Introduction

The entire history of the development of human civilization has been accompanied by war. This is a permanent state of existence of society, states, and individuals, “struggle and war are inherent in human history” (^{Filipec, 2019, p. 52}). However, the development of the mental and axiological in human nature has led to a sharp rejection of violence and a desire for the ideals of security and peaceful existence.

Law has been at the center of the progressive development of human civilization, in particular through the formation of norms of international human rights law, international humanitarian law, and its contribution to “world making and world ordering” (^{Kinsella & Mantilla, 2020, p. 649}). The existence of guarantees of human protection in its ontological determinants has changed the philosophical and legal essence of communication between the social institutions of humanity and built a seemingly primary matrix of means and methods that would ensure the basis for global peace. The creation of an international system became possible thanks to the network of legal norms regulating the activities of states. It was this set of international norms that peace-loving states relied on to interact, build relationships, and conduct operations for the benefit of their citizens at home and abroad in an atmosphere of peace, cooperation, and friendliness (^{Ezechi et al., 2022}). Subsequently, the task of states was to develop and improve such a system, and as a certain ideal, just such a conceptual framework should guarantee the rights and freedoms of the individual in modern society and protect him or her from violent actions of the state or other groups or members of society, contribute to the construction of an inclusive, tolerant society. The United Nations General Assembly has highlighted the need to promote peace among the countries of the world through the global positioning of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development as the main vector of development.

However, the political and legal relations between the subjects of international law have been subjected to unpredictable tests over time by global challenges, environmental threats, pandemic crises, and changes in established legal and social phenomena. The war in Ukraine has probably been the greatest trigger that has placed the concept of world peace, which has existed for more than half a century, under a significant threat, the like of which has not been seen since the Cold War. Therefore, it requires significant scientific rethinking.

ll these changes and challenges require a review of the adequacy of the international community's response in the context of rethinking and improving the concept of global peace. The article aims to analyze the transformational processes of the doctrinal and praxeological interpretation of the concept of global peace in the context of overcoming modern military, terrorist, and informational threats. To achieve the objective, the authors set themselves the following tasks: to unveil the essence of the understanding of the modern concept of world peace; to analyze the effectiveness of the mechanism of international institutions to ensure a response to the military threat; to study terrorism as a countermeasure to peace and stability and the challenges of the information and educational environment as an important factor in ensuring world peace.

Literature Review

Scholars focus on global peace in the context of three aspects of research. First, they analyze global peace as the peaceful coexistence of all that exists (^{Knight, 2022}; ^{Rai, 1998}). Second, they review the doctrine related to the analysis of the methods and means of conducting military operations, the legitimacy of the use of weapons, and other international humanitarian law issues (^{Muñoz & Serralvo, 2019}; ^{Nursita & Sahide, 2019}). And third, they study preventive means of avoiding conflicts to establish peace and security, issues that may be related to psychological and social factors (^{Сrocker et al., 2011}; ^{Moreda, 2022}), to information resources (^{Hamelink, 2020}; ^{Jonsson, 2019}); and to the functioning of international institutions that ensure the sustainable development of humanity in conditions of peace and security (^{Sarjoon & Yusoff, 2019}).

A special part of our subject of analysis is the study of terrorism as a form of security disruption and the most widespread phenomenon in modern society (^{Henne et al., 2020}; ^{Koehler-Derrick & Milton, 2019}).

However, today we should talk about the need for a new perception of legal needs in the context of additional, synergistic challenges in ensuring the concept of global peace. This is directly related to the ineffectiveness of the norms of international humanitarian law, the obsolescence of international institutions that are supposed to protect humanity from the global crisis, and new military, armed, terrorist, and information challenges. Therefore, the legal doctrine of global peace needs to be further motivated and strengthened in the current environment of globalization and trends in the development of the information environment.

Materials and Methods

The humanistic approach is emphasized as having a special axiological value for the analysis since the main determining value is human rights and their legitimate interests, and their legitimate restriction is allowed only to protect society from the devalued manifestations of global and terrorist threats. The methodological triad used includes philosophical, general scientific, and special scientific approaches. Philosophical methods are mostly represented by a synergistic approach since the bifurcated and uncertain nature of globalized phenomena does not allow to reliably determine the development of progressive doctrinal concepts. The synergistic approach, therefore, is crucial. It allows the researchers to view the phenomena not as separate, isolated elements, but as interconnected aspects of a larger system, thus giving a more holistic understanding. This approach emphasizes the relationships between parts and the emergent properties arising from their interaction, acknowledging that the whole is more than just the sum of its parts. It is especially valuable in a dynamic, ever-evolving global context.

