Przejdź do głównego menu Przejdź do sekcji głównej Przejdź do stopki
SM baner

Tom 73 Nr 3 (2020): Westlessness czyli zmierzch Zachodu 2.0?

Bezpieczeństwo

Współpraca cywilno-wojskowa NATO: oczekiwania i konflikt roli

DOI: https://doi.org/10.35757/SM.2020.73.3.02
Przesłane: 4 czerwca 2021
Opublikowane: 30 marca 2021

Abstrakt

In the context of contemporary peacekeeping operations, NATO states established civil-military cooperation (CIMIC) – a military function aiming at maintaining contact between the NATO armed forces and other civilian and military actors present in an area of military operations. As a result of their tasks, CIMIC soldiers are confronted with various expectations pertaining to their behaviour, principles and values. This pool of normative requirements includes contradictory expectations formulated by civilian and military reference groups, leading to the emergence of a role conflict. Building on the theoretical assumptions of  structural symbolic interactionism and the division into a “warrior” and “peacekeeper” role of a soldier, this article presents expectations that comprise the role of a CIMIC soldier and the areas of role conflict experienced by members of CIMIC units. It also offers a reflection on the role of a contemporary soldier. The article is based on interviews with CIMIC soldiers, observations and content analysis of NATO CIMIC documents.

