English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In the past, several wise men have passed their judgment on a proper response to a crisis. And so, Talleyrand advised, “In critical situations, let women run things.” James Reston said in 1967, “International crises have their advantage. They frighten the weak but stir and inspire the strong.” In another bon mot, the Diplomat’s Dictionary says, “The usual response of international organizations to crises passes through predictable phases: they ignore the problem; they issue a statement of concern about it; they wring their hands while sitting on them; they declare that they remain seized of the matter; they adjourn.” Regrettably, none of these half-serious comments are helpful. Neither are the experiences of the decades of the Cold War of much assistance. During those days, several serious international crises occurred. Some of them had a truly historic and strategic nature, like the Berlin crisis in 1949 and 1961, the Suez crisis of 1956, the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, and the crisis at the end of the Yom Kippur War in 1973. Others were of lesser magnitude, with smaller possible implications, and these occurred more frequently. All have had more or less far-reaching political consequences; all have been described, debated, and analyzed at length. However, these experiences and analyses prove of limited value in understanding and preparing for today’s menace, which may bring crisis upon us. The crisis of today may be brought on by a faceless, stateless, unpredictable, irrational, immoral, non-territorial, transnational threat, created by the rise of global terrorist activities. Those who pose this threat use unpredictable instruments and methods of action spanning the widest spectrum, including various forms of warfare affecting mass populations. The old tenets of deterrence seem to fail entirely in the face of readiness for self-sacrifice. Old means of warfare accustomed to a symmetrical doctrine and a comparable type of forces are painfully inadequate, disproportional, and ineffective. It is clear that the traditional response, focusing on a framework of national preparedness and organization, is no longer able to cope with the global character of the threat, which materializes in unexpected (or at least randomly chosen) locations. There is no longer any differentiation between civilian and military targets. Notwithstanding the false veil of religious argumentation, the main purpose of waging this type of warfare is seemingly to inflict “pain” on industrial states and societies that are associated with Western civilization. If so, then the destruction of human life is as important to the promoters of this new type of warfare as is the destruction of the national and international economic, technical, financial, administrative infrastructure of states and nations. In this way the menace is oriented at all levels of the modern organization of societies: from the international, regional, national, and local levels down to the in-

Crisis Management: The Transformation of National and International Systems of Response