The general scientific methods, including analysis and synthesis, are used to study the norms of international law in the broader context of the international human rights system. The analysis involves breaking down complex phenomena into smaller parts to better understand each element and its functions. Synthesis, on the other hand, involves combining these individual elements to form a complete picture, thereby promoting a comprehensive understanding of the norms of international law and their interplay within the broader human rights framework. The method of abstraction is an important technique used to rise above specific political and legal viewpoints of distinct political entities or state policies. Abstraction allows researchers to separate themselves from individual biases, prejudices, or preconceived notions, facilitating an unbiased examination of the issue at hand. By abstracting away from the specifics, the researchers can consider the broader concepts and principles at play, aiding them in the quest for scientific tolerance and moderation.

To the system, a formal-legal method, which has become one of the most used in research, because it allows dogmatic analysis of clear legal phenomena, helps to describe, classify and generalize legal concepts; legal and statistical method - to study the indicators of military actions in Ukraine and global indicators of peaceful communication and functioning of international and public institutions in the researched area.

The method of individual observation is essential since the authors have an opportunity to conduct personal scientific research of objects and phenomena of military reality, as witnesses of the military and social situation in Ukraine.

Also, the authors used a questionnaire to determine the informational and educational factors of the concept of ensuring world peace as a factor of tolerance and educational strategy of modern nations. The survey was conducted territorially in the Lviv region; where military actions caused a significant number of temporarily displaced persons to stay in this region. The focus group consisted of 280 adults.

However, although the study notes that many displaced persons resided in the Lviv region, due to the military action the sample may not be fully representative of the Ukrainian population. Given the war situation, it is possible that some respondents did not feel comfortable expressing certain opinions, which would result in a bias in the responses; access to different media was limited, which could have affected the respondents' perception and understanding of the situation. Without longitudinal data, it is challenging to determine whether the attitudes captured are stable or if they have changed over time due to the unfolding events. The margin of error of the obtained results, taking into account the number of respondents, is 2.5-4 %. The questionnaires were designed to be filled out anonymously and quickly. The survey was conducted from December 12, 2022, to January 4, 2023 (in total, three hundred days after the full-scale military invasion of Ukraine).

Understanding the Modern Concept of Global Peace

Wars have made a unique contribution to the development of international humanitarian law (^{Giraldo Muñoz & Serralvo, 2019}), but a key element of the modern concept of global peace and security is the interpretation of the category of peace much broader than the absence of violence. Therefore, the studied category should not be reduced only to preventive means and methods of ensuring peaceful communication. Positive peace describes the attitudes, structures, and institutions that underpin security and sustain peaceful societies.

Peace is a prerequisite for the survival of humanity in modern conditions. It is a fundamental determinant that attracts the functioning of society, the state, and international institutions. Without a peaceful society it will not be possible to achieve the level of trust, cooperation, and inclusion, as well as the rule of law and other key criteria of social relations. The development of civilized nations indicates that the era of strife, state wars, and intergroup conflicts, with which history is rich, is an outdated stage of human development. Peace is in the interest of the state, group institutions, the business environment, and individuals. Global peace ensures the realization of human rights as universal values and legal guarantees that protect individuals and groups against unlawful behavior, mainly by the state and other subjects of international law, which interfere with fundamental freedoms, human rights and dignity. The whole spectrum of human rights implies respect for human life, health and dignity, determines the protection of their legitimate interests, thus ensuring the environment based on the peaceful concept as a permanent feature of modern society.

Global peace provides a framework for understanding and addressing the many complex challenges facing the world and is the basis for communication between competing groups and effective public governance. Positive peace is systemic. Understanding its interdependencies is essential to addressing the global challenges of our time. Different countries have different goals and intentions. Societies also have both formal and informal rules, called codified norms, that regulate social behavior and aim to keep the system stable (^{Institute for Economics & Peace [IEP], 2022a}). The basis of their functioning is to ensure such a world order.

