international crises and armed struggle of states.
Conflict is often equated with a crisis. However, the relationship between conflict and crisis is the relationship between 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 the line that separates it from an armed conflict, from a war. At the stage of the crisis, the role of the subjective factor increases incredibly, since, as a rule, very responsible political decisions are made by a narrow group of people in conditions of an acute shortage of time.
However, a crisis is not at all an obligatory and inevitable phase of a conflict. Its course for a sufficiently long time can remain latent, without directly generating 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 its escalation into an armed struggle. One or another crisis can be overcome by the efforts of politicians, and the international conflict as a whole is capable of persisting and returning to a latent state. But under certain circumstances, this conflict can again reach the phase of the crisis, while crises can follow with a certain cyclicality.
The conflict reaches its greatest acuteness and extremely dangerous form in the phase of the armed struggle. But armed conflict is also not the only and not inevitable phase of the 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 conflicting behavior of the parties.
1.2 Structure and phases of conflict
It should be noted that a conflict, as a system, never appears in a "complete" 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, the subjects of the conflict can change, and, consequently, the nature of the contradictions underlying the conflict.
The study of the conflict in its successive phases allows us to consider it as a single process with different, but interrelated sides: historical (genetic), cause-and-effect, and structural-functional.
The phases of the development of a conflict are not abstract schemes, but real, historically and socially determined concrete 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 and possibilities of introducing new ones, involving others or withdrawing existing participants, the individual course and general international conditions of its development, an international conflict can go through very different, 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 has arisen due to the quantitative accumulation of mutually directed hostile actions, it is necessary to outline its boundaries in the interval from the emergence of a disputable situation between two participants in international relations and the confrontation associated with it to the final settlement of either in a different way.
The conflict can develop in two main variants, which can be conditionally called classical (or confrontational) and compromise.
The classic version of development provides for a forceful settlement, which lies at the basis of relations between the warring parties and is characterized by an exacerbation of relations between them, close to the maximum. This development of events consists of four phases:
Aggravation
Escalation
De-escalation
Fading conflict
In a conflict, the full course of events takes place, from the emergence of disagreements to their resolution, including the struggle between the participants in international relations, which, to the extent that resources of the maximum possible volume are included in it, is exacerbated, and after its achievement it gradually fades away.
The compromise option, unlike the previous one, does not have a forceful nature, since in such a situation the exacerbation phase, reaching a value close to the maximum, does not develop in the direction of further confrontation, and at the point at which a possible compromise between the parties is still continued through detente. This option for resolving disagreements between 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 there are six phases of 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 regarding these contradictions, expressed in a more or less acute conflict form.
The second phase of the conflict is the subjective determination 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 of using peaceful and military means, using international alliances and obligations, assessing the general internal and international situation. In this phase, the parties determine or partially implement a system of mutual practical actions, which are in the nature of a struggle for 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 fight directly by 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 direct participants, states of the region, a number of regions, major world powers, involve the UN, and in some cases become a world crisis, which gives the conflict an unprecedented previously acute 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 (restrictions cover the goals, territories, scale and level of hostilities, the military means used, the number of allies and their world status), capable, under certain circumstances, of developing to a higher level of armed struggle with the use of 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 it is possible to distinguish a number of half-phases in it, meaning the escalation of hostilities.
The sixth phase of the conflict is the phase of extinction and settlement, which implies a gradual de-escalation, i.e. lowering the level of intensity, more active involvement of diplomatic means, 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 of the parties to the conflict, or it may 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 settlement of contradictions, which 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 features discussed above can be used for the primary identification of a conflict. But at the same time, it is always necessary to take into account the high mobility of the line 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 problems of conflict resolution
2.1 Third Party Means of Influencing Conflict
Since ancient times, a third party has been involved in resolving conflicts, which intervenes 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 about the conditions on which peace should be concluded.
