inter-state conflict

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


2/19

Summary

International conflict is a central theme of

global politics.

World War I

World War II

Cold War


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.


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.


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.


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.


7/19

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

inter-state conflict

Documents