将“叛乱”概念定义为一种复杂形式的政治暴力的理论和方法问题

Vojno delo Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI:10.5937/vojdelo2202041k
B. Kuzmanović, S. Blagojević
{"title":"将“叛乱”概念定义为一种复杂形式的政治暴力的理论和方法问题","authors":"B. Kuzmanović, S. Blagojević","doi":"10.5937/vojdelo2202041k","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"During the bipolar period, insurgencies were most often considered as a way of fighting for liberation from colonization, repression and other forms of political violence. However, its features as a foreign policy tool were also noticed, so at the unipolar geopolitical moment they gained greater importance. Due to such a variety of manifestations, many definitions of this complex form of political violence have emerged. The problems that researchers encounter in searching for the essential features of the concept of insurgency are semantic and substantive because it is difficult to define what insurgency is, in relation to what it is not. However, the definition of this (and every other) social phenomenon is necessary because it defines its main and constant features, structure, as well as the differences from other similar phenomena. In this way, preconditions for a common approach and joint action in solving social problems are provided. In our search for a valid definition of insurgency, the characteristic features in dictionaries, encyclopedias and lexicons have been critically compared. Also, legal (in national and foreign statutes/laws and in international humanitarian law), military (doctrinal) and research definitions have been analyzed, in order to consider the problem of defining this concept and submitting a proposal for an objective and explicit definition. After analyzing the concept of \"insurgency\" it can be concluded that insurgency in our lexical discourse is \"an armed way of expressing dissatisfaction or disagreement with the policy pursued by the government\". Besides motive, doctrinal documents emphasize other important characteristics of this phenomenon, primarily violence, political basis, illegality and its (at least initially) illegitimacy. The genus proximum, or the first term of a higher order in relation to insurgency is political violence, and insurgency differs from other forms of political violence in terms of complexity, illegality, mass and other characteristics. Recognizing nonnegativity, objectivity, content, essential precision, complexity and accuracy as features of a good definition, researchers have differently defined this social phenomenon, but it can be noticed that available definitions only partially meet the mentioned criteria. Some of the definitions emphasize goal or motive (taking over political power, overthrowing the legal order, mastering resources, implementing party policy, changing the constitutional order, etc.). Others emphasize activities or method (subversion, military pressure, coup, etc.). The third group of definitions emphasizes the features of this phenomenon (unconstitutional, violent, ideologically motivated, etc.). Based on the abovementioned, it can be concluded that insurgency, as a complex form of political violence, is difficult to define precisely, so that its definition achieves a broad consensus. Definitions evolve depending on the context in which insurgency took place or is taking place, as well as the political goals and method chosen by insurgent movement or its sponsor. Based on the analysis of available definitions of insurgency and due to the constant change of categorical concepts, different approaches in defining and researching insurgency, an operational explicit definition can be formulated: insurgency is illegal intrastate complex form of political violence used by organized armed groups in order to achieve political goals. We expose this definition to professional and scientific criticism, stating that the problem of defining the concept of \"insurgency\" will continue to change due to development of this form of political violence because goals, activities, means and methods of insurgent organizations and contexts in which insurgency happens will also permanently change in accordance with current and future socio-political conditions, as well as motives and interests of key actors in this complex form of political violence.","PeriodicalId":261517,"journal":{"name":"Vojno delo","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The theoretical and methodological problems of defining the concept of \\\"insurgency\\\" as a complex form of political violence\",\"authors\":\"B. Kuzmanović, S. Blagojević\",\"doi\":\"10.5937/vojdelo2202041k\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"During the bipolar period, insurgencies were most often considered as a way of fighting for liberation