Reworking the Concept of 'National Security' in Contemporary Times

Doctoral Thesis Table of Contents

The focus of this study is on the concept and contours of NIAC under IHL. Its purpose is to provide further clarity to the process of identifying NIACs under international law. At its most basic, conflict identification is the real-time objective assessment of prevailing factual circumstances in order to determine the applicable legal regime(s). It is thus an exercise in the classification of armed violence providing a detailed critical examination of the material concept of NIAC, including its threshold of activation and corresponding personal, geographical and temporal scope of applicability under IHL.

Introduction to Security Studies, 2014

2012

Recently, there have been many recommendations for the creation of new classifications (or typologies) of wars, including; people’s wars, postmodern wars, and wars of the third kind. Perhaps the most common of these, however, is the focus upon ethnic wars or ethnic conflict. It is argued that the contemporary international system is characterized by a proliferation of ethnic conflicts, which are unlike conflicts in the past, thus necessitating the creation of this new distinctive classification of warfare. Yet my overall thesis is that the terms “ethnicity” and “ethnic conflict” in particular are ill-defined. They are used in such disparate ways that they have become almost meaningless, and, I think, are so loaded with normative connotations that they are very problematic as a basis for conflict studies and/or a categorization of war. However, one side-benefit of the “ethnic conflict” research has been an increased interest in intra-state warfare. In order to escape the normative connotations of “ethnic” conflict, the author subdivides intra-state wars into two categories: civil war; and inter-communal war (which would include most of the so-called “ethnic wars.” Comparing trends in these types of wars demonstrates that these are not “new wars.”

Madhvendra , 2019

This project concerns the problems that surround the implementation and enforcement of international humanitarian law in non-international armed conflicts. The provisions applicable to such conflicts are common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions together with Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions. The main problems surrounding the implementation of these provisions are of various natures. States always tend to be declined to admit that a situation within the states meets the requirements for non-international armed conflicts. States are not going to accept to recognize armed rebel forces as parties to such conflicts. Armed insurgent factions, on the other hand, lack motivation to apply the rules since this measure will probably not change their status and treatment under the domestic laws of the State. In addition, the concept of international armed conflict, where a prima facie non-international armed conflict turns international by the involvement of a third State or States, is creating confusion on which legal framework should be applicable. The conclusion is that since the problems surrounding the implementation and enforcement in non-international armed conflicts are various and not easily dealt with under the current provisions, a solution to this problem would be to create one single legal framework for all armed conflicts, abandoning the current division between international and non-international armed conflicts. This would help in the application of the rules and in addition make it easier for the parties involved to abide by them. Unfortunately, it seems that such a solution is yet far away.

Government and Opposition, 2007

Understanding the causes of contemporary intrastate war is a critical enterprise for a number of reasons. First, intrastate war, in which a variety of state-based and non-state groups engage in organized military conflict primarily within the confines of a single state and employing mainly light weapons and unconventional military strategies, is now the dominant form of military conflict in international politics. Empirical studies demonstrate that since 1945, more than 70 per cent of wars have been intrastate rather than interstate in origin; 1 moreover, intrastate wars have comprised more than 90 per cent of all international conflicts since the early 1990s, 2 and there are 30 to 40 intrastate wars underway around the world at any given moment. Traditional interstate war between hierarchically organized state militaries fighting for national interests, which for so long has been the central concern of international relations and security studies, is now in fact, increasingly rare.

Political and military aspects of security, 2022

Peace is never given once and for all, and war is basically always the same. Only its manifestations change. The end of the Cold War, intensified efforts to extinguish local and regional conflicts, progressing globalization processes, strengthening interdependencies between states and societies, an attempt to strengthen international law and other ongoing processes suggested that a new quality of international relations was taking shape, where the use of military force in foreign policy becomes anachronism. There was hope that armed conflicts would be marginalized and that developed countries would stop reaching for the military factor, especially in mutual relations. In the conditions of a kind of "peace dictate" of powers, the war was to become a relic of the past, for which would only sporadically reach countries with a low level of socioeconomic development. The concept of a "world without wars" quickly collapsed. The events of the beginning of the 21st century have shown that there is no place in the world that is completely free of military threat. There are still many unresolved conflicts in the world. Numerous conflict-causing factors also persist and even intensify. Among them is the clash of civilizations, mainly caused by seemingly unsolvable ideological-religious and cultural conflicts; internationalized internal conflicts that break out locally for a variety of reasons, including those motivated by reviving aggressive nationalism, chauvinism, xenophobia, racism and religious fundamentalism; the growing importance of international criminal organizations which, in striving to maximize profits, employ all means, including the use of armed force on a large scale; the growing competition between the superpowers that want to win the best place for themselves in the changing international system; increasing social and economic inequalities, demographic problems, hunger and poverty, epidemics; depleting natural resources, access to water; internal and regional political instability; state indebtedness and turbulence in the financial markets; increased competition in cyberspace. Accordingly, countries and international organizations must be prepared for all scenarios, including high-intensity armed conflicts. We must also keep in mind the increasing participation in international military relations of non-state entities, including international corporations of various types. Money has always been needed to wage war, and for some actors it is the best way to earn money. Today, we observe rapid changes, not only political, but also economic, social or cultural, which affect the security and defense of states. A potential source of instability for our region is the situation in Ukraine and the Southern Caucasus, which are perceived by the Russian Federation as a zone of influence. Although the situation in Eastern Europe is the main source of threats to Poland's defense, we also see serious problems related to the deep, multi-faceted crisis at the southern borders of the North Atlantic Alliance. The armed forces remain the basic tool ensuring the security of states and citizens. A modern army must be flexible and respond to increasingly diverse threats. Future defense tasks will be fulfilled not only on the traditional battlefield, but also in cyberspace and outer space. The potential of the armed forces is related to the general condition of the state, its economic situation and the standard of living of society. The Polish Army consists of: Navy, Air Force, Land Forces, Special Forces and Territorial Defense Forces. An important condition for their effectiveness is the ability to cooperate in a joint operation of operating and territorial defense forces. The premise of the establishment of the Territorial Defense Forces was to create a formation that would, in conditions of threat of war, saturate the combat environment throughout the country and support operating forces, so that they could focus their efforts on fighting the largest enemy groups in major directions. These troops also have an important role to play in emergency situations below the threshold of war, including in anti-diversionary defense. In addition, in peacetime, their mission is to support the national crisis management system. It is necessary to consider whether the development directions of the TDF and other types of armed forces are optimal. The battlefield is becoming more dynamic because the exchange of fire is more intense. Therefore, the armed forces must have not only specialized soldiers, and trained operational procedures, but also modern equipment with high potential, including those that do not require direct human control. In this situation, the strong and consistently modernized the Armed Forces of the Republic of Poland constitute an essential instrument for defending our borders and building allied credibility. The effective defense requires cooperation of the army with other entities, including entrepreneurs as well as pro-defense organizations and associations. Cooperation between the army and other services, including the Police and the State Fire Service, is of particular importance. Joint training, exchange of information on crisis management and provision of military facilities and equipment are just some examples of this cooperation.