Changing Nature of Warfare

Introduction

• The term conflict is used to describe a variety of situations, such as fights, debates, arguments, wars, clashes between or among groups, terrorism, insurgency, religious extremism, and similar acts.

• Conflict has been an integral part of human affairs since historical times, when humans began living in groups, evolving through a complex process of conflict and efforts to manage and resolve it.

• The origin of the word conflict can be traced to the Latin word configure, meaning “to strike together,” originally with a physical connotation rather than a moral one.

• Over time, the meaning of conflict has evolved, reflecting sociological, psychological, economic, and political aspects of human life.

• In Social Sciences and International Relations, conflict is considered a complex concept with divergent definitions and perspectives.

• The nature and meaning of conflict are context-centric, determined by political, social, economic, and strategic factors at both the international system level and within a state.

• Historically, inter-state armed conflict or war was the dominant form of international conflict, with wars seen as an extension of politics to achieve political objectives (as noted by Carl von Clausewitz).

• Trends in international conflicts suggest that the nature of conflict is changing, with contemporary conflicts differing from wars in the early 20th century, especially in Europe.

• Professor Sir Michael Howard highlighted that the future nature of conflict is unpredictable, and it’s important not to be too far off the mark when adjusting to the revealed nature of conflict.

• The Second World War led to debates on the utility of war as an instrument of politics due to its lethality and destruction.

• The Cold War (1945–1991) was marked by ideological and strategic rivalry between the US and USSR and saw a decrease in inter-state armed conflict, largely due to balance of power, the existence of nuclear weapons, and technological advancements.

• Despite the Cold War’s focus on nuclear deterrence, it also saw decolonization, struggles for self-determination, and fights against political, social, and economic injustice.

• The Cold War period led to the emergence of non-state actors as parties to conflict, often used as tools in proxy wars between nations.

• The disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991 ended the Cold War and bipolarity in the international system.

• After the Cold War, the definition of conflict expanded to include non-military dimensions, incorporating new types of conflicts in the international system.

• The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States radically changed the discourse on conflict and security, leading to an uncertain security scenario characterized by “no war, no peace.”

Evolutions of Meaning and Scope of International Conflict

• The realist paradigm dominated the understanding of conflict and security in international relations for a long time.

• The realist viewpoint on international conflicts is based on two major assumptions:

  • States are the prime actors in the international system.

  • International conflicts are driven by a state’s quest for security against external threats.

• These threats are primarily military in nature, requiring the building up of military capability because conflicts are considered an integral part of the international system.

• According to this perspective, sources of conflict lie in the international system and inter-state relationships.

• This understanding emerged from the realist demarcation between domestic order and international anarchy, where war is an ever-present possibility.

• In the absence of an international authority to ensure compliance, states rely on their own capabilities to ensure security.

• The self-help system leads to a security dilemma, which results in an arms race that threatens the overall security of the system (as noted by Kenneth Waltz, 1979).

• This realist worldview was heavily influenced by the existence of nuclear weapons, great power rivalry, and the balance of power.

Convergence of ‘International and Non-International Conflicts’

• Inter-state armed conflict was long viewed as the dominant form of international conflict.

• International law regulating armed conflicts distinguished between international and non-international conflicts.

• International armed conflicts (referred to as war) were understood as armed conflicts between two states, while non-international conflicts (i.e., civil war) were seen as armed conflicts between a state and an internally located insurgent movement.

• Internal armed conflicts or civil wars were viewed as domestic concerns, outside the purview of international legal regimes, as states were unwilling to allow international regulations on what they considered internal political issues.

• The dichotomy between international and non-international armed conflicts in international humanitarian law has been widely criticized.

• The intensity and brutality of the Spanish Civil War and the Second World War highlighted the need for states to update laws of war to include non-international armed conflicts.

• The International Committee of Red Cross presented a report in 1948, recommending that the Geneva Conventions apply international humanitarian law to all cases of armed conflict not of an international character, especially civil war, colonial conflicts, or wars of religion.

• The Geneva Conventions did not fully accept this proposal.

• The adopted Common Article 3 defines non-international armed conflict as “armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties.”