The concept of global peace should not be interpreted as the antithesis of military action. This doctrine is much broader and includes all aspects of peaceful coexistence, not only the prevention of military conflicts. In our opinion, global order education, tolerance, democratic values of constitutionalism and the rule of law, “the ontology of society and cosmological order, as the concept of peace is deeply rooted in popular culture and moral tradition” (^{Moreda, 2022, p. 7}), are integral components of global peace building. Without securing this whole legal, cultural, axiological, mental, ontological and other foundations of social existence, it is impossible to impose order and peaceful existence exclusively by legal or international organizational methods. ^{Hamelink (2020, p. 30)} positively pointed out that a sound concept of peace should go beyond the limited state framework of “war against peace” and have a wide range of human relations. It should apply to all kinds of human relations”.

The concept of global peace is based on the ideology of liberalism or idealism, which cannot be separated from the basic thinking about human nature. The ideas of realism and idealism are both based on assumptions about human nature. Realists see human nature as selfish and human interaction as conflictual. Thus, realists tend to be pessimistic and skeptical about cooperation and peace in international relations. Within the state, human selfishness is limited by the government. In international relations, however, the selfishness that exists in people can unleash the worst potential of human nature, thus creating an anarchic structure. Realists, on the other hand, see the state as the first institution that ignored human values to gain power. However, according to neo-realists, international violence is not the influence of human selfishness, but a social phenomenon formed by the anarchy of the international environment. The state is seen as an organic structure with its interests and strengths, and not as a tool controlled by people. On the contrary, liberals see people as those who are bound by human virtues. The conflict that occurs between people does not become a problem if the cause of the conflict can be identified, then the problem can be solved. Liberalists interpret that war is not caused by human nature or the structure of the international system, rather war is a product of social interaction (^{Nursita & Sahide, 2019}).

To achieve the concept of global peace, several safeguards function, including the normative international system, the obligations of individual states, institutional bodies, judicial and extrajudicial institutions, and non-government public institutions. At the international level, many acts have been adopted that point to the ideals of achieving global peace. Prominent among them is the United Nations Declaration on Crime and Public Security of 1996, Article 1 of which declares that Member States shall endeavor to protect the security and well-being of their citizens and all persons within their jurisdiction by adopting effective national measures to combat serious transnational crime, including organized crime, illicit drug, and arms trafficking, smuggling of other illicit articles, organized trafficking of persons, terrorist crimes and the laundering of proceeds from serious crimes, and undertake to cooperate mutually in these efforts. This outlines the range of issues hindering the establishment of democratic values and the global world order based on the principles of peace and security.

To ensure a global peace based on security principles, a balanced, holistic mechanism operates, involving a wide range of participants -multilateral institutions at the global and regional levels, individual states or ad hoc coalitions, professional and commercial organizations, and non-government organizations- working together to manage specific threats and security challenges, combining a variety of relationships, resources, and skills (^{Crocker et al., 2011}).

Peace as an axiological value is natural, and no global transformations can change it. The VIII World Forum of Engineering Education, held in November 2018 in the US, discussed a new global collaboration for Peace Engineering, but the key for all representatives of the world community is the existing doctrinal framework: “Peace is actionable, holistic, and must question the status quo” (^{Jordan et al., 2020, p. 804}). Global innovation is the foundation for sustainable development, but global peace is the value basis for all communication.

The International Mechanism for Ensuring Global Peace and the Need for its Transformation

Within the framework of ensuring the concept of world peace, there are significant organizational problems that should be emphasized from a scientific and praxeological point of view. It concerns the inefficiency of the international peacekeeping mechanism. Today, the system of ensuring peace and security is under significant threat, in general, it was created after the Second World War and now it cannot cover the whole range of significant problems, significant international legal gaps are becoming more and more apparent, which can indicate the inefficiency of international organizations in ensuring peace and security. First of all, this concerns the inefficiency of the international institutions created for this purpose. Time implies transformation processes, the effectiveness of the system of international relations now requires a drastic transformation. This concerns first of all the key international issues of geopolitics.

The scientific community systematically states that the existing institutions of global governance, including the UN, are “solutions frozen in time”; they were created at a time when sovereignty issues dominated. Today, these institutions are proving to be inadequate, ineffective, and largely irrelevant, especially when it comes to maintaining global peace and security. It is time for a new way of thinking about global governance as humanity grapples with the failure of institutions to end global conflict, turbulence, and disorder (^{Knight, 2022}). Scholars also note the ineffectiveness of the Security Council in maintaining international peace and security (^{Aliakbari, 2019}), and UN peacekeeping operations (^{Gilder, 2019}; ^{Sarjoon & Yusoff, 2019}), although some experts who note the ineffectiveness of the UN point to the certain changes on the part of this institution regarding its reform aimed at increasing the organization’s ability to prevent violent conflicts (^{Jacob, 2021}).

