perbedaan microsoft word 2003 dan 2007 dan 2010 dan 2013

The idea that twenty-first century organised violence is different from the wars of the twentieth century has been widely debated in both the scholarly and the policy literature. War between nation-states and civil war have a given logic…21 st century violence does not fit the 20 th century mould…Violence and conflict have not been banished…But because of the success in reducing inter-state war, the remaining forms of violence do not fit neatly either into “war” or “peace”, or into “political” or “criminal” violence. Introduction Global systems of the 20 th century were designed to address inter-state tensions and civil wars. It concludes that the debate has greatly enriched the overall argument.

It argues that the obsession with the ‘newness’ of wars misses the point about the logic of new wars that there is a blurring of war and crime but it is important to address the political elements of new wars that, although the data should be used with caution, it does seem to offer support for some elements of the new war thesis and that the argument is indeed post-Clausewitzean because new wars are not ‘contests of wills’ but more similar to a mutual enterprise. It addresses four components of the debate: whether new wars are ‘new’ whether new wars are war or crime whether the data supports the claims about new wars and whether new wars are ‘post-Clausewitzean’. It argues that ‘new wars’ should be understood not as an empirical category but rather as a way of elucidating the logic of contemporary war that can offer both a research strategy and a guide to policy. This article reviews the literature on ‘new wars’.

Perbedaan microsoft word 2003 dan 2007 dan 2010 dan 2013