from colonization, repression and other forms of political violence. However, its features as a foreign policy tool were also noticed, so at the unipolar geopolitical moment they gained greater importance. Due to such a variety of manifestations, many definitions of this complex form of political violence have emerged. The problems that researchers encounter in searching for the essential features of the concept of insurgency are semantic and substantive because it is difficult to define what insurgency is, in relation to what it is not. However, the definition of this (and every other) social phenomenon is necessary because it defines its main and constant features, structure, as well as the differences from other similar phenomena. In this way, preconditions for a common approach and joint action in solving social problems are provided. In our search for a valid definition of insurgency, the characteristic features in dictionaries, encyclopedias and lexicons have been critically compared. Also, legal (in national and foreign statutes/laws and in international humanitarian law), military (doctrinal) and research definitions have been analyzed, in order to consider the problem of defining this concept and submitting a proposal for an objective and explicit definition. After analyzing the concept of \\\"insurgency\\\" it can be concluded that insurgency in our lexical discourse is \\\"an armed way of expressing dissatisfaction or disagreement with the policy pursued by the government\\\". Besides motive, doctrinal documents emphasize other important characteristics of this phenomenon, primarily violence, political basis, illegality and its (at least initially) illegitimacy. The genus proximum, or the first term of a higher order in relation to insurgency is political violence, and insurgency differs from other forms of political violence in terms of complexity, illegality, mass and other characteristics. Recognizing nonnegativity, objectivity, content, essential precision, complexity and accuracy as features of a good definition, researchers have differently defined this social phenomenon, but it can be noticed that available definitions only partially meet the mentioned criteria. Some of the definitions emphasize goal or motive (taking over political power, overthrowing the legal order, mastering resources, implementing party policy, changing the constitutional order, etc.). Others emphasize activities or method (subversion, military pressure, coup, etc.). The third group of definitions emphasizes the features of this phenomenon (unconstitutional, violent, ideologically motivated, etc.). Based on the abovementioned, it can be concluded that insurgency, as a complex form of political violence, is difficult to define precisely, so that its definition achieves a broad consensus. Definitions evolve depending on the context in which insurgency took place or is taking place, as well as the political goals and method chosen by insurgent movement or its sponsor. Based on the analysis of available definitions of insurgency and due to the constant change of categorical concepts, different approaches in defining and researching insurgency, an operational explicit definition can be formulated: insurgency is illegal intrastate complex form of political violence used by organized armed groups in order to achieve political goals. We expose this definition to professional and scientific criticism, stating that the problem of defining the concept of \\\"insurgency\\\" will continue to change due to development of this form of political violence because goals, activities, means and methods of insurgent organizations and contexts in which insurgency happens will also permanently change in accordance with current and future socio-political conditions, as well as motives and interests of key actors in this complex form of political violence.\",\"PeriodicalId\":261517,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Vojno delo\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Vojno delo\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5937/vojdelo2202041k\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vojno delo","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5937/vojdelo2202041k","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在两极化时期,叛乱通常被认为是从殖民、镇压和其他形式的政治暴力中争取解放的一种方式。然而,它作为外交政策工具的特点也得到了注意,因此在单极地缘政治时刻,它们变得更加重要。由于表现形式的多样性,人们对这种复杂形式的政治暴力产生了多种定义。研究人员在寻找叛乱概念的基本特征时遇到的问题是语义和实质性的,因为很难定义什么是叛乱,以及它不是什么。然而,对这种(以及其他)社会现象的定义是必要的,因为它定义了它的主要和不变的特征、结构,以及与其他类似现象的区别。这样,就为解决社会问题的共同方针和联合行动提供了先决条件。在我们寻找叛乱的有效定义的过程中,我们对词典、百科全书和词典中的特征进行了批判性的比较。此外,还分析了法律(国家和外国法规/法律以及国际人道主义法)、军事(理论)和研究定义,以便审议界定这一概念的问题,并提出一项关于客观和明确定义的建议。通过对“叛乱”概念的分析,我们的词汇话语中的叛乱是“一种表达对政府政策不满或不同意的武装方式”。除了动机之外,教义文件还强调这一现象的其他重要特征,主要是暴力、政治基础、非法性及其(至少在最初)非法性。