It is not a separate UN mechanism that needs to be transformed, but the entire concept of building this organization. Article 1 of the UN Charter defines the purpose of the Organization as the promotion of international peace and security and the taking of effective measures to remove threats to peace and to put an end to acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace. However, such violations of peace remain unaddressed, resulting in inaction by the international community through formal procedures. The violation of the principle of equality of states is inherent in the very mechanism of the UN Security Council, as the five permanent members have a prerogative over other member states. However, the problem here is not only equality but also the so-called “veto right”. Art. 27 of the UN Charter abruptly destroys the whole system of peace and security and reduces it to the position of the five permanent members by stating that the decisions of the Security Council in all other matters shall be considered adopted if they are supported by the votes of nine members of the Council, including the concurring votes of all permanent members of the Council. This leads to a legal collapse, even in the broadest sense to a “mockery” of the legal system, as Russia has been constantly blocking decisions on its aggression against Ukraine for nine years.

Recently, Ukraine has also put on the agenda the question of the place of the Russian Federation as a permanent member of the UN, since the latter has taken the seat of a permanent member of the UN Security Council, bypassing the procedures defined by the UN Charter. The current UN Charter does not contain the words “Russian Federation”. In particular, they do not appear in Article 23 of the Charter, which lists the permanent members of the UN Security Council.

In continuation, we determine that Russia’s war against Ukraine has demonstrated the declarative nature of the work of this international institution. On March 2, 2022, the UN General Assembly issued a resolution demanding that the Russian Federation must stop armed aggression, de-occupy Ukrainian territories, and withdraw its troops from Ukraine, later on March 16, the UN International Court of Justice ordered the Russian Federation to immediately withdraw its troops from the territory of Ukraine and cease hostilities, but the war continues.

Another institutional body, this time a judicial body, is often also identified as ineffective in the context of real peacekeeping. The International Court of Justice and other institutions were established under the UN Charter to guarantee world peace. The International Court of Justice was created as a judicial organ of the United Nations to replace the Permanent Chamber of International Justice, which operated under the defunct League of Nations. According to the United Nations Charter, members of the United Nations automatically sign the Statute of the International Court of Justice. The Court serves as an opportunity for states to air their grievances in the event of any dispute arising between them. However, the Court is limited in exercising judicial powers in cases between states, unless they are subject to the Court’s jurisdiction. In addition, the struggle for political power among the permanent members of the Security Council has on several occasions undermined the International Court of Justice’s efforts to ensure the peaceful resolution of conflicts between states. This document argues that if these problems are not effectively addressed, the role of the International Court of Justice of the United Nations in ensuring global peace may become unattainable (^{Herbert, 2021}).

To the disadvantages, we also add a very long procedure for considering the case, which can continue for decades. It certainly does not serve as a basis for ensuring a peaceful community. On January 16, 2017, Ukraine filed a lawsuit with the International Court of Justice of the United Nations intending to hold the Russian Federation accountable for committing acts of terrorism and discrimination during its illegal aggression against Ukraine, and five years later, this has not protected Ukraine from a large-scale invasion and seizure of almost a quarter of the territory of the sovereign state.

The concept of global peace requires a holistic concentration of state-legal institutions. It should be understood here that the achievement of peace as an absolute may entail certain negative consequences regarding human rights. Restricting human rights for the sake of combating terrorism, and global threats to peace is a legitimate world doctrine. Along with this, it should be understood that certain groups of people have their legitimate interest as a primary prerogative, therefore, the search for an optimal combination of ensuring global peace and legitimate restriction of rights is always in a state of a priori struggle. However, the effectiveness of such a mechanism depends not only on the principles of functioning, on the coordination of subjects, but also permanently on the seriousness of the conflict situation, on the global nature of the military or terrorist threat.