The concept of "third party" is broad and collective, usually including terms such as "mediator", "observer of the negotiation process", "arbitrator". A "third party" can also be understood as any person who does not have the status of an intermediary or observer. A third party can intervene in the conflict on its own, or maybe at the request of the conflicting parties. Its impact on the parties to the conflict is very diverse.
External intervention by a third party in the conflict has received the designation "intervention". Interventions can be formal or informal. The most famous form of intervention is mediation.
As a rule, mediation is understood to be the assistance carried out by third states or international organizations on their own initiative or at the request of the parties to the conflict, assistance to the peaceful settlement of a dispute, consisting in the conduct of a mediator, on the basis of his proposals, of direct negotiations with the disputants in order to peacefully resolve the disagreement.
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 controversial issues, but a general reconciliation of the disputants, the development of a basis for 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 of influence by a third party on parties to conflicts is the imposition of sanctions. Sanctions are 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 peace, violation 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 technologies, with a special focus on those that can be used for military purposes. Financial sanctions include prohibitions or restrictions on the provision of loans, credits, and investments. Political sanctions are also used, for example, the exclusion of the 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 worsen. Of course, another scenario is not excluded, when, for example, due to polarization in society, forces oriented towards compromise prevail, then the likelihood of a peaceful settlement of the conflict will significantly increase.
Another problem is related to the fact that the imposition of sanctions damages not only the economy of the country in respect of which they are imposed, but also the economy of the state imposing the sanctions. This happens especially in cases where, before the introduction 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 affect the whole society as a whole, and the least protected segments of the population suffer predominantly. To mitigate this negative effect, sometimes partial sanctions are used that do not affect, for example, the supply of food or medicine.
Peaceful settlement of the conflict, with the participation of only the subjects of the conflict themselves, is an extremely rare phenomenon. A third party often comes to the rescue to help with this difficult task.
The arsenal of means of influence of a third party on the parties to the conflict does not exclude various means of limitation and coercion, for example, refusal to provide economic assistance in the event of a continuation of the conflict, the application of sanctions to the parties; and all these means are intensively used in situations of armed conflict, as a rule, in the first (stabilization) phase of the settlement, in order to induce the participants to end the violence. Coercive and restrictive measures are sometimes applied even after an agreement has been reached 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 (a term introduced by the UN General Assembly in February 1965), as well as the application of sanctions against conflicting parties.
In the use of peacekeeping operations, peacekeeping forces are often deployed. This happens when the conflict reaches the stage of an armed struggle. The main goal of the peacekeeping forces is to separate the opposing sides, prevent armed clashes between them, and control the hostile sides' military actions.
As a peacekeeping force, they can be used as military units of individual states (for example, in the second half of the 80s, Indian troops were located as peacekeepers in Sri Lanka, and in the early 90s, the 14th Russian army - in Transnistria) or groups states (by decision of the Organization of African Unity, the inter-African forces participated in the settlement of the conflict in Chad in the early 1980s) and the armed formations of the United Nations (the 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 disengage the armed formations of the opposing sides. The practice of introducing non-flying zones is also practiced in order to prevent one of the parties to the conflict from bombing from the air. third-party troops help to resolve conflicts primarily due to the fact that the hostilities of the warring parties become difficult.
But it should be borne in mind that the capabilities of the peacekeeping forces are limited: they, for example, have no right to pursue an attacker, and can only use weapons for self-defense purposes. Under these conditions, they can turn out to be a kind of target for the opposing groups, as has repeatedly happened in various regions. Moreover, there have been cases of the seizure of representatives of the peacekeeping forces as hostages. Thus, in the first half of 1995 in the Bosnian conflict, Russian servicemen who were there on a peacekeeping mission were also taken hostage.
At the same time, granting more rights to peacekeeping forces, including giving them police functions, allowing them to launch 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 the third party regarding the appropriateness of the steps taken.
