Existence Of War Research Articles

Wars in refuge: Locating Syrians’ intimate knowledges of violence across time and space

This article examines the intimate entanglements of war and refuge. Situated within feminist political geography, I trace the ways in which war is at play in refugees' journeys for safety. Drawing on ethnographic research with Syrian refugees living in Denmark, my research shows the intimate contours of war in ways that disrupt conventional boundaries and definitions of war in two critical ways. First, I show how the war in Syria reverberates in Syrians' lives in refuge. Second, I unpack how Denmark -- a country that is purported to be a place of peace and protection from war -- is experienced by Syrians as a place of war. Taken together these findings call attention to how refugees themselves draw on and articulate geographical imaginations and knowledges of war, violence, and safety as they try to make new lives as refugees. I argue that the existence of war in refuge necessitates rethinking a broader set of questions about war; including where war is, what counts as war, and who decides. In doing so, this article contributes to feminist political geographers' and postcolonial scholars’ efforts to unsettle and decolonize conventional understandings of war.

Hybrid War as a Phenomenon of Semantic Postmodern Discourse with Emphasis on the Military Constant as a Factor of National Security

The article states the core thesis about two asymmetric modes of existence of war – physical and discursive. The purpose of the article is to substantiate the analytical and practical necessity of distinguishing between two modes of existence of hybrid warfare as a phenomenon of physical reality and as a discursive construct, as well as to raise questions about the value specificity of the relationship between them. The methodology of work represents the implication of two asymmetric modes of war existence – physical and discursive. The relationship between the two modes can be described in particular through modern cognitive-semantic and communicative approaches. Analysis, synthesis (thesis-antithesis), description, distinction, historical perspective, forecasting and hermeneutic tools of comprehension are the core methods of this work. In the military (material) dimension, any military confrontation in general (and the Russian-Ukrainian conflict in particular) is localized, while the discourse of this hybrid war has become global. The interpretive component of hybrid warfare is implemented through discursive verbal-semiotic means. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of the concept of victory. The Ukrainian dimension embodies the postmodern practical representation of the analysis of the problem of hybrid warfare as a war of interpretations.

Perang, Repetisi, dan Kosmos: Sebuah Etnografi tentang Perang pada Masyarakat Lembah Agung Baliem

Perang, diakui atau tidak, selalu menjadi pilihan “jalan keluar” bagi masyarakat arkais ataupun masyarakat modern. Sebagai sesuatu yang lekat dengan semua budaya, perang memiliki peran dan fungsi yang hampir sama yakni mencapai keseimbangan baru. Melalui tulisan ini, penulis mencoba untuk memahami perang melalui kerangka budaya masyakat Lembah Baliem. Membaca perang dari budaya yang masih cenderung “asli” akan memudahkan kita untuk membaca berbagai bentuk perang di berbagai budaya ataupun berbagai masa. Tulisan ini membahasa mengenai perang adat Masyarakat Baliem. Perang merupakan hal yang tidak dapat dipisahkan dalam keseluruhan hidup Masyarakat Lembah Baliem. Tanpanya, penegasan identitas manusia Baliem tak utuh. Relasi sosial dan kekerabatan antara masyarakat Lembah Baliem diperkuat dengan adanya perang. Perang menjadi penghubung masa kini dan masa lampau sekaligus menempatkan setiap individu dalam keseimbangan kosmik.