Bibliografia

  1. Bąk T., Misje stabilizacyjne i operacje pokojowe metodą rozwiązywania konfliktów militarnych, „Zeszyty Naukowe WSOWL” 2012, tom 1, nr 163, s. 185–206.
  2. Blumer H., Symbolic interactionism. Perspective and method, University of California Press, Berkeley–Los Angeles 1986.
  3. Broesder W. A., T. P. Op den Buijs, Vogelaar A., Euwema M.C., Can soldiers combine swords and ploughshares?: The construction of the warrior-peacekeeper role identity survey (WPRIS), „Armed Forces & Society” 2015, vol. 41, issue 3, s. 519–40.
  4. Broesder W. A., Vogelaar A., Euwema M. C., The peacekeeping warrior. A theoretical model, [w:] Blurring military and police roles, eds M. Easton, M. den Boer, J. Janssens, R. Moelker, T. Vanderbeken, Eleven International Publishing, The Hague 2010, s. 171–184.
  5. Coker C., The warrior ethos. Military culture and the war on terror, Routledge, London–New York 2007.
  6. French S. E., The code of the warrior. Exploring warrior values past and present, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham 2004.
  7. Gaub F., Military integration after civil wars. Multiethnic armies, identity and post-conflict reconstruction, Routledge, London–New York 2011.
  8. Jelusic L., Motivation for participation in peace support operations initial findings among Slovenian soldiers, „Connections” 2004, vol. 3, issue 4, s. 35–42.
  9. King A., On cohesion, [w:] Frontline. Combat and cohesion in the twenty-first century, ed. A. King, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2015, s. 3–23.
  10. King A., Discipline and punish. Encouraging combat performance in the citizen and professional army, [w:] Frontline. Combat and cohesion in the twenty-first century, ed. A. King, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2015, s. 93–117.
  11. Kozerawski D., Rola i zadania oficerów Wojska Polskiego w międzynarodowych operacjach pokojowych i stabilizacyjnych w latach 1953–2007, „Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis” 2008, tom 44, nr 3079, s. 69–74.
  12. Kupiecki R., NATO a operacje pokojowe. Studium sojuszu w transformacji, Wyd. A. Marszałek, Warszawa–Toruń 1998.
  13. Lakomy M., Misja International Security Assistance Force w Afganistanie jako wyzwanie dla bezpieczeństwa międzynarodowego, „Studia Politicae Universitatis Silesiensis” 2013, tom 11, s. 194–230.
  14. Lațici T., The role of armed forces in the fight against coronavirus, Briefing Parlamentu Europejskiego, PE 649.401, kwiecień 2020.
  15. Lloyd G., Van Dyk G., The challenges, roles and functions of civil-military coordination officers in peace-support operations. A theoretical discussion, „Scientia Militaria – South African Journal of Military Studies” 2007, vol. 35, issue 2, s. 68–94.
  16. Matyasik M., Doktryna NATO „kompleksowego podejścia” w zarządzaniu współczesnymi konfliktami zbrojnymi, [w:] Polityczno-wojskowe implikacje członkostwa Polski w NATO: z perspektywy 15-lecia obecności w strukturach Sojuszu, red. T. Kośmider, Wydawnictwo Akademii Obrony Narodowej, Warszawa 2014, s. 172–187.
  17. Mazurkiewicz A., The dynamics of the contemporary military role. In search of flexibility, „Annales UMCK Sectio K Politologia” 2018, vol. 25, issue 2, s. 7–24.
  18. Michael K., Ben-Ari E., Contemporary peace support operations. The primacy of the military and internal contradictions, „Armed Forces & Society” 2011, vol. 37, issue 4, s. 657–679.
  19. Miller L., Moskos C., Humanitarians or warriors? Race, gender, and combat status in operation restore hope, „Armed Forces & Society” 1995, vol. 21, issue 4, s. 615–637.
  20. Nuciari M., Models and explanations for military organization. An updated reconsideration, [w:] Handbook of the sociology of the military, ed. G. Caforio, Springer International Publishing, New York 2006, s. 61–86.
  21. Olsthoorn P., Military ethics and virtues. An interdisciplinary approach for the 21st century. Routledge, London–New York 2011.
  22. Rietjens S. J. H., Civil-Military Interaction: from practice to theory, [w:] Effective Civil-Military Interaction in peace operations: theory and practice, eds G. Lucius, S. J. H. Rietjens, Springer, Cham 2016, s. 275–90.
  23. Rietjens S. J. H., van Fenema P. C., Essens P., ‘Train as you fight’ revisited. Preparing for a comprehensive approach, „PRISM” 2013, vol. 4, issue 2, s. 17–20.
  24. Rintakoski K., Autti M., Comprehensive approach–trends, challenges and possibilities for cooperation in crisis prevention and management, [w:] Helsinki seminar, Helsinki 2008, dostępny w internecie [dostęp: 26 III 2021]: <https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/3185D85A55E647638525750B0076D291-comprehensive-approach.pdf>.
  25. Rollins J. W., Civil‐Military Cooperation (CIMIC) in crisis response operations. The implications for NATO, „International Peacekeeping” 2011, vol. 8, issue 1, s. 122–129.
  26. Royl W., Military identity under pedagogical implications, [w:] Military pedagogy. An international survay, ed. H. Florian, Peter Lang, Bern 2002, s. 189–209.
  27. Rubinstein R. A., Peacekeeping under fire. Culture and intervention, Paradigm Publishers, Boulder–London 2008.
  28. Schreiber H., Świadomość międzykulturowa: Od militaryzacji antropologii do antropologizacji wojska, wyd. 1, Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, Warszawa 2013.
  29. Serpe R. T., Stability and change in self. A structural symbolic interactionist explanation, „Social Psychology Quarterly” 1987, vol. 50, issue 1, s. 44–55.
  30. Stryker S., Traditional symbolic interactionism, role theory, and structural symbolic interactionism. The road to identity theory, [w:] Handbook of sociological theory, ed. J. H. Turner, Springer, New York 2001, s. 211–231.
  31. Stryker S., Macke A., Status inconsistency and role conflict, „Annual Review of Sociology” 1978, vol. 4, s. 57–90.
  32. Stryker S., Vryan K., The symbolic interactionist frame, [w:] Handbook of social psychology, red. J. Delamater, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York 2003.
  33. Tripodi P., Peacekeepers, moral autonomy and the use of force, „Journal of Military Ethics” 2006, vol. 5, issue 3, s. 214–232.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Podobne artykuły

<< < 1 2 3 > >> 

Możesz również Rozpocznij zaawansowane wyszukiwanie podobieństw dla tego artykułu.