Necessity of a New Definition of War —Real or Fictitious Problem?
| Published date | 01 August 1972 |
| Date | 01 August 1972 |
| Author | Hans Rechenberg |
| DOI | 10.1177/004711787200400303 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
249
NECESSITY
OF
A
NEW
DEFINITION
OF
WAR
—REAL
OR
FICTITIOUS
PROBLEM?
HANS
RECHENBERG
I .
T he
actual
sphere
of
war
The
two
great
wars
of
this
century
of
which
at
least
the
second
was
a
true
world
war;
the
creation
of
a
world
organization
after
each
war,
namely
the
League
of
Nations
and
the
United
Nations;
an
increasing
number
of
treaties
and
declarations
on
renunciation
of
force
in
international
relations
did
no’t
end
warlike
conflicts
in
international
relations.
But
what
must
be
appreciated
is
the
fact
that
the
’image
of
war
has
changed
since
the
end
of
the
Second
World
War.
Three
criteria
are
essential
for the
present
imagc
of
war:
(1)
the
fact that
’classical
war’,
i.e.
the
status
of
armed
contention
between
s’tates
ending
peaceful
relations
between
them,
is
the
absolute
exception
in
present
inter-state
conflicts;
(2)
the
less
frequently
accepted
assumption
because
it
is
based
more
on
speculation
and
hope
than
on
experience,
that
an
atomic
war
will
not
be
waged
because
of
the
wide-spread
consequences
of
the
use
of
nuclear
weapons;
and
(3)
the
importance
of
political
ideology
in
contemporary
inter-
national
relations.
In
short:
The
modern,
’post-atomic’
war
is
the
internal
conflict
situation
ranging
from
riots,
demonstrations,
émeutcs,
revolts,
insurrections
to
civil
war,
revolution,
coup
d’etat,
secession,
the
so-called
&dquo;war
of
national
liberation&dquo;
etc.
-
manipulated
by
third
states
for
their
own
purposes.
These
internal
conflicts,
of
course,
can
exist
alongside
conventional
war.
It
can
no
longer
be
denied
that
international
law,
especially
the
law
of
warfare,
is
not
equal
to
dealing
with
this
newer
form
of
war
and
it
does
not
seem
that
this
situation
will
alter
in
the
near
future.
The
incorporation
of
the
East
European
states
in
the
Soviet
sphere
of
power
with
the
epilogues
of
Hungary
1956
and
Czechoslovakia
1968
on
the
one
hand,
and
the
successful
revolt,
for
example,
of
Indonesia
(1949-
50)
and
Algeria
(1954-62),
or
the
equally
successful
secession
of
East
Pakistan
alias
Bangladesh
(1971),
and
the
unsucc,essful
attempts
at
secession
of
Katanga
(1960-64)
and
Biafra
(1967-70),
on
the
other,
illustrate
this
fact.
The
examples
can
be
continued.
So
long
as,
for
instance,
Korea
and
Vietnam
(since
1945)
are
classi-
fied
not
as
a
problem
of
international
law
but
as
domestic
affairs
or
at
the
utmost
as
international
political
problems.
&dquo;Today
politics
1
As
for
guerrilla
warfare
see
Mao
Tse-Tung,
Selected
Military
Writings,
Peking
1963,
p.
267. — It
must
be
noted
that
it
is
nearly
one
hundred
years
since
John
Bassett
Moore
wrote:
"I
have
often
remarked
that
international
wars
will
cease
when
civil
wars
ends.’
(In:
International
Law
and
Some
Current
Illusions,
Washington
1906,
Vol.
VI,
p.
38).
And :
"The
causes
that
operate
to
produce
international
wars
likewise
operate
to
produce
civil
wars."
(Ibid.,
p.
239).
To continue reading
Request your trial