Introduction

Abstract

The papers on pacifism in this issue of Philosophia were presented at an international conference in Belgrade in June 2012. Out of the twenty papers presented, Asa Kasher, Editor in Chief of Philosophia, and the two of us have chosen seven to be published, after due double-blind peer review, in Philosophia.The Belgrade conference was the 12th installment of ILECS (International Law and Ethics Conference Series). It was not conceived as a call for global war, as some might have feared-conferences on pacifism have at times been a sign of looming world wars-but arose from a need to see how the idea fits within the context of rethinking the issues of war and increased violence and hypocrisy we witness in the world today. Indeed, in times when the concept of war is facing radical changes, from attempts at its criminalization, its instrumentalization in humanitarian interventions, its usage in "asymmetric" and anti-terrorist warfare, to the ever growing privatization of warfare-pacifism might seem to be quite obsolete and redundant. Could it mean that pacifism is not an issue anymore? Or, on the contrary, is it one of those issues which are always with us, looming from the mist of unstable reality as a promise, or false promise, or as a refuge or escape? Could it even be a long awaited, even final, response to our ever increased sensitivity to many injustices around us, offering a solution which should guard us from pitfalls and predicaments of our uncertain and non-transparent future, full of threatening conflicts?Two points mentioned here seem to be of special interest: stability and transparency of the future. Those are precisely what peace should accomplish: the control of our future time. Are pacifists concerned with peace? Putting aside the problem of conflation of meanings of several close issues like civil disobedience, non-violent resistance, conflict resolution activism, or vigilance on civil rights, the problem with pacifism always seemed to be the direction of their interest. Namely, pacifism seems to be antipolitical, interested not in peace as valid and legitimate control of future time but in avoiding certain specific means (as morally wrong and forbidden), i. e. use of power and violence, to attain that state of affairs, the peace. In this sense they violate, or rather Philosophia (2013) 41:923-924

Globalization between the end and the return of history

“…To su pitanja međusobnih ili multilateralnih interesa koji zahtevaju zajednički pristup, bilo zbog svoje važnosti, bilo zato što ne mogu da se re-šavaju drugačije nego zajednički. 71 Istovremeno, sa porastom pitanja koja zahtevaju globalno rešavanja sve su brojnije ljudske delatnosti koje podrazumevaju jedinstvenu ili međunarodnu regulaciju, jer svet je sve više jedna homeostatska celina međuzavisnih delova, gde su mnogi aspekti granica između država teško održivi ili čak nemogući. 72 Otuda značaj globalnih faktora, od kojih će u punoj meri zavisiti artikulacija individualnog i zajedničkog života ljudi u budućnosti, apostrofiraju pitanja zajedničkog upravljanja koje treba da obezbedi globalni mir i podstakne blagostanje širom sveta na jedan univerzalno prihvatljiv i efikasna način, ali i dilema o tome da li je svetska vlast uopšte konačno moguća ili je reč o neostvarljivom projektu.…”

“…Dosadašnje istorijsko iskustvo ne pruža uverljive dokaze da je moguća trajna legitimnost svetske vlasti. 73 Poznata su brojna ograničenja i teškoće koje nosi ideja o političkom ujedinjavanju sveta, a promovisanje univerzalnih vrednosti praćeno je snažnim tendencijama ukidanja različitosti. U tom smislu i globalizacija, kao koncept univerzalnog svetskog društva, čini svet jednostavnijim i manjim, a asimilacija u jedan jedinstven kulturni obrazac praćena je procesima diskvalifikovanja i obeshrabrivanja razlikovanja.…”

“…Danas je evidentno da savremena ideja globalne političke zajednice, koja nužno pretpostavlja određeni kolektivni identitet i saglasnost u artikulaciji univerzalnih društvenih normi i standarda nije, pored ostalog, uspela da neutrališe različitost koja se pokazala jačom od bilo kog ujedinjujućeg procesa. 74 Zato je svet danas daleko od globalne političke zajednice i predstavlja jedan skup ili agregat različitih delova koji, primarno, imaju različite ciljeve i različite vrednosti.…”