Thus, the actions of NATO, sanctioned by the UN and associated with the bombing of Bosnian Serb positions in the mid-1990s, were very ambiguously assessed.
The presence of troops on the territory of another state is also a problem. It is not always easy to solve within the framework of the national legislation of the countries that provide their armed forces. In addition, the participation of troops in the settlement of conflicts abroad is often perceived negatively by public opinion, especially if there are casualties among the peacekeeping forces.
Finally, the biggest problem is that the introduction of a peacekeeping force does not replace a political solution to the conflict. This act can only be viewed as temporary - for the period of the search for a peaceful solution.
2.3 Negotiation process in case of conflict. Negotiation functions
Negotiations are as ancient as wars and mediation. This tool has been used to resolve them long before the advent of legal procedures. Negotiation is a universal means of human communication that allows you to find agreement where interests do not coincide, opinions or views differ. However, the way the negotiations are being conducted - their technology - has long been neglected. Only in the second half of the 20th century did negotiations become the object of 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 conditions of conflict relations is rather complicated and has its own specifics. An untimely or incorrect decision taken in the negotiations often entails a continuation or even intensification of the conflict, with all the ensuing consequences.
Conflict negotiations tend to be more successful when:
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 the most important features of the negotiations is that the interests of the parties partly coincide and partly 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, from the presence of common and opposite interests of the parties, it follows that in the case of an extremely pronounced diktat of force, negotiations cease to be negotiations, giving way to conflict.
The focus on the joint solution of the problem is at the same time the main function of the negotiations. This is the main reason for which the negotiations are being conducted. 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 with various functional goals is possible due to the fact that negotiations are always included in a broader political context and serve as a tool in solving a whole range of domestic and foreign policy tasks. Accordingly, they can perform various functions.
The most essential and often implemented functions of negotiations, in addition to the main one, are the following:
The information and communication function is present in almost all negotiations. An exception may be negotiations, which are undertaken to "divert eyes", but in them the communication aspect, albeit to a minimal extent, is still present. Sometimes it happens that the parties to the conflict, entering into negotiations, are only interested in the exchange of views, points of view. Such negotiations are often viewed by the parties as preliminary, and their function is purely informational. The results of the 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, regulation, control and coordination of participants' actions are carried out. It also provides for the detailing of more general solutions with a view to their concrete implementation. The negotiations at which this function is realized play the role of a kind of "tuning" of the relations of the parties. If the negotiations are multilateral, then there is "collective management of interdependence" - the regulation of the relations of the participants.
The propagandistic function of negotiations consists in actively influencing public opinion in order to explain to a wide range of people their position, justify their own actions, make claims to the opposite side, accuse the enemy of illegal actions, attract new allies to their side, etc. In this sense, it can be viewed as a derivative or concomitant of such a function as a solution to one's own internal political or foreign policy problems.
Speaking about the propaganda function and about 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 the "diversion", 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 enemy's attention, and at the beginning military action - to be in a better position. In this case, their functional purpose turns out to be far from the main one - joint problem solving, and negotiations cease to be negotiations in their essence. The conflicting parties have little interest in a joint solution of the problem, since they solve completely different problems. An example can be 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 especially clearly realized if one of the conflicting parties seeks to calm down 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, the negotiations become, in the words of M. M. Lebedeva, "quasi-negotiations."
In general, when assessing the functions of negotiations from the point of view of their constructiveness or destructiveness, one should bear in mind the entire political context and how expedient a joint solution to the problem is (for example, is it necessary to negotiate with the terrorists who have taken hostages, or is it better to take action to free them). The approach to negotiations as a joint search for a solution to the problem with a partner is based on different 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 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 conditions of conflict relations, the parties are especially inclined to more intensively use other, different from the main negotiating functions.
