„УПОТРЕБЉИВОСТ“ СИЛЕ ЗА ОСТВАРИВАЊЕ СПОЉНОПОЛИТИЧКИХ ЦИЉЕВА У 21. ВЕКУ: РУСКЕ ИНТЕРВЕНЦИЈЕ У ГРУЗИЈИ (2008) И НА КРИМУ (2014)
THE “USEABILITY” OF FORCE TO ACHIEVE FOREIGN POLICY GOALS IN THE 21ST CENTURY: RUSSIAN INTERVENTIONS IN GEORGIA (2008) AND IN CRIMEA (2014)

Author(s): Vladimir Trapara
Subject(s): Politics / Political Sciences, Law, Constitution, Jurisprudence, International Law, Military policy, Geopolitics
Published by: Институт за међународну политику и привреду
Keywords: use of force; international relations in the 21st century; Russia; Georgia; Crimea; "hybrid warfare"; identity; international law
Summary/Abstract: One of the achievements of international law in the 20th century is the outlawing of the threat and use of force as a foreign policy tool, with the exception of self-defense and collective UN actions. Nevertheless, the use of this tool remains widespread in international relations in the 21st century, although due to changed circumstances, it often does not bring the desired results and is even counter-productive. The author argues that the use of force, under certain conditions, can be an effective means of achieving foreign policy goals in the 21st century as well. These conditions are as follows: that in addition to the classical engagement of military forces, the use of force should be accompanied by a combination of various non-military means (so-called "hybrid warfare"); that the use of force should be provided with some kind of, at least, quasi-international legal framework; that the identity context of the area where force is applied should be taken into account. By examining two successful cases of Russia's use of force - in Georgia (2008) and Crimea (2014), the author seeks to show the following: how Russia met the above conditions and achieved greater efficiency than in some other cases of the use of force in the 21st century; how Russia made progress in the doctrine and practice of the use of force in the period 2008–2014, which resulted in the greater efficiency of the Crimean intervention compared to the Georgian one.

• Details
• Contents