E

IR Chapter 3 Reading

Why Are There Wars?

  • The Puzzle: War is an extremely costly way for states to settle their disputes. Given the human and material costs of military conflict, why do states sometimes wage war rather than resolve their disputes through negotiation?

    • Costs of war outweigh benefits—such as human deaths, high costs for war and preparing for war, disruption of economies

    • Wars may start due to conflicting interests: whether those interests are territory, policy or ideology differences—but these explanations are incomplete because they do not explain WHY states resort to war

  • Although we focus a lot on wars, they are a very rare occurrence. Most disputes are settled, and wars fluctuate but never disappear, and issues to fight over persist

What Is the Purpose of War?

  • War: an event involving the organized use of military force by at least two parties that reaches a minimum threshold of severity.

    • “Organized use of force” rules out random acts of violence such as rioting

    • “At least two parties” distinguishes war from mass killings by a govt against some group

    • “Minimum threshold” distinguishes war from minor skirmishes—wars need a minimum of 1000 battlefield deaths

    • If the main parties are states, it is an interstate war, but if the main parties are within a state, it is a civil war—but this chapter focuses on interstate war

  • Three broad schools of thought influence ideas on what war is fought over, and why it happens, but this textbook focuses on the bargaining approach.

    • 1st is Realism: war is the inevitable result of international anarchy—no central authority exists to prevent states from using force to get their way. Anarchy also creates insecurity and motivates competition for power

      • (In this view) States fight wars to increase territory or to counter the power of others

      • That view leads to two dynamics that lead to war: preventive motive (fighting in order to prevent an enemy becoming powerful) and the security dilemma (the efforts that states make to defend themselves makes other states fear they will be attacked)

    • The bargaining model also assumes that anarchy leads to a world where states use/threaten force to advance their interests, and that they address conflict through bargaining rather than courts

      • This model also anticipates prevention and fear of attack as two motives leading to war—it departs from realism when it recognizes that military power imposes costs, so states would rather threaten force than use it

      • Uncertainty about outcome and costs of war plays an important role in this model’s approach

    • 2nd alternative: misperceptions or mistakes—wars occur because decision makers overestimate their chances of winning or costs they will pay from war

    • These two alternatives do not explain why wars happen at some points in time but not others

    • 3rd alternative: Wars are not fought b/c they serve state interests, but because they serve the influential groups in states (corporations, arms merchants, military)

      • Wars must be fought because costs do not fall on actors doing the warmongering

Interests at War: What do States Fight Over?

  • War is not about fighting—it is about obtaining or maintaining something of value that a state is vying for

  • What goods are fought over?

    • Territory - most wars involve territory, either to increase the wealth of a state (oil fields in the Iran-Iraq war, tax base) or the region would add to the industrial or agricultural resources of a state. Also, military or strategic value (Israel-Syria and the Golan Heights, can see down into either valley). Ethnic, cultural, or historical reasons (Arab states being against Israel’s existence/India-Pakistan and the Kashmir region)

    • Policies - Such as, a policy that benefits one state but harms another (2003 Iraq war - US saw their nuclear program as a threat / Russia-Ukraine: Ukraine pursuing ties to the West and harming ethnic Russians). A mistreatment of citizens (US bombing Syria after they used chemical weapons on their people). Finally, war over policy disputes to create change (US bombing Syria until they ended military force against Kosovar)

    • Regime type - Russia-Ukraine: Russia wanted Ukraine to pursue policies that gave more power and autonomy to the Russian minority group. Cold War - U.S. prevented establishment of communist regimes that would ally with the USSR

  • Any of those wars may also be fought over relative power (Britain/France not wanting Germany to win Poland b/c Germany would have more power relative to them)

Bargaining and War

  • To understand why some conflicts end in war, it is crucial to understand strategic interactions used to settle disputes

    • Because there is no reliable legal/judicial int’l institutions, states settle disputes through bargaining

  • Bargaining: interactions in which actors try to resolve disputes over the allocation of a good (can be territory division or modifying/eliminating policies)

    • Sometimes these bargains are not clean splits, and can be all-or-nothing

      • Example: Bush telling the Afghans to hand over Al-Qaeda leaders, a non-negotiable

  • Crisis happens when one state threatens military force to influence a bargaining outcome: crisis bargaining

    • Crisis bargaining: A bargaining interaction in which at least one actor threatens to use force in the event that its demands are not met —> leads to coercive diplomacy: The use of threats to advance specific demands in a bargaining action

      • Can take place through implicit ultimatums (Bush telling Saddam Hussein that he had two days to leave the country or face invasion) or implicit ultimatums (2014 Russia doing military trainings on the Ukraine border but never making a public declaration). Both seek to yank concessions from the other side by proposing a costly alternative

      • The costs and likely outcome of a war determines which deals each side will accept in crisis bargaining (states would rather get the entire good without a war taking place, and settling the underlying issue, but will also probably accept something less to avoid fighting)

        • Example: A piece of territory is worth $100 million, a state believes it will win this territory, but war costs are $30 million. So, expected value $70 million. This state will only accept a deal that gives it this value, as it knows it can wage war. In order to prevent war, both states must prefer the deal over war. Therefore, war can be avoided only if this other state is willing to settle for just $30 million worth of territory, or less.

      • So, there usually is an alternative to war that all sides prefer that generally exists. (page 103)