3. Causes and main stages of the Yugoslav conflict and a set of measures for its settlement
3.1 Collapse of the SRFYu. The escalation of the cormorant conflict into an armed clash
The Yugoslav crisis has a deep background and a complex and 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. We can say that the reasons for the military conflict in Yugoslavia lie in the system of those contradictions that arose relatively long ago and became aggravated at the time of the decision to carry out radical reforms in the economy, politics, social and spiritual spheres.
During the long contradiction between the Yugoslav republics, which passed into the stage of an active crisis, the two republics of Slovenia and Croatia were the first to announce their withdrawal from the SFRY and proclaim their independence. If in Slovenia the conflict took on the character of a confrontation between the Federal Center and the Slovenian republican elite, in Croatia the confrontation began to develop along ethnic lines. Ethnic cleansing began in areas with a predominantly Serb population, forcing the Serb population to create self-defense units. Units of the Yugoslav army were involved in this conflict, which tried to separate the warring parties. The Croatian leadership denied the Serbian population basic rights, moreover, having unleashed a brutal war against the Serbs, the Croats deliberately provoked a response from the federal troops, and then took the pose of victims of the Serb troops. The purpose of such actions was to attract the attention of the international community, unleash an information war against the Serbs and the desire to cause pressure from the international community on Serbia for the early recognition of Croatia's independence.
Initially, the EU countries and the USA, guided by the principle of inviolability of borders, did not recognize the new state associations, rightly assessing their statements as separatism. However, with the acceleration of the disintegration of the USSR, with the disappearance of the restraining factor represented by the Soviet Union, the West began to tend to the idea of supporting the "non-communist republics" of Yugoslavia. The collapse of the OVD, CMEA, the collapse of the Soviet Union radically changed the balance of power in the world. For the countries of Western Europe (first of all, only recently united Germany) and the United States, there is an opportunity to significantly expand the zone of their geopolitical interests in a strategically important region.
It can be noted that during the period of "boiling of the Balkan cauldron" the international community did not have a unanimous opinion. The situation in the Balkans was aggravated by the imposition of national, political and confessional factors. The collapse 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, with special emphasis 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 a 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 NATO military actions 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 states in Europe and North America. The decision to launch the operation was made by NATO Secretary General Solana, in accordance with the powers delegated to him by the NATO Council. The desire to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe caused by the policy of genocide carried out by the authorities of the SFRY towards ethnic Albanians was named as the basis for the use of force. Operation NATO Allied Force was launched on March 24, 1999, suspended on June 10, and the end of the operation on July 20, 1999. The duration of the active phase of the war was 78 days. Participants: on the one hand, the military-political NATO bloc, represented by 14 states that provided armed forces or territory, airspace was provided by the neutral countries 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 forces using bases outside the territory of the SFRY. The nature of the military operations was an air-naval offensive operation by NATO and an air-defensive operation by the SFRY. NATO forces won air supremacy, bombing and missile strikes on military and industrial facilities were destroyed: the oil refining industry and fuel reserves, communications were disrupted, communications 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-naval offensive operation, achieved the surrender of the Yugoslav leadership in Kosovo on the terms set forth by NATO even before the war. The SFRY troops have been 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 an increase in the flow of Serb refugees after the withdrawal of the SFRY army and the introduction of peacekeeping forces. NATO initiated the decision of the UN Security Council to a peacekeeping operation to return Albanian refugees to Kosovo, which made it possible to consolidate the victory in the war and withdraw Kosovo and Metohija from the rule 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 beyond its borders, NATO in the 90s of the last century began to develop plans for its participation in peacekeeping operations.
In this connection, in the opinion of 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 the start of 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 perfect decision-making mechanism, a flexible command structure of the armed forces. Therefore, the NATO strategic concepts of 1991 and 1999 indicate that "NATO, in cooperation with other organizations, will help prevent conflicts, and in the event of a crisis, participate in its effective settlement in accordance with international law, ensure, on a case-by-case basis and in accordance with with its own procedures, conducting peacekeeping and other operations under the auspices of the UN Security Council or under the responsibility of the OSCE, including by providing their resources and experience. "
So, a number of UN Security Council resolutions have already empowered NATO to regulate the growing conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but in such a way that almost no one understood this. More often than not, NATO was hidden behind the words "regional organizations or alliances."
