Neue Kriege, neu betrachtet Neubetrachtung des Forschungsstands und des Fallbeispiels Bosnien und Herzegowina

This study aims to review the state of art of the new wars debate from 1999 till today. In a critical reflection it analyses Mary Kaldor’s approach and identifies three core elements that guide the follow-up case study on the Bosnian war. It does so to critically reflect on the political naivety, which welcomed the concept of New Wars as a tool to justify policies and the lack of scientific accuracy and nobility by several study programmes. The study concludes that, firstly, identity politics are not a unique feature of new wars as Kaldor argues. Rather identity must be considered the main ingredient in each Conflict. Secondly it must be questioned in how far wars today can be compared to their predecessors since the quality those wars are analysed increased tremendously. Peace and Conflict Research are one of these features that came up within the 1960s as well as a globalised moralisation of war. Thirdly, Kaldor argument of a brutalisation of new wars is falsified. New studies clearly falsify this argument empirically for the Bosnian war. The study infers that ten years after Kaldor introduced the conception of New Wars, there are loads of theoretical and empirical doubts that question the theory as a helpful tool in Peace and Conflict Research.