Conflict Management in the New Century: Back to Proxy Wars?

The article examines major conflicts of the current international system through the prism of the possibilities for being managed and regulated by the international community. At the end of the 20th – beginning of the 21st centuries the US and its closest allies initiated a series of military interventions, in Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan. In 2009, the Obama administration announced its move towards a more equitable world order in which military force would play a much smaller role in comparison with nonmilitary means and political settlement. Since then, the United States has been much more careful and selective in launching large-scale military operations, which has been clearly illustrated by the Libyan conflict. At the same time the US was still committed to regime change actions as a key vector of their foreign policy strategy. A new scenario of overthrowing hostile regimes with two consecutive options has been tested: first, conducting a "color revolution" from within (Egypt, Tunisia), and if necessary – move to the military phase by initiating humanitarian intervention (Libya). The two most pressing global crisis – Ukrainian and Syrian – clearly demonstrate a new trend – turn to the practice of conducting proxy wars instead of direct military interventions. The international community, especially global leading powers of the two alliances, are facing the necessity to form a convergent approach in order to settle contemporary conflicts, which for the time being have gained its proper dynamics and become more protracted.

1. (2000). The Kosovo Report: Conflict, International Response, Lessons Learned. Independent International Commission on Kosovo, Oxford University Press.

2. Alekseyeva T.A. (2016) The debates about "great debates": How to structure the theory of international relations? Polis. No 6. P. 9-21. DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2016.06.02

3. Bogaturov A.D. (1996). Plyuralisticheskaya odnopolyarnost' i interesy Rossii [Pluralist unipolarity and the interests of Russia]. Svobodnaya mysl'. No. 2. P.24-36.

4. Bettati M., Kouchner B. (1987). Le devoir d’ingerence: peut-on les laisser mourir? Paris, Denoel.

5. Bogaturov A.D. (2016). Protsessy mira i voiny [Struggle for peace and conflict resolution]. – Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. № 3. P.28-38. International Trends. Volume 14. No. 4 (47). October-December / 2016

6. Dynkin A.A., Baranovskii V.G., Machavariani G.I., Kobrinskaya I.Ya. (2015). Rossiya i mir: 2016. Ekonomika i vneshnyaya politika. Ezhegodnyi prognoz [Russia and the World: 2016. Economics and Foreign Policy. The annual forecast]. Moscow: IMEMO RAN.

7. Khudaikulova A.V. (2003). Teoriya i praktika «gumanitarnogo vmeshatel'stva» v sovremennoi mirotvorcheskoi deyatel'nosti (na primere Yugoslavii). Dissertatsiya na soiskanie uchenoi stepeni k.pol.nauk [Theory and practice of "humanitarian intervention" in modern peacekeeping operations (the case of Yugoslavia). Thesis for the PhD degree]. Moscow.

8. Khudaikulova A.V. (2014). Effektivnost' mezhdunarodnoi sistemy zashchity prav cheloveka v kontekste ukrainskogo krizisa [The effectiveness of the international human rights system in the context of the Ukrainian crisis] / Vestnik RUDN. International Relations. Vol. 14. № 4. P. 39-46.

9. Kokoshin A.A., Veselov V.A., Liss A.V., Fisenko I.S. (2015). Sovremennye voiny i voennoe iskusstvo: nekotorye sotsiologicheskie i politologicheskie aspekty [Modern war and military art: some sociological and political aspects]. Moscow: LENAND.

10. Kremenyuk V.A. (2004). Upravlenie i upravlyaemost' v mirovoi politike [Management and control of world politics] / Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. № 6. P.29-39.

11. Lebedeva M.M., Kharkevich M.V., Zinovieva, E.S., Koposova E.N. (2016). State archaization: The role of information technologies. Polis. No 6. P. 22-36. DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2016.06.03

12. Martynov B.F. (2016). Strany BRIKS i kontseptsii mezhdunarodnogo prava [BRICS countries and the concept of international law] / Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. № 1. P.26-37.

13. Stepanova E.A. (2012). Vooruzhennyi konflikt v Sirii i politika Rossii [The armed conflict in Syria and the policy of Russia] / Puti k miru i bezopasnosti. № 2. P.7-25.

14. Tafot'e D.D.R., Idakhosa S.O. (2016). Konflikty v Afrike i velikie derzhavy: oposredovannye voiny, zony vliyaniya ili provotsirovanie nestabil'nosti [Conflicts in Africa and the Great Powers: proxy wars, the zone of influence or provocating instability] / Vestnik RUDN, International Relations. Vol. 16. № 3.

15. Tsygankov P.A. (2015). «Gibridnye voiny» v khaotiziruyushchemsya mire XXI veka [Hybrid Wars in Chaotic World of XXI century]. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Moskovskogo universiteta.

16. The Responsibility to Protect: the Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS)/ World Federalist Movement. Institute for Global Policy. December 2001. – Mode of access: http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/ICISS%20Report.pdf

17. Varun V., Cordesman A.H. (2011). The Libyan Uprising: an Uncertain Trajectory. Centre for Strategic & International Studies.

18. Weiss T. (2011). RtoP Alive and Well after Libya. – Ethics & International Affairs. 25:3. P. 287-292.