Milinko Vračar
LEGITIMACY AS A LIMITING FACTOR OF POLITICAL UTILITY OF MILITARY POWER
In the post-Cold War era, determined by the strong influences of globalization and the information revolution, it can be seen that military power fails to produce the expected political effects or at least those effects that could be produced in the past. One of the reasons why is that so, the authors find in the deficit of its legitimacy. The legitimacy deficit is discussed in the paper from three aspects.
First, the legitimacy of the use of force is seen in the paper through the attitude of public opinion towards the use of force. In this sense, the sensitivity of public opinion to human casualties and destruction is expected. However, the authors note that today the quality of life has become the new vital value of the nation, which is reflected in the reduced willingness of citizens to give up their acquired rights and comfort of life. The willingness of the population to make the sacrifice that the use of force entails is a measure of the legitimacy of military power.
Second, the authors point to the legality of the use of force as a source of its legitimacy. The legality of the use of force is viewed through internal and international law. Likely, the use of force that is contrary to internal and/or international law will be in a legitimacy deficit. By pointing out the illegal use of force, the military action itself is being de-legitimized and mobilizes public opinion resistance to such an act.
And thirdly, the paper analyzes how the type and character of war determines its legitimacy. It is closely related to the question of the justification of starting a war and the existence of a "just aim" of war, but also to the question of how and by what means the war is waged. The authors also point to the misuse of the term "humanitarian intervention", which is used to provide legitimacy to military action, most often aggression.
Considering the influence of legitimacy issues on the effectiveness of the use of force, the authors conclude that the success of states in imposing their own will on the opponent is no longer primarily based on their military power, at least not to the extent that it was before. Much more important today is the determination and ability of the state to combine military power with other types of national power. Only in this way will it be possible to turn a military victory in the war into a political victory, which should ensure an acceptable and long-term sustainable peace.
WAR TRANSFORMATION AT THE TURN OF THE 20TH TO THE 21ST CENTURY
During the Cold War, the key role in the war transformation had two post-war processes that took place simultaneously on the international arena. The first one was the indirect competition of a super powers for the global domination over neutral, nonaligned countries and the second one was the decolonization process. In the shadow of nuclear danger, the interaction of these processes resulted in a series of local civil wars in Third World countries behind which, as a rule, were the super powers, USA and USSR. This kind of conflict became more prevalent in the second half of the 20th century, and the traditional form of armed conflict between the states has almost disappeared. The characteristics of contemporary armed conflicts differed from traditional because one side of the conflict was a non-state actor. This has led to irregularities, nonlinearities and asymmetries of contemporary conflicts as its dominant characteristics. By strengthening Islamist transnational terrorist organizations in the period of the unipolar global order, nontraditional conflicts became global and, as such, they effectively disputed the conventional superiority of the western great powers in achieving the strategic interests. Thereby, at the beginning of the new century, international global terrorism became the key determinant of contemporary armed conflicts by what they were different considerably from the local civil conflicts from the Cold War era. The return of Russia as a great power and the rising of China’s power marked the beginning of the multipolar world. The military aspect of the foreign policy activities of the mentioned states, as well as other challengers of strategic interests of Western powers such as Iran and North Korea, is marked by the new concept of war. It included the full integration of military and non-military instruments of state power to achieve political goals in which the role of armed forces is minimized, concealed or even not necessary. This view of the new concept of war was the most significant novelty in the history of studying the war.