To resolve the conflict that had arisen in the Republic of BiH, NATO took a number of actions.
To begin with, at the request of the Secretary General, flights of NATO aircraft began to comply with the "no-fly zone" regime. Then the NATO foreign ministers decided to provide air protection for the UN defense forces on the territory of Yugoslavia. And NATO aircraft began to conduct training flights 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 Heard can be cited: “NATO is not an international police force. And it is certainly not an army of crusaders who come out to use force to separate warring troops or plant a banner on foreign soil. is to impose Western values on non-NATO countries or to settle disputes between other states. But NATO cannot replace the UN, CSCE or the European Community. First of all, the UN, with its special legal authority, is unmatched. "
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 NATO naval force in the Mediterranean exercised control over the observance of the trade embargo against Serbia and Montenegro and the arms embargo in the Adriatic Sea. all former republics; control over the no-fly zone of Bosnia and Herzegovina was also initiated.
After the Serbs refused to accept the Vance-Owen plan, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization "within the framework of a regional treaty" began conducting preliminary studies on the possibility of the participation 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 in nature as part of a peace plan. NATO proposed to conduct ground reconnaissance and related activities, as well as "consider the possibility of providing a key headquarters structure, including the possibility of involving other countries that may send their military contingents."
NATO has adhered to such core goals 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 kilometers from Sarajevo within ten days. The ultimatum was backed up 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 air strikes against the Bosnian Serbs. "I am empowered," he said, "to press the button" regarding air support ... but for air strikes, a decision of the NATO Council will be required ... "After the entry of the airborne battalion into Gravica (a suburb of Sarajevo), This led to the ceasefire, which led to the signing of the Bosnia Peace Agreement, where the Alliance established and led the Multinational Implementation Force (IFOR) tasked with enforcing 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 final stage in the implementation of the military annex to the Peace Agreement.
A little later, a two-year peace consolidation plan was approved in Paris, which was then finalized in London under the auspices of the Peace Implementation Council, created in accordance with the Peace Agreement. Based on this plan and NATO's exploration of security options, NATO foreign and defense ministers decided that stability would require a smaller military presence in the country, the Stabilization Force (SFOR), which was to be organized. NATO. SFOR received a similar commitment to IFOR to use force when required to carry out mission 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 Kosovar Albanian Forces. NATO, under the pretext of humanitarian intervention, intervened in the conflict and launched an air campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which 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 sending there under the auspices of the UN of an international military contingent, 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. Ending 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 based on the implementation of an air offensive operation in order to maximize its full dominance in the air and inflict maximum damage 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 the surrender of S. Milosevic as soon as possible.
In mid-February, NATO leadership adopted operational plan 10/413 (codenamed "Joint Watch") 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 military intervention in Kosovo, regardless of the results of the peace negotiations, suggests 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 the refusal of official Belgrade to agree to the terms of resolving the situation in Kosovo, the NATO air forces began bombing the territory of Yugoslavia. The NATO air operation (Operation Allied Force) was the next version of the controlled escalation strategy. It provided for damage to facilities vital for the defense and life of the country. Belgrade's military strategy in the war against NATO forces, whose defense budget was 300 times higher than that of Yugoslavia, was designed to wage a massive patriotic war. Taking into account the complete domination of NATO forces in the airspace, S. Milosevic tried to preserve the main forces of his army for the land phase of the war, concentrating 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 Serb 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, and 40 thousand to Montenegro. Despite this, the consequences of the NATO bombings forced Milosevic to make concessions. Since June 1999, with the mediation of the President of Finland, EU special envoy M. Akhtisaari and the special envoy of the Russian Federation V. Chernomyrdin, after many days of political debate, Yugoslav President S. Milosevic agreed to sign the "Document on Peace Achievement." They provided for the deployment of international military contingents in Kosovo under the joint command of NATO and the UN auspices, the creation of an interim regional administration and granting it broad autonomy within the SFRY. Thus ended the fourth period of the development of the Kosovo conflict. After the adoption on June 10, 1999 of the UN Security Council Resolution No. 1244, the escalation stage of the Kosovo conflict changed with the de-escalation stage.The resolution contained a demand for an immediate cessation of hostilities and repression by the SFRY in Kosovo, 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 parts of the Yugoslav army left Kosovo. You should also point out the obvious fact - 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 its political, military and economic control over Kosovo, leaving its further fate and the future of its country's territorial integrity in the hands of NATO and the UN.