Here, it is worth agreeing with ^{Satria and Sumpter (2022)} that counterterrorism policy often suffers from a troubling dilemma: preventing violence and the growth of extremist networks in the short term may require uncompromising operations that ultimately affect broader segments of society than those which they target. When entire communities or certain demographic groups are entangled in large-scale strategies, the suspicion generated can fuel counterproductive complaints and hinder long-term prevention initiatives. On the other hand, if the policy favors softer social programs aimed at gradual reconciliation, this approach may provide too much space for criminals to exploit. Finding the right balance between deterring violence in the short term and addressing the underlying issues is crucial but challenging.

The peace regime is a bridgehead for the functioning, development, and transformation of other sectors. First of all, it is the economy. Stable peaceful relations ensure economic development. The Economic Value of Peace 2021 report recognizes that violence has negative consequences for the economy as a whole, both in the short and long term, as it hinders productivity and economic activity, destabilizes institutions, and reduces business confidence. All of this disrupts the economy, resulting in adverse and lasting negative effects even after the conflict subsides. These effects include lower GDP growth, a less predictable economy, higher unemployment, lower levels of foreign direct investment, and higher inflation rates (^{IEP, 2021}).

Since 2008, the world community has been trying to achieve the concept of peaceful relations and uses the Global Peace Index (^{IEP, 2022b}) to monitor the situation. In general, the war in the center of Europe has made the situation much worse. According to the 2022 results, the global average level of peace has worsened by 0.3 percent, which is the worst indicator since the monitoring was established. This is due to political instability, the extent of political terror, related refugee problems and the spread of military threats with nuclear weapons to neighboring countries. According to the UN report, the number of hungry people amounted to 828 million last year, which is 46 million more than the previous year. The ongoing war in Ukraine, which pits two of the world's largest producers of grains, oil crops and key fertilizers against each other, has led to the disruption of international supply chains, increased the price of grains, fertilizers and energy sources, and led to a lack of medical nutrition for children, which is recommended in case of severe malnutrition (UN, 2021).

In contrast to these intentions, the militarization domain has improved by 5.2 percent since 2008, the only indicator to show an improvement in the last 14 years. Military service levels fell in 112 countries, and military spending as a percentage of GDP fell in 94 nations. The nuclear and heavy weapons indicator also improved overall, and 108 countries reduced their stockpiles of such weapons. The improvement is broad-based across all regions. The largest improvements were in Asia Pacific, Europe, and South Asia.

Using logic, we can explain the effect of the time frame of the previous research. In fact, the war in Ukraine caused tensions not only in neighboring states but also in the global crisis.

It is primarily manifested in economic factors. Inflation has risen globally and reached eight percent per year in the US and seven percent in Europe in early 2022. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine is likely to lead to further inflation.

But the increase in military assets also becomes the doctrine of a separate state over time. Trying to protect the territorial integrity and security of citizens, states are forced not to reduce the number of weapons on their balance, but on the contrary, since the end of the Cold War, this will be the first year when states are increasing their military potential. All NATO countries have reduced their defense and industrial capacities since the end of the Cold War. In the United States, the number of major defense contractors has reduced from 51 to 5, and many production lines have been closed. In recent years, defense contractors have focused on the production of a small number of high-tech weapons systems that were ideal for conducting the global war on terrorism, but insufficient for conducting a protracted conflict against conventional military power (^{Boot, 2022}).

Due to the scale of the Russian-Ukrainian war, which has been unprecedented since the Second World War, both sides are running out of weapons, and this is already becoming a problem for the production lines of the defense-industrial complex. NATO countries have pledged to increase their defense budgets to levels close to or higher than NATO’s recommended two percent of GDP by 2024. If all members meet the bloc’s minimum defense requirements, NATO’s defense budget could increase by seven percent in the near future.

Nations such as Germany, Italy, Denmark, Belgium, Spain, Norway, and others have agreed to increase their defense budgets to the NATO’s recommended minimum in the coming years. France and Poland have pledged to further increase defense funding well above the two percent level, while the US will increase spending to $ 813 billion or 3.8 percent of GDP. (^{IEP, 2022b, p. 5})

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has pointed to the need to increase strategic weapons stocks, calling on the West to produce more weapons because of the war in Ukraine ^{(“NATO Secretary General”, 2023}).

Terrorism as a Threat to Global Peace and Stability

Terrorism is one of the ugliest manifestations of the intractability of human conflicts. In modern society, it manifests itself especially actively and comes to the fore in the context of the violation of global peace. Before the full-scale invasion of the Russian Federation in Ukraine, terrorism was the primary threat to the world order, as it seemed that the international peace and security system could protect countries from unmotivated armed aggression by another state, and counteract genocide and war crimes.

