Editorial: State of War: Human Order and Social Orders
In the Editorial the overview of the submissions is provided and general framework for the issue is introduced.
The article considers punishment as a source of legitimization of war. The author traces the history of punitive paradigm of war, notes the moment when it was replaced by the legalist paradigm and considers the reactualization of the idea of punishment as a just basis of war. In order to to deal with these issues, the author considers the formation of the punitive doctrine of war in the writings of Christian authors of 3-4 centuries. He analyzes the logic of justifying the war that appeared in the thoughts of Ambrose of Milan and Augustine Aurelius. Both theologians indicated the necessity to punish sin as a key cause of war. Next, the process of secularization of the doctrine of just war in Modern times is considered. During this period, the legalist paradigm of war had been developed. The right of states to protect their sovereignty and territorial integrity became most relevant just cause of war. Then, the author notes appeal to the idea of protection of human rights as a basis for justifying war, typical for the modern just war theory. Also, the revival of interest to the idea of punishment is considered and the possible reasons for the reactualization of the punitive paradigm in the turn of the 20-21 centuries are examined.
The article considers the role that the images of the saints play in the discourses of war and violence in contemporary Russian Orthodoxy, primarily among Orthodox nationalists, parish subculture and movements of 2012–2018. Taking Mark Juergensmeyer’s concept of “cosmic war”, the authors examine the images of the saints as the personifications of the sacred that express certain meanings in the context of the symbolic struggle between good and evil. The saints establish the sacred cosmos, protect it, purify it, and sacrifice themselves for its sake, and their examples is used both in constructing the narrative and performing of the militant-minded believers. In the article, the images of the saints are classified into four categories: warrior-rulers, purifying rulers, protectors of faith, and soldiers martyrs. Particular attention is paid to the role of saints in legitimizing real wars, public conflicts and rallies against the demonstration of “blasphemous” films, exhibitions and performances. The authors conclude that these personifications constitute an autonomous source of authority that makes “militancy” the feature of the tradition, and that the image of a particular saint is highly variable, being able to legitimize violence to a greater or lesser extent depending on the character of a group.
The article is a contribution to the ethical discussion of autonomous lethal weapons. The emergence of military robots acting independently on the battlefield is seen as an inevitable stage in the development of modern warfare because they will provide a critical advantage to an army. Even though there are already some social movements calling for a ban on “killer robots,” ethical arguments in favor of developing those technologies also exist. In particular, the utilitarian tradition may find that military robots are ethically permissible if “non-human combat” would minimize the number of human victims. A deontological analysis for its part might suggest that ethics is impossible without an ethical subject. Immanuel Kant’s ethical philosophy would accommodate the intuition that there is a significant difference between a situation in which a person makes a decision to kill another person and a situation in which a machine makes such a decision. Like animals, robots become borderline agents on the edges of “moral communities.” Using the discussion of animal rights, we see how Kant’s ethics operates with non-human agents. The key problem in the use of autonomous weapons is the transformation of war and the unpredictable risks associated with blurring the distinction between war and police work. The hypothesis of the article is that robots would not need to kill anyone to defeat the enemy. If no one dies in a war, then there is no reason not to extend its operations to non-combatants or to sue for peace. The analysis presented by utilitarianism overlooks the possibility of such consequences. The main problem of autonomous lethal weapons is their autonomy and not their potential to be lethal
In what follows I make two interrelated claims: 1. It is necessary to understand terrorism as a communicative action, not as a negative label. There are thus 5 major types of terror actions (Affective, Traditional, Value-Rational, Rational and Hyper Rational), which have little in common. The term ‘terrorism’ itself is an empty abstraction and it is impossible to ‘fight terror’. 2. Terrorism may be and often is much more morally constrained than ‘warrism’. Terroristic struggle is, at least in theory, morally superior to war. Two case studies (Russian terrorism and Chechen terrorism) are provided as empirical justification of the claims.
Most books and articles still treat leadership and ethics as related though separate phenomena. This edited volume is an exception to that rule, and explicitly treats leadership and ethics as a single domain. Clearly, ethics is an aspect of leadership, and not a distinct approach that exists alongside other approaches to leadership. This holds especially true for the for the military, as it is one of the few organizations that can legitimately use violence. Military leaders have to deal with personnel who have either used or experienced violence. This intertwinement of leadership and violence separates military leadership from leadership in other professions. Even in a time that leadership is increasingly questioned, it is still good leadership that keeps soldiers from crossing the thin line between legitimate force and excessive violence
Victory is a military success combined with prudent motives, virtuous means and sublime goals. The contemporary war of the global sovereign may be a success, but hardly ever victory. This is an asymmetric war, which has little to do with fortitude, courage or honour. In addition, this war is progressively motivated by fear, hubris and greed and the goals of this perpetual war are not about bringing peace. We are witnessing a war, disenchanted not only in terms of means, but in terms of goals and motives, which makes it unwinnable, with ethical consequences for military leadership yet unknown.
Violence is the major threat to civilization. Since the monopoly on violence belongs to political states, the core problem is the excessive violence of the states. There are two aspects to this problem: violence toward the citizens of the state, and violence toward other states. The author treats these two facets of violence as two sides of one coin. The purpose of this essay is to highlight a possible normative approach toward the violence-free society
The social and political meaning of war has changed over the history of Western civilization. Each era from Antiquity to the present has its own way of understanding war and providing it with moral assessment. At the same time, the duality of the attitude to war was steadily reproduced. People were constantly trying to tame violence, and cursing war, they were time after time looking for the excuse to keep fighting. We will try to understand why that happened answering a number of questions: What is war? How has reflection on the meaning of war changed over time? What benefit did belligerents get out of war? Can war be just and unjust? What was treated as permissible and intolerable on the battlefield? How the attitude towards war has changed since the beginning of the 21 century?
This article is talking about state management and cultural policy, their nature and content in term of the new tendency - development of postindustrial society. It mentioned here, that at the moment cultural policy is the base of regional political activity and that regions can get strong competitive advantage if they are able to implement cultural policy successfully. All these trends can produce elements of new economic development.