It became quite obvious that the effectiveness of the work of international mechanisms for the settlement of military conflicts was questioned. First of all, the content of the UN's activities has changed significantly. This organization began to give up positions, change its peacekeeping role, yielding part of its functions to NATO. This radically changes the entire system of European and world security.
The Yugoslav problem could not be resolved 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 the Serbs, even in places of compact residence, were deprived of this right; thirdly, the right of the Yugoslav Federation to territorial integrity was rejected, 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 thereby stimulated contradictions and enmity; Fifth, 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 temporarily suppressed the conflict) the causes of the war. NATO intervention temporarily eliminated the problem of contradictions between Belgrade and the Kosovar Albanians, but created a new contradiction: between the Kosovo Liberation Army and the KFOR forces.
Conclusion
The concern of the world community with the increase in the number of conflicts in the world is due to both the large number of victims and the enormous material damage caused by the consequences, and the fact that, thanks to the development of the latest dual-purpose technologies, 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, more and more people have the opportunity to receive and then use information about the creation of the most sophisticated means of destruction and methods of their use. Neither highly developed nor economically and socially lagging countries with different political regimes and state structures are immune from outbreaks of terrorism.
At the end of the Cold War, the horizons of international cooperation seemed cloudless. The main international contradiction at that time - between communism and liberalism - was becoming a thing of the past, governments and peoples were tired of the burden of armaments. If not "eternal peace," then at least a long period of calm in those sectors of international relations where there were still unresolved conflicts did not seem too much of a fantasy.
Consequently, it could be presented as if a major ethical shift had taken place in the thinking of mankind. In addition, interdependence, which has begun to play an increasing role not only and not so much in relations between partners and allies, but also in relations between adversaries, also said its word. Thus, the Soviet food balance did not converge without food supplies from Western countries; the energy balance in the Western countries (at affordable prices) did not converge without the supply of energy resources from the USSR, and the Soviet budget could not be realized 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 character of people's life, new means of communication and information, new types of weapons sharply reduce the importance of state borders and other means of protection against 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 emerged where the terrorist threat has become especially large-scale and dangerous. Post-Soviet terrorism flourished on the territory of the former USSR in conditions of exacerbation of social, political, interethnic and religious contradictions and conflicts, rampant crime and corruption, external interference in the affairs of most of the CIS countries. 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, analyzing modern international conflicts, one can consider and study the influence of political forces of different countries on the international arena. Thirdly, knowledge of the specifics of conflict management 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 in the 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 1977 international armed conflicts. // International protection of human rights and freedoms. Collection of documents. M., 1990.
2. The 1907 Convention on the Laws and Customs of War on Land. // Applicable international law. / Comp. Yu.M. Kolosov and E.S. Krivchikova. T. 2.
3. Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Types of Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, 1980. // Bulletin of the USSR, 1984 # 3.
4. International Law in Selected Documents Vol. II - Art. 6 of the Hague Convention on the Peaceful Solution of International Conflicts of 1907 - M., 1957. - C.202 - 248.
