This article tackles head-on a question that is often thought to defeat pacifism: ‘How then would you react against a Nazi invasion?’ That multiple wars are still recurrently justified as necessary to confront yet another ‘Hitler’ makes tackling this question critically relevant far beyond pacifist circles. On the Nazi context specifically: the question comes too late if pitched in 1939; militarism did not deter Hitler; there were actually many examples of nonviolent resistance against Nazis; even Hitler was mindful of public opinion; and the fight ‘against Nazis’ claimed many non-Nazi German victims too. More generally, and adding theoretical depth: pacifism need not entail a single absolute rejection of violence in all scenarios; nonviolent resistance has been proved to be effective; war-readiness has a corrosive constitutive impact; the Nazi question tends to assume that the application of retaliatory violence is controllable; and to presume that violence is the only option is absolutist and idealistic. Far from delivering a conclusive victory, the Nazi question, carefully considered and discussed, exposes cracks in conventional thinking about violence and war and provides opportunities to unpack and clarify multiple arguments advanced by pacifism.

“Hacktivists”, “patriotic hackers” and “civilian hackers” are today conducting cyber operations in several armed conflicts. While some of these groups work closely with State armed forces to support their operations and harm the enemy militarily, reports suggest that too often, civilian hackers have targeted – and damaged or disrupted – various parts of civilian infrastructures, such as banks, companies, pharmacies, hospitals, railway networks and civilian government services. The growing involvement of civilian hackers in digitalizing armed conflicts raises a number of legal questions. First, we must ask what limits international humanitarian law (IHL) imposes on civilian hackers. Second, it must be assessed what “status” these hackers and hacker groups have under IHL, and in what circumstances civilian hackers risk directly participating in hostilities and therefore losing their protection against attack. Third, the question arises of when a State is legally responsible for the conduct of civilian hackers operating under its instruction, direction or control, and what responsibilities States have to ensure respect for IHL by civilian hackers operating from their territory.

This study examines the role of Sheikh NGOs as financial gatekeepers in Yemen’s NGO sector, showing how their control over aid distribution reinforces dependency and limits local NGOs' autonomy. Through interviews with 45 stakeholders, the research reveals the challenges that local NGOs face in achieving financial sustainability amid economic instability, political turmoil, and dwindling donor support. The findings indicate a significant asymmetry in funding, with Sheikh NGOs monopolizing resources, which constrains the flexibility and innovation of smaller NGOs. Integrating dependency theory, the study illustrates how reliance on intermediaries reinforces power imbalances, while collective impact theory highlights the potential for transformative partnerships. Successful collaborations, like those between the Youth Leadership Development Foundation and local NGOs, underscore the need for Sheikh NGOs to adopt more supportive roles, empowering smaller organizations. This study calls for a reconfiguration of roles within Yemen's NGO sector, advocating a shift from dependency to partnership. In fostering collaboration and supporting local NGO autonomy, stakeholders can build a more equitable and resilient framework, ultimately enhancing humanitarian efforts in Yemen.

Following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, the grounds behind Vladimir Putin’s decision were widely debated. Theories suggest several reasons, including Putin’s nostalgic dream of restoring Soviet imperial glory, Russia’s fears of NATO security threats near their borders. But another explanation may be more prosaic: Putin’s desire to restore his sagging popularity at home by attempting to repeat his 2014 “Crimea” strategy. By annexing territories in Eastern Ukraine, he may have hoped to generate a “rally-around-the flag” effect, boosting his domestic support by appealing to Russian patriotism and nationalism. To examine this thesis, Part I outlines the core concept and what is known in the literature about the size and duration of the rally-around-the flag phenomenon. Part II examines the available time-series survey evidence drawn from a variety of opinion polls in Ukraine, Europe, and Russia focusing on the first 8 months of the war to detect any rally effects associated with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Part III examines the evidence of media effects. Part IV adds robustness tests. The conclusion in Part V summarizes the main findings and discusses their broader implications for understanding the roots of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and its consequences.

Contestation over war memorialization can help democratic theory respond to the current attenuation of citizenship in war in liberal democratic states, especially the United States. As war involves more advanced technologies and fewer soldiers, the relation of citizenship to war changes. In this context war memorialization plays a particular role in refiguring the relation. Current practices of remembering and memorializing war in contemporary neoliberal states respond to a dilemma: the state needs to justify and garner support for continual wars while distancing citizenship from participation. The result is a consumer culture of memorialization that seeks to effect a unity of the political community while it fights wars with few citizens and devalues the public. Neoliberal wars fought with few soldiers and an economic logic reveals the vulnerability to otherness that leads to more active and critical democratic citizenship.

The symposium is motivated by the question of how the war in Ukraine is ‘framed’ and ‘narrated’ in media outside the West. It aims to shed light on the diverse ways in which information is manipulated and disseminated to serve political interests. The emphasis on developing an interdisciplinary conceptual prism is particularly noteworthy. Integrating insights from International Relations, Geopolitics, and Media and Communication studies offers a holistic understanding of the complex dynamics at play. Moreover, by highlighting the influence of foreign propaganda and disinformation campaigns, the symposium underscores the importance of critically analysing media representations in shaping public perceptions and potentially influencing foreign policies. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for mitigating the impact of misinformation and fostering informed public discourse on global conflicts. The symposium promises to contribute significantly to the scholarly understanding of the nexus between conflict and communication, while also offering valuable insights for policymakers and media practitioners alike.

Russia’s unprovoked war on Ukraine has deteriorated the security environment in all neighbouring countries. Some of these countries are terrified of the risk of further Russian invasions while others express less fear of Russian hostile and unlawful actions. The aim of the paper is to outline the Kremlin’s narratives presented in Romanian and Bulgarian media and their impact on the security concerns of both countries. The paper argues that Russia uses media to spread narratives trying to reshape public opinion and to aggravate insecurity and distrust. The arguments are divided into the following parts: First, Romania’s and Bulgaria’s perceptions of Russia are analysed; second and third sections describe the Russian official rhetoric presented in the local media. The conclusion sums up the outcomes of both cases and the impact of the Kremlin’s narratives on Romania and Bulgaria.