War and International Security

War and World Politics

• War occurs when two or more groups interact violently.
• War, along with trade and diplomacy, is one of the earliest forms of contact between different polities.
• War has been a historical constant since the dawn of human civilization and is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
• The way war is carried out varies significantly across time, space, and culture, including agents, means, ends, purposes, and geographical scope.
• From an IR perspective, academics are interested in explaining the causes, dynamics, consequences, and prevention of wars.

Defining War

• War is defined as organized violence between political entities, including both states and non-state actors, involving leadership, human resources, and material means.
• War changes with historical and social context, shaped by the societies that fight it, the level of technology, culture, and economy.
• Examples include the difference between war in medieval times versus modern war.
• War is a means to a political end, such as to punish, protect, or gain something.
• Examples:
  • War on Terror (WOT) aims to make the world free from terror.
  • Russia's invasion of Ukraine aims to seize territory or prevent it from joining NATO.
  • Israel's actions in Palestine aim to punish Hamas or further erode Palestine as a state.
• War is fought for a specific political purpose, at least in the minds of those who wage it.
• Strategy involves the overarching planning of how to conduct the war to achieve the desired end (long-term goal).
• Tactics are the techniques that armed forces use to win battles in that war (tactics serve to achieve short-term goals within that strategy).
• Example: D-Day (Normandy invasion 1944)
  • Strategy: Encircle Germany from both West and East (Russia).
  • Tactic: Airborne division to parachute behind enemy lines before main beach landings.

Civil War vs. International War

• The international system consists of sovereign nation-states, leading to two main conventional distinctions:
  • Civil war: Internal groups battle over control of a sovereign state.
    • Examples: Angola (1975-2002), South Sudan (2013-2020), Sudan (2023-…), or groups wanting to secede (Sudan & South Sudan 1983-2005).
  • International war: Two or more sovereign states fight each other.
    • Examples: WWII, Iran-Iraq War (1980-8), US-led invasion of Iraq (2003-2010), Russia-Ukraine war (2022-…).
• However, the conventional distinction is often blurred:
  • Civil wars often include an array of different international state and non-state actors.
    • Examples: Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Sudan, involving domestic contenders, external backers, the UN, humanitarian organizations, NATO, and jihadists.
  • War between two states can have global impacts.
    • Examples: Russia x Ukraine impacting food and energy supply chains, Israel-Palestine impacting global public opinion perception of the conflict.

War and Society

• War connects combatant societies, shaping one another significantly, leading to a 'war and society' approach.
• Society shapes war, and war shapes society.
• Example: US-led invasion of Iraq changed society on both sides and the way the war was fought using drones.
• Global dimensions of conflict can shape international society and world politics as a whole, leading to long-lasting consequences.
• Examples:
  • IIWW led to the creation of the UN.
  • Decline of European empires led to new states in Africa and Asia.
  • New technologies such as nuclear weapons and jet aircraft emerged.
  • US-led invasion of Iraq and the rise of ISIS.

Case Study 1: War and Eurocentrism – The Second World War

• WW2 is usually dated from 1939 to 1945, which is a Eurocentric dating.
• For many, WW2 is embedded in other struggles, giving it different meanings:
  • US & Western Europe: War between democratic and authoritarian rule.
  • Eastern Europe: WW2 was followed by Russian occupation until 1989.
  • China: Second Sino–Japanese War (1937–45) embedded in Chinese civil war (1927–49); WW2 is known as the Anti-Japanese Resistance War.
  • South Asia: WW2 resulted in independence from British rule.

Carl von Clausewitz and War

• Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1831) was a Prussian officer.
• His ideas on war were shaped by his observations of the French Revolution and Napoleonic wars.
• Key text: On War (1832-35).
• Central idea: War is the realm of uncertainty (fog of war), and commanders must make decisions based on incomplete, ambiguous, or misleading information.
• War cannot be reduced to objective calculations on a map; rather, it results from the dialectic interaction of multiple variables.

Clausewitz and War: Two Interconnected Trinities

• Two interconnected trinities determine the nature and course of war:
  1. Passion, chance, and reason.
  2. Political leadership, armed forces, and people.

Clausewitz and War: Trinity Philosophy

1. Passion among people: Beliefs about war leading to the will to wage it (enmities that sustain violence in war).
2. Chance among military forces: Testing their abilities against the trials and fortunes of war (human error, weather, etc.).
3. Reason among political leadership: Deciding upon the war and setting its ultimate aims (and generals translate these aims into reality).

• The two trinities come together in various and intricate combinations, determining the course and outcome of war and the fate of peoples.

Clausewitz and War: Distinctions

• Real / actual war:
  • War as it actually happens, always limited by certain factors.
  • Friction (Murphy’s Law) and policy (strategy of the leadership - achieved goals or realization that it cannot, i.e., US withdrawal from Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan).
• True/Absolute nature of war:
  • Inherent tendency of war to escalate and expand if left to its own devices.
• Total war:
  • Fight for the state’s existence (e.g., Vietnam War).
• Limited war:
  • Fought for a lesser goal than existence (e.g., territorial disputes - China vs. India; or access to markets - Opium Wars UK vs. China in the 1800s).