From a legal point of view, the term terrorism does not yet have an established form, although there are norms of “soft” law that do not yet have a comprehensive form. Such a legal gap harms legal regulation and devalues the interpretation of the concept of such a subject of crime as terrorism.

In 1994, the General Assembly Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism in its resolution 49/60 stated that terrorism includes:

Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes “and that such acts” are in any circumstances unjustifiable, whatever considerations of political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them. (as cited in ^{Perera, 2008, p. 3})

Subsequently, the Security Council in its resolution 1566 (2004) reaffirmed that terrorism in all its forms and manifestations is one of the most serious threats to peace and security, and defined terrorism as

Criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a Government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act. (^{UN, 2004, para. 29})

However, the uncertainty of interpretation causes not only scientific disputes but more problematically leads to illegitimate restrictions on human rights at the level of individual states. Currently, the General Assembly is working on the adoption of a comprehensive convention against terrorism, which would complement the existing sectoral anti-terrorism conventions. Its draft in Article 2 contains a definition of terrorism that includes “unlawfully and intentionally” causing, attempting, or threatening to cause:

(a) death or serious bodily injury to any person; or (b) serious damage to public or private property, including a place of public use, a State or government facility, a public transportation system, an infrastructure facility, or the environment; or (c) damage to property, places, facilities, or systems…, resulting or likely to result in major economic loss, when the purpose of the conduct, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act. (^{Office of the United Nations, 2021, p. 6})

Back in the 80s, ^{Jackson (1981}) argued that terrorist acts are part of a broad campaign aimed at disintegrating democratic societies by undermining citizens’ trust in their governments. States have changed, political circumstances have transformed, and globalization processes have modified social relations, but even so, the problem of terrorism cannot be overcome. Scientists argue that terrorism is a “weapon of the weak” (^{Henne et al., 2020}), but its consequences are becoming more widespread, and its actions are more daring.

To demonstrate this, we will use data from the Global Terrorism Index - a comprehensive study that analyzes the impact of terrorism on 163 countries, covering 99.7 percent of the world’s population. The peculiarity of terrorist acts as the antithesis of the concept of a positive peaceful world in modern conditions is manifested in the following trends (generalizations are made following the Global Terrorism Index of 2022).

The number of terrorist attacks is growing at a very fast pace so during the reporting year, the number of attacks increased by 17 % (^{IEP, 2022c}). In parallel, terrorist attacks are becoming less deadly; in 2021 the number of terrorist deaths fell by 1.2 % to 7142. We can explain this by a combination of factors: international attention of organizations to the problems of terrorism, public resonance and awareness of civil society, reinforcement of the work of special state agencies, etc. The conglomerate of terrorist threats is clustered, with four terrorist groups responsible for the largest number of deaths in 2021: Islamic State, Al-Shabaab, the Taliban, and Jama'at Nasr al-Islam wal Muslimin. These groups were responsible for 3364 terrorism-related deaths, accounting for 47 % of the total number of deaths in 2021. To counter global terrorist organizations, the fight against growing organized terrorist activities must be strengthened. At present, there is a tendency to create a centralized global network structure, with locations all over the world, instead of concentrating on a few states. Consequently, civilized nations are not prepared for such an increase in terrorist attacks and an unmotivated increase in terrorist threats from various directions.

Military actions cause changes in the territory of terrorist threats, so the full-scale invasion in Ukraine caused an increase in terrorist threats on the territory of the European continent, which until recently was considered a fairly stable region.

Historians of terrorism note that modern terrorists rely almost exclusively on two types of weapons: guns and bombs (^{Koehler-Derrick & Milton, 2019}). The globalized information society is changing many established political and legal phenomena. Among them, one of the specific problems in the studied context is the problem of cyberterrorism. The growing dependence on communication and information technologies means that the information sphere has become very interesting for terrorist groups, and the global legal field has received new challenges, including cyberattacks, cyber warfare, and cyberterrorism. They have become the newest weapon of war. Terrorist innovations challenge existing assumptions about the nature of the terrorist threat and underscore the need for counterterrorism policies and practices to not only respond to but also attempt to anticipate changes in terrorist tactics and strategies (^{Silke & Filippidou, 2020}). Terrorists, by their very nature as asymmetric adversaries, tend to adapt quickly and exploit conditions of uncertainty and instability to achieve their goals (^{Ackerman & Peterson, 2020}). Moreover, cyberterrorism is likely to be a serious global threat due to the uncertainty of its synergistic effects, as the development of destructive and fear-inducing cyberattacks is more complex and associated with greater uncertainty in terms of harmful consequences than traditional terrorist attacks (^{Jacobsen, 2022}).