5. International law. Conduct of hostilities. Collection of the Hague Conventions and Other Agreements. ICRC, M., 1995
6. International law. Conduct of hostilities. Collection of the Hague Conventions and Other Agreements. ICRC, M., 1995
7. Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on 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 Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Specific Types of Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Inflict Excessive Damage // Moscow Journal of International Law. - 1997 # 1. P. 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 .-- P.34 - 58.
10. Burton J. Conflict and communication. The use of controlled communication in international relations. - M., 1999. - pp. 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. New world order "and the Balkan crisis of the 90s: The collapse of the Yalta-Postdam system of international relations. - M., 2002. - pp. 23 - 45.
14. Guskova E.Yu. History of the Yugoslavian Crisis (1990-2000). - M., 2001. - p. 28 - 40.
15. Guskova E.Yu. Armed conflicts in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. - M., 1999. - pp. 22 - 43.
16. Dekhanov S.A. Law and Power 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 MM, Khrustalev M. Main trends in foreign studies of international negotiations. - M., 1989. - p. 107 - 111.
19. Levin D.B. Principles for the peaceful settlement of international disputes. - M., 1977 .-- p. 34 - 56.
20. Lukashuk I.I. International law. The special part. - M., 2002. - p. 404 - 407.
21. Lukov VB Modern diplomatic negotiations: development problems. 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. Peacekeeping and enforcement of peace. - M., 1999. - p. 58 - 68.
24. Muradyan A.A. The noblest science. On the basic concepts of international political theory. - M., 1990. - 58 - 67.
25. Nergesh J. The battlefield is a 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. - Walk in the woods. - M., 1989. - p. 119 - 134.
29. A.I. Poltorak Armed conflicts and international law. - M., 2000. - C.66 - 78.
30. V. Pugachev Introduction to Political Science. 3rd ed., Rev. and add. - 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 transition period: Methodological, theoretical, technological problems. - M., 1996. Pp. 56 - 88.
33. Daring V. Balance of forces and balance of interests. - M., 1990. - pp. 16–25.
34. Ushakov N.A. Legal regulation of the use of force in international relations. - M., 1997. - pp. 103 - 135.
35. Fisher R. Preparation for negotiations. - M., 1996. - S. 90 - 120.
36. Hodgson J. Negotiations as equals. - Mn., 1998. - C.250 - 257.
37. Tsygankov P.A. Theory of International Relations. - M., 2004 .-- p. 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. Kolosov, V.I. Kuznetsova. M. 1996. - S. 209-237.
40. International conflicts of our time. / Ed. V.I. Gantman. M., 1983. Pp. 230 - 246.
41. About the process of international negotiations (experience of foreign research). / Resp. editors R.G. Bogdanov, V.A. Kremenyuk. M., 1989. Pp. 350 - 368.
42. Modern bourgeois theories of international relations: a critical analysis. / Ed. IN AND. Gantman. M., 1976. Pp. 123 - 145.
Articles in periodicals:
43. War in Yugoslavia. // Special folder NG No. 2, 1999. - P.12.
44. Statement of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy on the NATO war against Yugoslavia // Nezavisimaya Gazeta 04.16.99. - C.5.
45. Kremenyuk V.A. Towards Conflict Resolution // USA: Economics, Politics, Ideology. 1990. No. 12. S. 47-52.
46. Kremenyuk V.A. Problems of negotiations in relations between two powers // USA: economics, politics, ideology. 1991. No. 3. P.43-51.
47. Lebedeva M.M. 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. The North Atlantic 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. P.63-73.
50. Simic P. Dayton process: the Serbian view // ME and MO. 1998. - p.91
51. Yasnosokirsky Yu.A. Peacekeeping: Some Conceptual Aspects of Political Settlement of Conflicts and Crisis Situations // Moscow Journal of International Law. 1998. No. 3. Page 46
18:03 - REGNUM It should be emphasized that class contradictions have not disappeared from the socio-economic life of society. In a world where the haves and have-nots live, the conflict between these two groups will remain and determine all other conflicts. But it is not the dispute between socialism and capitalism that has come to the fore in the modern world, but the dispute between two versions of capitalism, one of which is called “globalism” and the other “protectionism”.
