Abstract ▼

In the first quarter of the 21st century, despite all forms of social and other progress, the world has not achieved lasting peace. Social conflict and war, as its worst form, are as old as humanity itself, and it is increasingly evident that they will disappear only when humanity itself disappears. While numerous scientists and the professional public focus on studying conflicts and wars, the study of development, peace and stability has remained on the margins of science. Although there are currently 56 conflicts worldwide, most states are in some form of peace. The research addresses how developed countries secure safety and the extent to which development and security are interrelated. The research focuses on both developed and least-developed countries, examining the factors that drive state development across political, economic, ecological, social and military dimensions, and how these factors are guided through political governance to ensure security at all levels. The aim of the paper is to describe and explain the factors that build peace and influence the security of states. Analysis of various global development reports has indicated that military power, economic development and democracy have an impact, but are not decisive for the peace and security of states. The study concludes that education, particularly a high proportion of highly educated citizens, is the key factor for development, peace and stability.

Abstract ▼

This study examines how the Russian invasion of Ukraine affects the security strategies of Nordic countries. In light of this increased threat, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark have reevaluated their defence strategies. Finland and Sweden, long-time adherents of neutrality and nonalignment, joined NATO; Denmark integrated entirely into the European Union’s defence cooperation. A comparative method was used to examine changes in the policies of these countries. Theoretical frameworks, such as neorealism, constructivism, and crisis management theory, are used to examine the reasons behind their choices. Neorealism explains how views on the Russian threat have influenced military integration approaches, while constructivism explores the influence of identity and norms in determining foreign policy. Crisis management theory explains how Nordic nations have adjusted their security policies to respond to international security challenges. Through qualitative analysis of documents and discourse analysis, the motivations influencing these decisions were explored. The findings indicate that the perceived threat from Russia has primarily driven a change in the defence policies of the Nordic countries, which will have long-term implications not only for them but also for the future role of NATO and the EU in Northern Europe. In doing so, this study contributes to understanding how these states have shaped future collective security in Europe.

Abstract ▼

This article analyzes the impact of the China-Japan confrontation in the East China Sea (2012–2022) on ASEAN’s geopolitical architecture and regional coordinating role. Originating from Japan’s „nationalization” of the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands in 2012, the China-Japan rivalry transitioned from manageable tensions to protracted strategic confrontation, creating indirect spillover effects on Southeast Asia. The study argues that this complexity stems from the intertwining of geopolitical competition and deep economic interdependence. Applying balance of power theory by Kenneth Waltz, balance of threat theory by Stephen Walt, and hedging strategy, the research demonstrates that ASEAN countries exhibit four stratified response patterns contingent upon threat perception and capacity, while ASEAN faces challenges to its centrality and consensus-building mechanisms yet demonstrates institutional adaptability.

Abstract ▼

Modern technologies and digital channels of communication have a significant impact on public opinion and the dynamics of propaganda, because in modern armed conflicts and international affairs, the media do not have the role of only transmitting information, but become key instruments in shaping narratives that can contribute to the legitimization of military actions, the demonization of the enemy, and the relativization of human rights violations. This paper analyzes the role of the media as a means of war propaganda and examines the consequences that such use has on the realization of the right to free opinion and expression, as one of the fundamental rights guaranteed by international documents. Through a normative analysis of international instruments and case studies, the paper explores the boundaries between free expression and war propaganda, as well as the risks that media manipulation carries for democratic discourse. Special emphasis is placed on the phenomenon of selective empathy, censorship and self-censorship, but also on the challenges that arise from the spread of misinformation on social networks. In addition, the paper examines how contemporary information environments shape war narratives through both geopolitical narrative competition and specific communication techniques such as emotional framing, visual personalization and algorithmically mediated visibility. This paper aims to offer a critical review of contemporary media practices in the conditions of armed conflicts and to point out the need for balancing between the right to information and protection against the instrumentalization of the public through propaganda.

Abstract ▼

This article examines how power, discourse, and law interact to drive escalation in the Israel–Iran rivalry. It asks under what conditions a claim of self-defence crosses into unlawful prevention. The framework combines structural realism, offensive realism, and securitization theory with doctrinal analysis of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter and key International Court of Justice rulings. The June 2025 strikes sequence serves as case study, drawing on UN debates, public statements, and open-source intelligence. Findings indicate three overlapping dynamics. First, structural insecurity incentivises anticipatory action: Israel institutionalised preventive logic as strategic culture. Second, securitizing speech acts, such as Iran’s existential rhetoric, transform threats into justification for extraordinary measures. Third, legal criteria of imminence, necessity, and proportionality are repeatedly stretched, especially when nuclear infrastructure and proxy networks are involved. International humanitarian law further limits proportionality, yet its application proved fragile in practice. The study proposes stricter evidentiary burdens for imminence, a “proportionality-plus” test for nuclear sites, and inclusion of proxies in necessity assessments. Together, these adjustments would narrow misuse of self-defence and strengthen legal restraint in high-risk rivalries.