Over the past decade, Ukraine has been subjected to constant cyberattacks by the aggressor state. In 2020, the state faced 397 000 attacks, and about 280 000 attacks in the first ten months of 2021 (^{Vision of Humanity, 2022}). The impact of cyberattacks can be much broader than their targets, spreading to other countries. For example, although NotPetya targeted Ukraine, its effects were felt in the US, UK, and Australia. Scholars have shown that despite the relatively low terrorist risk of a single state, events around the world have far-reaching consequences (^{Tin et al., 2021}) and can significantly affect any country. Hybrid warfare is a manifestation of a new form of threat, military doctrines, and traditional approaches to war and peace, and their perceptions will have to change in the future. The global peace system must also respond to emerging threats, including terrorist acts and disinformation propaganda.

Information and Educational Environment as a Significant Factor in Ensuring Global Peace

The global proliferation of information in all spheres of public life makes it possible to use it to disrupt the concept of global peace through cyberterrorism and hybrid and information warfare. Since this is a new phenomenon, its nature has hardly been determined, its social character has not been defined and there is no legal regulation. Along with this, the globality of its use is a special modern trend.

The rapid spread of digital communication technologies has “democratized” access to mass media, helped “demarginalize” individuals with stigmatized social identities, and expanded their embodied networking capabilities (^{Kavanaugh & Maratea, 2020}).

The general concept of information warfare as “a strategy for using the information to pursue a competitive advantage, including offensive and defensive efforts” (^{Theohary, 2018, p. 2}), as described by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), is often used broadly to describe narrower activities such as network operations, psychological operations, electronic warfare, operational security, and military deception.

However, the problem is much more fundamental. Information as means of waging warfare has not tactical, but general social consequences, popularizes military actions, and justifies war crimes. Lesaca argues that today’s terrorist organizations have given birth to a new type of terrorism that uses marketing and digital communications not only to spread terror around the world but also to transform terror into something popular, desirable, and imitable (^{Poveda Criado, 2019}). The consequences of such information pressure will be felt for decades and will not disappear after the end of the military conflict.

Fake news -false information presented as true- is a powerful weapon in the information age (^{Guadagno & Guttieri, 2021}). Today we can safely talk about the creation of information armies. The Russian Federation has made significant progress in such a war. The Russian approach is holistic. It aims not only to influence the target state and the ability of its armed forces to manage information and perform effective command and control functions but also to achieve desired effects on the target population’s perceptions and decision-making processes that promote Russian interests and goals. It is a two-pronged approach that seeks to influence both the physical and cognitive dimensions of the information environment. It seeks to disrupt and compromise the physical dimension of the information environment by penetrating, manipulating, and disrupting information networks and command and control systems (^{Tashev et al., 2019}).

Such information warfare is borderless, spreads at an extremely fast pace, and offers no real possibility of destroying false information narratives. The consequences can be seen in the public opinion that is formed and consumes this flood of information. On March 17, the All-Russian Public Opinion Research Center presented research data showing that 74 % of Russian citizens tend to support the decision to conduct a “special military operation” in Ukraine. “Compared to February 25, the share of those who support it has increased by 9 percent” (^{“Support for war”, 2022, para. 3}).

Using the author’s questionnaire method, we conducted a study of the position of Ukrainian citizens regarding the information war and the functioning of mass media.

In accordance with the above, and using a questionnaire, we conducted a study of the position of Ukrainian citizens regarding the information war and the functioning of the mass media.

To the key question “Do you support the military actions carried out by the Russian Federation against Ukraine? We received a unanimous answer. 97 % are categorically against the war and condemn the actions of the aggressor state, only 1 % (three people) said that the situation is not so clear, others could not decide on the answer, or refused to answer. None of the respondents said they supported military action. The results are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Do you support the military actions carried out by the Russian Federation against Ukraine? 

