Explaining the Causes of War

Realism

• War is inherent to the human condition and inevitable in international relations

• Because there is no absolute centralized power/authority that can really prevent wars, they will break out

• War may even be the most viable option for states as it can be used to increase their resources and spread their power, influence, and values

Liberalism

• States who already have enough resources for their citizens and government to get by if not thrive are significantly less likely to start violent conflict than are states who severely lack basic necessities

• Democratic peace theory: democracies rarely (if ever) go to war with other democracies

• Commercial peace theory: states that are more interdependent, particularly through trade and investment, are less likely to go to war

Constructivism

• War is caused primarily through identity-based conflicts as identities are the main factor they assess when looking at international relations and individual states’ interests

• If a state’s identity is built around a value like peace and neutrality, such as Switzerland, that state is less likely to involve itself in armed conflicts

• However, if a national identity is largely constructed through militarism and hard power, such as North Korea, that may be a more likely way for the state to assert its interest

Preventing War and Managing State Security

Realism

• Power balancing: creating an equilibrium between two or more potentially conflicting states so that war is in no state’s best interest

• Deterrence: inspiring fear among a state’s administration and/or population to deter them from taking military action

Liberalism

• Collective security ideal: states can band together against potential attackers to deter these adversaries from taking action, as it will result in a collective response

• Arms control and disarmament: attempts to weaken or completely disband the weapons held by countries, particularly those at greater risk of attacking others

Constructivism

• International cooperation may be successful in preventing international relationships from going sour

• Try to influence changes in social norms and identities that would cause states from being at odds with each other

Responding to the Cuban Missile Crisis

• Options considered: invading, naval blockade between Cuba and the mainland US (used), alerting the public (used) vs. keeping them in the dark to keep people calm

• Outcome: US and USSR agreed to remove their missiles from Turkey and Cuba respectively to prevent further conflict and further ensure that neither was at risk of bombing the other.

  • This came after two weeks of coming close to conflict in the waters around Florida and Cuba, where one shot could start a devastating war; both powers agreed that the conflict needed to come to an end expediently so as to protect their respective populations.

• What was learned: large-scale and potentially universally devastating should not be risked simply for the pride or expression of power on behalf of a single country, and that forms of non-military communication are crucial to resolving conflicts rather than solely resorting to the whims of military leaders.

  • Choose military decisions wisely and consider the other side’s perspective before picking one option above another.