Law at the End of War

As the United States begins to withdraw troops from Afghanistan in the coming year, courts will increasingly face the task of interpreting the dozens of federal laws whose operation depends on the existence of war. The 2009 Military Commissions Act (MCA), for instance, makes offenses triable by military commission “only if the offense is committed in the context of and associated with hostilities.” The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) empowers the President to target or detain certain individuals only “for the duration of these hostilities.” Scholars have long assumed that the determination whether or not the United States is at war is a political question, beyond the power of the courts to consider. This Article challenges that view, demonstrating that courts have repeatedly engaged such questions in statutory interpretation in conflicts past, and arguing that the temporal limits of the AUMF and MCA pose similarly justiciable questions. Yet while questions of war’s existence may be susceptible of judicial resolution, the possibility that a court’s answer may prevail over a differing view of the executive seems instinctively troubling. Separation of powers theory has long recognized interests in allocating decision-making authority among the branches so as to promote political accountability and take advantage of comparative institutional expertise. Such interests would seem to require that courts at least defer to executive determinations of war’s existence. Recognizing the constitutional salience of such interests, this Article contends that courts should only defer when doing so will in fact serve them. And those goals are not invariably advanced by deference to the executive in interpreting the AUMF and MCA. Active judicial participation in statutory interpretation may create incentives for congressional action that had previously been absent, making it harder for Congress to shirk participation in democratic debates in which the Constitution expects it to engage. Likewise, while some aspects of the existence-of-war inquiry may turn on predictive judgment, best reserved to executive expertise, other aspects of the inquiry turn on objective factual assessments – the kind the judiciary regularly undertakes. These dynamics, coupled with the equally salient separation-of-powers purpose of protecting individual rights, suggest a broader role for the judiciary in interpreting existence-of-war conditions than has been previously understood.

Group Psychotherapy in Israel: History and Main Trends

In Israel, the sense of belonging carries special meaning for historical and contemporary reasons. Since its establishment, Israel, with a background of centuries of persecution of the Jews, has been subjected to a consistent threat of war and terror that makes it a traumatized society. On the one hand, this intensifies social cohesiveness, especially in times of war. Yet many of the threats pose existential, political, and ideological dilemmas. The trauma of the Holocaust coupled with the continuous existence of wars enhanced the development of special kinds of groups. No wonder group therapy in Israel flourishes, perhaps more than in any other Western country (Nuttman-Shwartz & Weinberg, 2002).

Philosophy of Peace as a Developmental Alternative of Society

The knowledge of history, the knowledge for the lives of people of the world and especially the knowledge of our people, the knowledge of the viewpoints of philosophers, politicians and theoreticians about peace, as a spiritual and universal value, even today remains the orientation compass towards it. On the one hand, the aspiration of these people and nations creates the existential condition for a long lasting and a permanent peace. From the other hand, the existence of wars, regional and global conflicts in different times brings in the tables of philosophers, diplomats and statesmen the need of engagement in theoretical, political, juridical and practical level. The idea that “Peace is a concept that refers to the lack of a conflict, but at the same time represents a wider concept that refers to security in social relations or economic welfare, the equality and justice in political relations of a state, in lack of war or in lack of a conflict”, witnesses the complex nature of peace. Another definition of peace even refers to keeping balances in human relations, tolerance and solving problems through dialog and deals. But above all this rationalizing and paradigms, peace is a dominating element in democracy because it is related to honor and guarantee of freedom and basic human rights. The concept of peace, couldn’t escape from different interpretations, varying on the historic-cultural level of society. That’s why the topic “Philosophy of peace – developmental alternative of society” aims to bring into light the role and the importance of peace in the development of human society.

Building Human Rights, Peace and Development within the United Nations

War and peace have perpetually alternated in history. Consequently, peace has always been seen as an endless project, even a dream, to be in brotherhood realized by everyone across the earth. Since the XVII century the elimination of war and armed conflict has been a political and humanitarian objective of all nations in the world. Both the League of Nations and the United Nations were conceived with the spirit of eliminating the risk of war through the promotion of peace, cooperation and solidarity among Nations. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the subsequent human rights instruments were drafted with a sincere aspiration of promoting the value of peace and human rights worldwide. International practice shows the close linkage between the disregard of human rights and the existence of war and armed conflict. It follows that the role of human rights in the prevention of war and armed conflict is very important. Since 2008 the Human Rights Council has been working on the ‘Promotion of the Right of Peoples to Peace.’ Pursuant resolutions 20/15 and 23/16 the Council decided firstly to establish, and secondly to extend the mandate of the Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) aimed at progressively negotiating a draft United Nations declaration on the right to peace. The OEGW welcomed in its second session (July 2014) the approach of the Chairperson-Rapporteur, which is basically based on the relationship between the right to life and human rights, peace and development.

