inter-state conflict
Post on 14-Apr-2018
219 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/30/2019 Inter-state conflict
1/19
International Conflict: Explaining
Interstate WarCHAPTER 6
WAR, Ugh, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing!
-Edwin Starr
VS
-
7/30/2019 Inter-state conflict
2/19
Summary
International conflict is a central theme of
global politics.
World War I
World War II
Cold War
-
7/30/2019 Inter-state conflict
3/19
Explaining Conflict Between States:
Analyzing Wholes and Parts
Warfare is a pervasive international problem, and scholars
have adopted a variety of approaches to explore this
phenomenon.
Some analysts feel that all valid explanations of humanbehavior must be reduced to the level of humanunderstanding and perceptions and couched in terms ofthe nature and intentions of individuals.
Others feel that explanations of human behavior shouldfocus on the social structures that emerge as peopleinteract with one another. For example, structuralexplanations of international war emphasize that war iscaused by the anarchic nature of the international systemor bad (dictatorial) states.
-
7/30/2019 Inter-state conflict
4/19
One crucial step toward forming an educated opinion about the
whole versus parts controversy involves understanding
theories at different levels of analysis. Levels of analysis concernwhether one focuses upon the components or whether one
focuses upon the system. Applying levels of analysis to explore
the causes of war raises issues of conceptual interpretation.
-
7/30/2019 Inter-state conflict
5/19
The most vital point to be made about analyses that focus on
different social entities (nation-states on the one hand and the
international system on the other) is that these analyses are
relatively independent of each other. That is, patterns on one
level of analysis will not necessarily be reflected on another
level. Also, analyses of issues in global politics can become
confused if shifts in levels of analysis are not made clear.
-
7/30/2019 Inter-state conflict
6/19
Systemic Explanations of Interstate
War
The systems, or structural, level of analysis focuses on the characteristics
of the international system as the root of interstate conflict. Realists adopt
the systems level of analysis and related assumptions, including that the
international system is characterized by anarchy. In anarchic
environments, competitive states may fall into security dilemmas,
whereby ones actions to increase their security automatically decreases
the security of other states. In addition to anarchy, realists focus on the
distribution of power in the international system.
-
7/30/2019 Inter-state conflict
7/19
Different arrangements of power distribution and concentration are
characterized as polarity. International systems may be unipolar, bipolar, or
multipolar. The balance-of-power theory was developed by makers of
European foreign policy in the era from roughly 1700 until the First World
War. The fundamental premise of this theory was that power should be
distributed within the international system in such a way that no single state
ever becomes strong enough to dominate the rest. Preserving such a balance
was one reason for the exchange of ambassadors (whose function was to
keep up with changes in power), which became standard. The most important
way of manipulating power distribution involved creating temporary alliancesto thwart the ambitions of any state that became too powerful.
-
7/30/2019 Inter-state conflict
8/19
The classical balance of power is often credited with
preserving the peace in the nineteenth century. Hans
Morgenthau asserts that peace was preserved by a balance of
power, while A. F. K. Organski says this was because there wasactually an imbalance of power. An empirical analysis of the
relevant data reveals that the latter argument receives
support from data pertaining to the nineteenth century,
whereas an analysis of twentieth-century data providesevidence for the former argument.
-
7/30/2019 Inter-state conflict
9/19
Nevertheless, it is not clear that the main idea tested
here is truly relevant to the system level of analysis. It
applies more clearly to relationships between pairs of
states. Furthermore, some versions of the balance-of-
power theory predict not that peace will prevail, but
rather that war is one mechanism that will be used to
maintain a balance.
-
7/30/2019 Inter-state conflict
10/19
A related controversy focuses on the relationship
between the polarity of the global system and that
systems propensity toward war. A majority of scholars
who have analyzed this relationship believe thatmultipolar systems are more flexible and less prone to
conflict. However, Kenneth Waltz argues that the
bipolar system of the post-Second World War period
proved quite stable. The relevance of this debate was
revived by the end of the Cold War. The end of the Cold
War has also opened up room for another approach to
system stability called hegemonic stability theory. This
theory argues that unipolar systems are more stable
because a very powerful hegemon will counter the
anarchy in the international system by playing the role
of an overarching authority that can enforce rules.
-
7/30/2019 Inter-state conflict
11/19
The key question in hegemonic stability theory is whether the
United States is playing the role of the hegemon today. Some argue
that despite the relative preponderance of power the United Statespossesses, the system is not unipolar.
