The Civil War as a Type of Armed Violence: Definition of the Phenomenon in Ukrainian and Foreign Political Science

Abstract

The article analyzes the main concepts and theories regarding the characterization, origins and consequences of civil wars as a type of armed violence. During the work the views on the problem of leading Ukrainian and foreign scientists were considered, in particular, E. Ankudinov, I. Artsybasov, T. Garr, O. Huseynov, S. Danilov, G. Demin, A. Kasesse, V. Korchmit-Matyushov, O. Ladinenko, S. Mosova, S. Nefedova and others. Much attention is paid to the analysis of the concept of civil war, its essence, causes and consequences, which was formed by the Ukrainian scientist S. Vovk.Having considered the problem, the author states that some aspects of the problem need more elaboration ‒ there is a need for a comprehensive generalization of the most common views on defining the phenomenon of civil war.The author concludes that consideration of the main achievements in the coverage of the Civil War, as a type of armed violence, showed that this aspect was studied quite vividly. Today there are several common interpretations of the phenomenon of civil war, its causes and origins, and political implications in the world of political science. Having analyzed them, the author gives his own interpretation of the concept of civil war as a type of armed violence.According to the author, civil war can be attributed to a specific type of internal armed violence, since it leads to significant changes in the socio-political system of the state. These phenomena are similar, but not identical. The Civil War is only an extraordinary stage in changing the state's political and political system. This kind of armed violence can be triggered by a revolution, or, conversely, victory in a civil war by supporters of radical change may lead to revolution. However, the purpose of armed conflict during the civil war is, first and foremost, the seizure / retention of power, the overthrow / canning of political structures, rather than radical systemic change. In fact, civil war leads to socio-political transformations indirectly. Unlike the revolution, which is a kind of armed violence that results in rapid, fundamental changes in all spheres of society.