| Abstract [eng] |
The guerrilla war is not extinct, we can see its various varieties in these modern times as well, so it is important for us to understand how this process should be properly assessed. Carl Schmitt was one of those people who noticed the uniqueness of the guerrilla war and described it in his text “Theory of the Partisan”. The main goal of this master's thesis “Guerrilla Warfare as a Political Phenomenon” is to delve in and supplement precisely this text by Carl Schmitt to understand what partisan war is through the concept of his political action, while including the context of international law and modern times. This paper raises the problem between the differences between traditional and partisan warfare and the lack of understanding of their connection with political action. Finding out and understanding the main differences between traditional and partisan warfare, as well, is one of the tasks of this master’s thesis. Only by properly understanding what a partisan war is for Carl Schmitt is, and by highlighting the boundaries of partisan warfare from traditional warfare, it will be possible to objectively understand how to supplement his partisan theory and thus accomplish the third task of this master’s thesis. One of the main highlights of this work, which was able to be understood by analyzing Carl Schmitt’s thoughts on partisans, was his strict definition of a partisan. The partisan is so unique that it is difficult to classify him as a regular soldier in the traditional army, but according to Carl Schmitt’s definition of a partisan, he can also be considered a criminal or even a terrorist. Carl Schmitt did not pay much attention to international law, which explains why it is so difficult to define a partisan. Examining the discourse of international law has brought a clearer line to the definition of guerrilla, and at the same time, it has been possible to better understand it on a more global scale. Partisan warfare is no longer just an internal conflict of a country and a problem for one country. This could become an international problem, so it is important for us to understand this phenomenon on a more global scale. Another important aspect that was elucidated in this master’s thesis is the understanding of the partisan’s relationship with society and his right to political action. Political action for a partisan is like a connection with society, its formation and interaction in the name of a common goal. A partisan differs from a traditional army soldier in his individuality, so he is not dependent on central government and can often make decisions led by his spiritual and moral values. However, this does not mean that the partisan is not committed to anyone. The partisan comes from a society that opposes the occupier. Citizens give the partisan the opportunity to take political action in the name of getting protection from the partisan. However, the partisan must also protect society. Partisans are led by strong national or ideological ties and devotion and are therefore dependent on political ties with the state and its citizens. Finally, another important factor emerges, the imbalance between the partisan and his enemy forces. The partisan never has a technological advantage over the enemy, so he must use his unique partisan warfare tactics, which from the enemy’s perspective seems unfair and disrespectful. However, this is the only way to reduce that force difference at least to some extent. The partisan will never gain a greater technological advantage over the enemy because he will simply not be able to deal with it, so it may undermine the partisan’s goals and values, which would already mean his death. The partisan becomes, as it were, doomed to always be weaker than the enemy. The ability to take political action, passion, and enthusiasm to achieve one’s goal even at the cost of death allows the partisan to exist. |
