Book chapter
Kosovo
History of the Kosovo wars from a sciological perspective
The article deals with F. Kafka’s attitude to the First World War, reflected in his letters, diaries and prose.
The international team of authors from all over the world is united in the book by the disire to work out some practical guide lines against violence. Violence reigns supreme in our political and even daily life. Violence is the major threat to mankind. Nevertheless we do not really understand the scope of the threat. The book addresses the problem of violence from all possible perspectives. The major concern of the book is the practical applicability of nonviolence. The authors claim that our world can and should be nonviolent and that is the only possible way to save the planet and ourselves.
The legitimacy of NATO’s war against Serbia in March 1999 has been widely debated. In the previous chapter, Carl Ceulemans concludes that justice is on the side of NATO’s military campaign. But his analysis is not the only one possible within the framework of Just War Theory. In the following, a different analysis is presented. It shows that while operating within the framework of Just War Theory one can arrive at quite different conclusions from his.
Collection of articles is based on materials RUSO Conference October 26, 2013 and primarily focuses on different aspects of origin , course and consequences of the First World War. We investigate the approaching of the war , its relation in Russian and foreign historiography , problems of international relations of the era , the situation in the army and navy. The second major unit materials collection associated with the history of the Great Patriotic War. Considered moral questions of the political climate in the Soviet Union before and at the beginning of this war, the economy , the activities of individual units. Again referred to the exploits of heroes Panfilov . The collection also has special film Prutian campaign in 1711 , Russia's participation in the anti-Napoleonic wars , as well as a number of other problems of Russian history is closely connected with the history of some foreign countries . The collection is intended primarily for historians - researchers, university professors, as well as for all those interested in domestic history of modern and contemporary .
In the Social Science, as different from the history of ideas, the steady preconception of viewing Hobbes as the philosopher who considered human to be a rational and selfish being exists. Such human beings in their natural condition set the war of all against all, but only the strong power can preserve them in the condition of peace. However true Hobbesian views as to the human relationships have almost nothing in common with these trivial suggestion. The article deals with some aspects of Hobbesian anthropology and his doctrine of the virtue. It is argued that the social order is represented by Hobbes as very agile and complex in its structure. At the first glance his philosophy could seem very legible and solely constructivist, designed as the triumph of coherence and implacable logic. At depth - it is not even contradictory, but the terrain of the questions without any answers.
Theorists and practical men discussed about the nature of amortization in Russia at the turn of the 19—20 centuries. The formation of the accounting of amortization in Russia is considered in the article in the framework of this discussion.
Hobbesian philosophy holds the attention of the researches up to now. The most discussable questions are the following ones: 1. Whether the philosophy of Hobbes is to be considered in relation to his physics and metaphysics or it is an autonomous area of contemplation? 2. Is the philosophy of Hobbes immanently intelligible, as a system of interrelated suppositions or it is to be interpreted out of the historical context of his published works? 3. Is his bellum omnium contra omnes merely an intellectual construction or this notion can be referred to the historical and universal facts of social life design?
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.