Articles

The article presents an analysis of the deliberative approach applied to the long-term resolution of ethnic confl icts. Starting from an examination of the works by I.M. Young, T. Walzer and I. O’Flynn on the deliberative approach, the article demonstrates that the basic features of this paradigm are able to combine the main characteristics of more traditional methods in confl ict resolution, the consociational and integrative. By conceptualizing active political participation as a property belonging to individuals and not only to representatives of certain groups, the theory of deliberative democracy emphasizes the role of “publicity” and “tolerance,” instead of “inclusion” of representatives of ethnic groups suggested by the consociational approach, and “reciprocity” instead of “moderation” advocated by the integrative model. Finally, the article provides an analysis of the main deliberative strategies to reduce tension between ethnic groups in the process of confl ict resolution, concluding that specifi c deliberative practices can be successfully applied.

The article examines the Free Syrian Army, one of the largest Syrian insurgent group that takes part in armed confl ict against Bashar al-Assad’s government. The article reveals how the nature and characteristics of this insurgent group aff ected its development during the Syria Civil War. The fi rst part of the article provides a general background of the group and its principles. The following part sketches out the theoretical framework providing the necessary anchor for the main hypothesis explored in the article, namely that the nature and character of the insurgent group determine its subsequent evolution. Starting from the assumption that there are three diff erent types of insurgent groups: political, religious and ethnic, the article focuses on the diff erences between the creation of ethnic and non-ethnic groups and defi nes how the nature of the group aff ects the development of the Free Syrian Army. Furthermore, the article provides an analysis of how, between 2012 and 2018, this insurgent group was able to manage and control its territory, develop its military potential and infl uence the numbers of its members. Finally, the Free Syrian Army is compared with another insurgent group, the 19th of April Movement (M- 19), active in Colombia during 1970s–1990s. Through this lens, the article argues that by looking at the nature of an insurgent group, it can be possible to predict its capacity and chances of success.

Great powers can play a central role in the process of regional integration, as a driving force of the integration, a provider of international public goods, a rule-maker, an initiator of regional mechanisms and as the founder of specifi c regional organizations. Russia and China are playing such a central role in the integration process in Eurasia through a selective use of opportunities provided by the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and the Belt and Road Initiative. Where the EAEU contributes to an increase in trade volume between its members, the SCO ensures a safe and stable external environment, and the Belt and Road Initiative is primarily focused on infrastructure development. Russia remains the driving force of post-Soviet integration, especially in the security sphere. The trans-regional nature of Russia allows it to borrow and process the experience and economic resources of both Europe and Asia, bringing together these two continents. At the same time, Russia is the initiator of integration projects and the rule-maker. China seeks to strengthen its role as an initiator and rule-maker of regional integration. Cooperating with partners and free-riders, it is ready to take on the role of a provider of global public goods.

The article attempts to make a conceptual interpretation of the hybrid war phenomenon integrating it in the broader fi eld of political science. The authors consistently separate scientifi c and non-scientifi c interpretations of the phenomenon, define various disciplinary frameworks for its interpretation and analyze contemporary literature on the topic. Based on the historical and comparative analysis of diff erent cases of hybrid war through the lens of discourse analysis, the article provides a defi nition of the notion putting it in relationship with concepts of conventional war, smart power, “legal” and “political war.” As a result, hybrid war is defi ned as a combination of concrete military action and other tools able to infl uence political institutions, regimes and processes. Thus, hybrid war as a political phenomenon is part of the (geo)political strategy of an actor and consequently a conscious and goal-oriented action. Furthermore, the article notes that taking into consideration that communication is a system forming process in modern politics, the interpretation of hybrid warfare must look at the role of information and communication as key components of the concept. In fact, it is exactly the domination over the realm of information which determines the specifi cs of the modern confl ict as it appears more and more important not the victory as such, but rather how it is communicated and presented in the information fi eld. In turn, the infl uence on information processes is carried out through political technologies and refl ection management.