Ivan Shilov © IA REGNUM
It is around these two poles that the forces of the supporters of this or that concept will now be grouping. Both proponents of globalism and proponents of protectionism have begun to form their armies of support, which include both left and right forces. On the side of the globalists, left-wing Trotskyists and right-wing liberals are on the side of the protectionists, left-wing Stalinists and right-wing monarchists are on the side of the protectionists.
Between them, a small stratum of moderate conservative liberals, who are running between the trenches and have not yet decided on their location, has crept in. On some issues they are with the globalists, on others - with the protectionists. This is a debate about the just organization of capitalism, not about replacing capitalism with communism.
The union of the pink communists leaning towards social democracy named after Zyuganov-Grudinin with the social democrat leaning towards the right liberalism Babkin and the right-wing monarchist Strelkov, which also included the imperial sovereigns Kvachkov and Kalashnikov-Kucherenko, their ideological kinship with the left-wing-conservative left-wing conservative club members - this motley coalition is being formed in response to the consolidation and offensive of right-wing liberal radicals and center-right capitalist ministers of the current government.
This is a situational alliance, tactical and reactive in relation to the threat of a liberal revenge of a globalist nature, striving to fix Russia on the path of world globalism. Thus, the maturing change of power does not have the character of a revolution that changes the way of the economic system, but makes significant adjustments to the system that already exists on the basis of a multi-structured economy and a state-regulated market.
The whole struggle takes place between the supporters of a predominantly open or predominantly closed market economic system and the resulting political system.
The global trend is the rise of protectionist tendencies, which are a qualitative transformation of capitalism, which has exhausted quantitative forms of extensive growth by expanding markets. The markets are exhausted, and now there is a struggle for power in the state, which will have to regulate the transition to high-quality, intensive capitalism and determine the positions occupied by the new beneficiaries of the system, that is, the new ruling class.
New - because a global redistribution of the structure and means of influence on society and the economy is coming: restriction of the banking and financial class and the formation of a state-production and redistribution class, using socialist measures of control over the sphere of finance and monetary circulation.
In the new emerging system, financiers will lose their dominant position and move into the status of clerk servants and bookkeepers under the control of the state (security officials) and the productive capital that influences it. This is a revenge of the productive capital over the financial one. It is clear that wresting global power from the financial clans that have developed over the centuries is a long-term and difficult task, but the other way has been exhausted, because the global financial system no longer gives development and leads to the death of human civilization.
The retreat of financiers will last the entire current century and in the end will lead to their displacement to the periphery, where they will gain a foothold, but will significantly lose their positions of power. The existence of private property cannot completely eliminate private banking, but it can significantly redistribute power resources from financiers to industrialists through their influence on officials and politics. It is precisely this kind of consolidation of forces on the eve of the upcoming battle for such a redistribution that is taking place before our eyes.
In the coming years, the ideological and organizational formation of the camp opposing the liberals will take place and the nomination of its frontmen will begin - leaders who form national requirements for the state to curb the globalist financial liberal forces. After that, these forces will enter into a decisive battle for what the new century will be like and how the transition from an obsolete structure to a new one will be arranged.
Globalism and protectionism as phenomena will remain, but the distribution of accents between them will be done in a new way. For the right to place these accents, a fierce struggle began, which we now observe everywhere, from remote provinces to the main world centers. New borders will be drawn on the world map, where not the boundaries of certain states will be reflected, but the disposition of two warring armies: territories conquered by protectionists, and bridgeheads on which globalists have taken root.
Behind all the confrontations in the world, one must be able to see exactly this content. In this confrontation we are conscripts mobilized by one or another force. No one will be able to sit on the sidelines this time.
Search
We can notify you about new articles,