UWZGLĘDNIENIE “PRAWA DO ŻYCIA W POKOJU I KORZYSTANIA Z POKOJU, DO PRAW CZŁOWIEKA I DO ROZWOJU” W PRACACH RADY PRAW CZŁOWIEKA ONZ

War and peace have perpetually alternated in history. Consequently, peace has always been seen as an endless project, even a dream, to be in brotherhood realized by all members of international community. Since the XVII century the elimination of war and armed conflict has been a political and humanitarian objective of all nations in the world. Both the League of Nations and the United Nations were conceived with the spirit of eliminating the risk of war through the promotion of peace, cooperation and solidarity among Nations. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the subsequent human rights instruments were drafted with a sincere aspiration of promoting the value of peace and human rights worldwide. International practice shows the close linkage between the disregard of human rights and the existence of war and armed conflict. It follows that the role of human rights in the prevention of war and armed conflict is very important. Since 2008 the Human Rights Council has been working on the “Promotion of the right of peoples to peace.” Pursuant resolutions 20/15 and 23/16 and 27/17 the Council decided firstly to establish, and secondly and thirdly to extend the mandate of the open-ended working group (OEWG) aimed at progressively negotiating a draft United Nations declaration on the right to peace. The OEGW welcomed in its second session (July 2014) the approach of the Chairperson- Rapporteur, which is basically based on the relationship between the right to life and human rights, peace and development. Consequently, this approach could be developed during the third session of the Working Group (April 2015). At its 8th meeting, on 24 April 2015, the Group adopted the draft report on its third session ad referendum and decided to entrust the Chairperson- Rapporteur with its finalization.

The Influence of War and Party System Aging On the Ranking of Presidents

IN RECENT years a number of scholars have analyzed citizen evaluations of presidentialjob performance (see Hibbs 1982; Kenski 1977; Mueller 1970; and Stimson 1976). By analyzing shifts in public approval over time, researchers have sought to determine whether evaluations reflect, among other things, the performance of the economy and the existence of war, both of which are generally recognized as presidential responsibilities (see Cronin 1980; Koenig 1981). The results of these studies are signficant for students of democratic accountability, for they reveal the bases for citizen evaluations of presidents. Not all the studies are particularly reassuring in that regard (see especially Stimson 1976, who found little relationship between approval ratings and either war or economic conditions.) A somewhat older body of literature assesses citizen and elite evaluations of presidents through history, comparing the performance of one president with the performance of others (see Schlesinger 1980; Maranell and Dodder 1970). The significance of this literature lies in part in the sorts of ideals which are reflected in the evaluations (see Maranell and Dodder 1970). The presidents who are rated most highly serve to establish the expectations against which other presidents are judged. The expectations may in turn shape the ways in which presidents approach their jobs (on the more general concept of the texbook presidency, see Cronin 1980: chapter 3). A president who enters the office with the role models of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt could hardly approach the job the same way as a president with the role models of Buchanan, Grant, and Harding. The purpose of this analysis is to assess what conditions give rise to an image of greatness in presidents. A number of studies have asked elite or mass samples to evaluate the greatness of our various presidents through history (see Table 1). The process of rating presidents is not without its pitfalls, however (see Amlund 1964; Bailey 1966; DiClerico 1979: 331-40. First, different presidents have confronted different problems during their terms of office. As a result, some have battled clearly defined problems while others grappled with more ambiguous situations. Some presidents faced crises which threatened the survival of the nation, while others struggled with less dramatic and less momentous difficulties. Comparing performance in different situations is hazardous at best (Bailey 1966: 35-36; DiClerico 1979: 333-36). Second, the actions of a president may look different with different historical perspectives. A decision which was reviled and denounced at one point may appear brilliant later. A decision which is acclaimed in one