-
7/30/2019 Inter-state conflict
12/19
In regards to unipolar systems, realists warn that such systems are inherently
unstable and dangerous because hegemons do not last, and their eventual
decline will lead to a system better explained by the power transition theory.
According to this theory, conflicts are more likely when power transitions areunderway, and power transition theorists point to rising Chinese power as the
new phenomenon to be observed.
-
7/30/2019 Inter-state conflict
13/19
Confusion need not blot out the coherence that does exist in
the relationship between system structure and the behavior
of nation-states. A step toward clarifying the relationship
between system structure and the behavior of states withinthat structure involves integrating the balance-of-power
theory with theories that focus on polarity. Prevailing
conventional wisdom suggests that the balance-of-power
system died at the end of the Second World War.
-
7/30/2019 Inter-state conflict
14/19
But such a belief is based on an exaggeration of the differences between the
contemporary system and the historical system. True, the system based on a
conscious attempt to adhere to the theory of a classical balance of power,
such as did occur in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Europe, is dead. But
a more generic balance-of-power system exists so long as the system is
anarchic and the units in it wish to survive. Finally, while realists tend to focus
on anarchy and the distribution of power as the most important
characteristics of the system, liberalism recognizes the potential for
international cooperation through interdependence.
-
7/30/2019 Inter-state conflict
15/19
State and Dyadic-Level Explanations
of Wars
First, traditional Marxist theory of war argues that states with capitalist
economies will be inherently war prone. This traditional Marxist theory
argues that capitalism leads to imperialism, which leads to military
conflict.
Second, others contend that states with centrally planned economies may
be more war prone.
Third, the type of political system that states have may shape their
likelihood of engaging in international conflict. Liberals argue that
democracies are supposedly constrained from choosing war due to the
presence of a strong political opposition. This relates directly to the
democratic peace thesis that democratic dyads are not likely to wagewar against each other.
Fourth, contrary to some arguments that political opposition constrains
leaders from choosing war, the diversionary theory of war suggests that
political opposition may drive some leaders to seek war in order to
distract the public from internal problems.
-
7/30/2019 Inter-state conflict
16/19
The democratic peace thesis is championed by some scholars as one of the
most significant results of international relations scholarship since World War
II, but for others the proposition raises questions of definitions, measurement
of conflict, and interpretation of dyadic arrangements. The question of whydemocracies do not tend to fight each other remains a theoretical puzzle that
scholars have tried to explore using cultural explanations or through studies
of constraints on democratic governments. State level theories of war
causation can be applied to understand the origins of World War I, World War
II, and even the rise of the Cold War.
-
7/30/2019 Inter-state conflict
17/19
Decision-Making-Level Explanations
of WarsPolicy-making processes and their characteristics and key actors may provide strong
interpretations for foreign policy decisions. The foreign policy approach to international
politics stands in contrast to system-level theories such as realism and liberalism.
Bureaucratic and organizational politics represent important theories of policy-making.
According to the classic work of Graham Allison, bureaucratic units develop identities of
their own in the political process and may advocate policies that emanate from their own
unique perspectives. Bureaucratic agencies also develop standard operating procedures,
or organizational routines, that shape how problems are handled.
-
7/30/2019 Inter-state conflict
18/19
Leaders ultimately have significant authority over state behavior, and
their beliefs and perceptions may shape discrete decisions in foreign
policy. Leaders may have distinct enemy images or they may
misperceive developments on the world stage. Decision-making
explanations seem to offer compelling perspectives on the events
leading to the outbreak of World War I, although some of these
explanations have been recently questioned. Decision-making
explanations also help us to understand certain causes of World War II
and the Cold War.
-
7/30/2019 Inter-state conflict
19/19
Multilevel Explanations of War: Using
Caution When Comparing Levels of
Analysis
Levels of analysis primarily provide students of global politics a way to categorize
various factors that are involved in the very real problem of war between states. No one
level of analysis should be seen as better than another, but analytic interpretations atdifferent levels offer very different insights into explanations of major events. Because
of this, the authors suggest caution in over-interpretation of major events. Inferring a
causal connection from covariation would be risky, and the authors explore problems
with analytical interpretation related to finding a positive relationship, then mistakenly
concluding that states with many alliances are more likely to become involved in wars.
Caution must be exercised when comparing levels of analysis.
top related