Search

Search Results

• Contemporary Approaches to Sociological Reinterpretation of the Functions of Armed Forces

  Arevik Hambardzumyan

  Article Preview

  Abstract

  While relatively stable, the functions of the armed forces and the ways of their implementation still undergo certain changes from time to time. This creates difficulties for their theoretical and methodological interpretation, as well as the need to rethink the concepts of the army in military sociology. The late 20th and early 21st centuries are considered by military sociologists to be a key period in terms of changing social roles, mission, functions and structure of the armed forces. The article pays special attention to theoretical approaches to their rethinking in the modern army.

  References

  Edmunds, T. (2006). What are armed forces for? The changing nature of military roles in Europe. International Affairs, 82(6), 1059․ Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2346.2006.00588.x

  Huntington, S. (1957). The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil–Military Relations, Harvard University Press Massachusetts, Cambridge

  Janowitz, M. (1960). The professional soldier. A Social and Political Portrait, Free Press, Glencoe. Doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/1891771

  Moskos, Ch., Williams, J. & Segal D. (2000). The Postmodern Military: Armed Forces after the Cold War, 1st Edition, Oxford University press, Oxford

  Shaw, M. (2000). The Development of “Common –Risk” Society: A theoretical Overview”, Military and Society in Twenty First Century Europe, A comparative Analysis, Transaction Publishers, 13-26. Doi: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315124490-3

  Shaw, M. (1991). Post Military Society: Militarism, Demilitarization, and War at the end of Twentieth Century, Temple University Press

  Beck, U. (1986). “Risk Society Towards a New Modernity”. SAGE publications, US, CA

  Berdal, M. (1992). Book Review: Martin Shaw, Post-Military Society: Militarism, Demilitarization and War at the End of the Twentieth Century,Cambridge: Polity Press, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 21(3), 544–546. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298920210030417

  Burk, J. (1994). The Military in New Times: Adapting Armed Forces to a Turbulent World, Westview Press, London and New York, 3-6

  Aglyan, V. (2015). Mijazgayin hierarkhik haraberutyunneri martahravernery, Noravanq, 21-rd dar, 5(63), Yerevan, 26

  Callaghan, J. & Kernic F. (2003). New missions and tasks for the Post-Modern Military. Armed Forces and International Security: Global Trends and Issues, Lit Verlag Munster, 41

  Burk, J. (1994). The Military in New Times Adapting Armed Forces to a Turbulent World, Westview Press, London and New York, 7-8

  Levy, Y. (2010). The essence of the “Market Army”, Public Administration review, 70(3), 378-389. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02152.x

  Edmunds, T. (2010). The defence dilemma in Britain, International Affairs, 86(2), 377–394. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2346.2010.00887.x

  Gadjiev, K. (2003). Geopolitika Kavkaza. Moscow, 8

  Fjader, Ch. (2014). The nation-state, national security and resilience in the age of globalization, National Emergency Supply Agency (NESA), Helsinki, Finland, Vol. 2, No. 2, 114–129. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/21693293.2014.914771

  DiIorio, J. (1992). Feminism and war: Theoretical issues and debates. Reference Services Review, 20(2), 1992, 51–68. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/eb049153

  Jaquette, J. (2003). Feminism and the Challenges of the “Post-Cold War” World. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 5(3), 331–354. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1461674032000122704

  Nye, J. (2017). Soft power: the origins and political progress of a concept. Palgrave Communications, 2. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2017.8