与叛乱有关的最高级别的术语是政治暴力,叛乱在复杂性、非法性、群体性和其他特征方面不同于其他形式的政治暴力。研究者们认识到非否定性、客观性、内容性、本质精确性、复杂性和准确性是一个好的定义的特征,对这一社会现象进行了不同的定义,但可以注意到,现有的定义仅部分符合上述标准。一些定义强调目标或动机(夺取政权、推翻法律秩序、掌握资源、执行党的政策、改变宪法秩序等)。另一些则强调活动或方法(颠覆、军事压力、政变等)。第三组定义强调这一现象的特征(违宪、暴力、意识形态动机等)。综上所述,叛乱作为一种复杂的政治暴力形式,其定义难以精确界定,因此其定义获得了广泛的共识。定义的演变取决于叛乱发生或正在发生的背景,以及叛乱运动或其赞助者选择的政治目标和方法。基于对现有叛乱定义的分析,并且由于分类概念的不断变化,定义和研究叛乱的方法不同,可以制定一个可操作的明确定义:叛乱是有组织的武装团体为了实现政治目标而使用的非法国内复杂形式的政治暴力。我们对这一定义提出了专业和科学的批评,指出由于这种形式的政治暴力的发展,定义“叛乱”概念的问题将继续改变,因为叛乱组织的目标、活动、手段和方法以及叛乱发生的背景也将根据当前和未来的社会政治条件永久改变。以及在这种复杂形式的政治暴力中关键角色的动机和利益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The theoretical and methodological problems of defining the concept of "insurgency" as a complex form of political violence
During the bipolar period, insurgencies were most often considered as a way of fighting for liberation from colonization, repression and other forms of political violence. However, its features as a foreign policy tool were also noticed, so at the unipolar geopolitical moment they gained greater importance. Due to such a variety of manifestations, many definitions of this complex form of political violence have emerged. The problems that researchers encounter in searching for the essential features of the concept of insurgency are semantic and substantive because it is difficult to define what insurgency is, in relation to what it is not. However, the definition of this (and every other) social phenomenon is necessary because it defines its main and constant features, structure, as well as the differences from other similar phenomena. In this way, preconditions for a common approach and joint action in solving social problems are provided. In our search for a valid definition of insurgency, the characteristic features in dictionaries, encyclopedias and lexicons have been critically compared. Also, legal (in national and foreign statutes/laws and in international humanitarian law), military (doctrinal) and research definitions have been analyzed, in order to consider the problem of defining this concept and submitting a proposal for an objective and explicit definition. After analyzing the concept of "insurgency" it can be concluded that insurgency in our lexical discourse is "an armed way of expressing dissatisfaction or disagreement with the policy pursued by the government". Besides motive, doctrinal documents emphasize other important characteristics of this phenomenon, primarily violence, political basis, illegality and its (at least initially) illegitimacy. The genus proximum, or the first term of a higher order in relation to insurgency is political violence, and insurgency differs from other forms of political violence in terms of complexity, illegality, mass and other characteristics. Recognizing nonnegativity, objectivity, content, essential precision, complexity and accuracy as features of a good definition, researchers have differently defined this social phenomenon, but it can be noticed that available definitions only partially meet the mentioned criteria. Some of the definitions emphasize goal or motive (taking over political power, overthrowing the legal order, mastering resources, implementing party policy, changing the constitutional order, etc.). Others emphasize activities or method (subversion, military pressure, coup, etc.). The third group of definitions emphasizes the features of this phenomenon (unconstitutional, violent, ideologically motivated, etc.). Based on the abovementioned, it can be concluded that insurgency, as a complex form of political violence, is difficult to define precisely, so that its definition achieves a broad consensus. Definitions evolve depending on the context in which insurgency took place or is taking place, as well as the political goals and method chosen by insurgent movement or its sponsor. Based on the analysis of available definitions of insurgency and due to the constant change of categorical concepts, different approaches in defining and researching insurgency, an operational explicit definition can be formulated: insurgency is illegal intrastate complex form of political violence used by organized armed groups in order to achieve political goals. We expose this definition to professional and scientific criticism, stating that the problem of defining the concept of "insurgency" will continue to change due to development of this form of political violence because goals, activities, means and methods of insurgent organizations and contexts in which insurgency happens will also permanently change in accordance with current and future socio-political conditions, as well as motives and interests of key actors in this complex form of political violence.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信