The first conclusion is that the personal negative experience of living through all the horrors of the war and the accompanying wartime problems (lack of communications, water, electricity, heating, housing, and financial difficulties) led to the transformation of personal ideological approaches. By 2022, pro-Russian parties in Ukraine were quite strong, for example, the “Opposition Platform - For Life” was supported by more than 11 % of citizens, and the radical party “Nashi” - by 5.5 % of respondents (data for October 2021; “Electoral orientations”, 2021).

The question of mass media in Ukraine became very representative, the results are presented in Figure 2. Currently, since the beginning of the war, Ukrainian television broadcasts only one channel, the United News Telethon. When asked whether the respondents trusted this information, 56 % said that they rather trusted it, only 14 % said that they completely trusted it, and 21 % said that they completely did not trust it. Most of the respondents complained that the Telethon broadcasts overly optimistic news. After analyzing the answers, we can say that even though citizens are deprived of objective information for objective reasons, they critically evaluate the information resources provided by state authorities.

Figure 2. Do you trust the information received from the source United News Telethon? 

The respondents also noted that with the start of a full-scale war, they began to look for alternative sources of information and mostly social networks, the results are shown in Figure 3. Social networks are used by 77 % of respondents to obtain information, and 56 % use television. Also, 65 % read news from the Internet without using social networks. The least popular source of information was radio, with about 31 % of Ukrainians listening to it, and only 14 % of respondents reading print media.

Figure 3 What sources of obtaining important information do you choose most often? 

The key problem is that the possibilities of international law to counter information and psychological warfare are rather scarce (^{Jonsson, 2019}). Information policy is a category of state influence, and such information and psychological attacks are spread under the “cover” of the right to freedom of expression.

A truly effective way to counter the information war is to develop a legal culture in civil society. A person who knows how to analyze information, who has the skills to counter false information, and who possesses the valuable qualities of tolerance and respect for human rights, will not become the target of information attacks. Therefore, as in many cases, education plays an important role in this context.

It is important that this education addresses an interdisciplinary field that includes: anti-racist education, conflict resolution education, global citizenship education, human rights education, social justice education, and education for sustainable development. At the core of these efforts is the concept of a culture of peace as an organizing framework that links these diverse fields of practice at different levels of education, from early childhood education to higher education, as well as across academic subjects (^{Eom & Kester, 2022}). Global citizenship, an inclusive environment, and a tolerant society are based on the values of reciprocity and trust, and promote community-oriented, ecologically balanced, and culturally sensitive ways of acting in society in the continuous construction of a more just and peaceful world.

Conclusions

The formation and observance of the legal policy of world peace is a prerequisite for the survival of humanity in modern conditions. This is the fundamental determinant that is the attractor of the functioning of modern society, state, and international institutions, without a peaceful society it will not be possible to achieve the level of trust, cooperation, and inclusiveness, the rule of law and other key criteria of relations in society. Global peace provides a framework for understanding and solving many complex challenges facing the world, it is the basis for communication between competing groups and for effective public administration.

The modern interpretation of the concept of global peace should be extended to its perception as a comprehensive ideology, which includes legal regulators of countering military conflicts and a wide range of social security institutions for peaceful coexistence of people in the political and legal reality. The elements of the concept of the global world order concept are the functioning of international and national subjects to ensure peace and the development of civil society, which includes the education of the global world order, tolerance, democratic values of constitutionalism, and the rule of law, and other primary legal axiological values.

Taking as an example the functioning of the UN, of its Security Council, and international judicial institutions, it has been shown that the current system for ensuring peace and security is today under significant threat; in general, it was created after World War II, it can no longer cover a number of important problems, and international legal gaps are becoming increasingly evident, which may indicate that international organizations are ineffective in ensuring peace and security, so the effectiveness of the system of international relations now requires drastic transformation.

The author argues that legal counteraction to terrorism should include the solution of many essential theoretical and legal issues, in particular, the adoption of the concept of terrorism in its internationally agreed, established form; systematic monitoring of terrorist threats, because they tend to change significantly in terms of territory; and combating new manifestations of terrorist actions, in particular, cyberterrorism.

Information as a means of warfare has not tactical but general social consequences that popularize military actions and justifies war crimes. Today, information warfare poses a significant threat to world peace and has a hybrid character. The legal means to counter it at the international level are minimal. A truly effective means of countering information warfare is the development of the legal culture of civil society. Educational activities are a priority to achieve a tolerant and inclusive society capable of countering false information narratives.