Clausewitz and War: Primacy of Politics in War

• Primacy of Politics in War (not the other way around; war does not stop politics/relationship with the other side):
  • War is the continuation of politics with other (violent) means.
• The political purpose behind the use of force limits the use of force (use only enough force to achieve political goal) – war is an instrument to achieve political ends, thus limiting or containing violence.
• However, political purposes can also fuel the violence of war (passion can overcome reason, i.e., Israel-Palestine conflict; Hitler’s extermination of Jews; Rwanda genocide > politics fuelled violence rather than limiting it).

War, State, and Society in the West: From Feudalism to the Nation-State

• The nation-state is a modern political construction that emerged in Western Europe over the course of the past 4 centuries (centralized control of force = source of political power).
• Medieval Europe: Armored knights and fragmented political power (king dependent on fealty of lords to raise an army).
• Renaissance: Emergence of trained and disciplined infantry armies (= Greeks and Roman empires) + advances in military technology (gunpowder, cannon, musket).

War, State, and Society in the West: From Feudalism to the Nation-State (cont.)

• Fiscal–military cycle (raise taxes to sustain war) + resources from colonies (more taxes > larger armies > more territory) gives rise to the modern territorial state (monopoly of violence + society and economy under the same territory & central rule).
• Emergence of national identity (same borders, same language & cultural traditions, same ruler) > rise of the nation-state as the dominant form of political organization.
• French Revolution: Introduction of compulsory mass conscription (greater loyalty – until then armies were paid mercenaries) > nationalism and citizenship bounded with military service.

War, State, and Society in the West: From Feudalism to the Nation-State (cont.)

• Max Weber: War-making is central to the emergence of the nation-state (state, people, and territory sealed together by the monopoly of force).
• Symbiotic relationship - war increases national sentiment, and nationalism motivates wars (i.e., Nazi Germany).
• National identity seems natural but is, in fact, a recent social construction.
• Andrew Linklater: Nationalism fosters exclusionary identities, making conflicts more Total.
• Often used to justify wars, mobilize mass support for war, and justify extreme violence.
• Advocates for post-Westphalian state - moving beyond nationalism as the main organizing principle (national loyalty that does not override ethical concerns).
• Envisions a world where cosmopolitan obligations (e.g., human rights, global justice) matter as much as national interests.

War, State, and Society in the West: From the World Wars to the Post-Cold War

• Industrialization, fossil fuels, and modern methods of mass production made truly total wars possible (easier to sustain large military forces and sustain war effort).
• During the world wars, the nation-state was a vehicle for the mobilization of military power and the pursuit of war, but wars also outgrew the nation-state.
  • Alliances (I and II WWs).
  • Nuclear weapons  cold war (huge military budgets, threat of destruction of humankind).
  • Empires and CW dynamics after > western powers wars had international and global dimensions (proxy wars).
• Post-cold war, conventional armed forces scaled-back, and conscription stopped in many European countries (about to change now?).
• Concerns about control of nuclear weapons persist.

War, State, and Society in the Global South

• To the non-Western world, war and society in Europe from the sixteenth century was about empire-building, not state-building.
• European war concerns: challenges to imperial rule among colonized populations and imperial expansion (wars with other imperial powers – for routes and colonies).
• Continued war amongst Europeans > improve capabilities > large advantage in war making.
• Europeans raised armed forces from the populations they colonized to secure the empires and fight their wars (WWI & II).
• Newly independent countries armies derive from those > maintained close links.
• Great powers continued to use military assistance to intervene in the global south after independence.

War, State, and Society in the Global South (cont.)

• In pursuing self-determination, new countries in the global south adopted the Nation-state blueprint, often unfit for population and territorial realities, leading to many conflicts.
• After independence, many armed forces retained close links with former colonial powers / or with US/SU during the CW (military assistance > dependency).
• Broadly speaking, in the global south, armed forces are used for:
  • Internal security (quash rebellions or ethnic tensions).
  • In the context of civil war.
  • Or foreign intervention (due to close links – training, i.e., WOT and building arm forces in Iraq and Afghanistan).
• Rarely used for international wars – Middle East, South Asia.

War and Society Today in the Global South and North

• National, international, and global dimensions of war have become bound together in new ways.
• Continuities with the past: security assistance and military training for states in the Global South.
• New modalities: blurred line between war and policing - increasing use of air and drone strikes (Syria and Yemen).
• The West is forced to police its own domestic societies, curtailing civil liberties (i.e., surveillance of the internet and private exchanges) to combat the threat of terrorist attacks.

War and Society Today in the Global South and North (cont.)

• Stephan Walt, “The two biggest Global Trends are at War,” Foreign Affairs (Aug 2024).
• Two significant global trends are at odds:
  • Growing lethal military force of powerful states to inflict damage from afar VS. deepening salience of local identities and national loyalties.
• Walt argues that using the former tends to reinforce the latter.
• While powerful nations can cause significant damage, this does not translate into lasting political influence or strategic success.
• Such actions often strengthen local identities and resistance, highlighting the need for leaders to recognize that military power alone cannot address fundamental political conflicts or achieve lasting objectives.

Case study: War and Society– France, US, and Vietnam (I)

• First Indochina War: France vs. Ho Chi Minh (1946–54).
• Vietnam had been under French rule since 1884.
• Influenced by Wilsonian right to self-determination, Ho Chi Minh fought for Vietnamese independence at the end of WW2.
• War between the French military and the Viet Minh lasted nine years.
• The French were funded by the US.
• Supported by the Soviet bloc, the Viet Minh forced the French to surrender in 1954.

Case study: War and Society– France, US, and Vietnam (II)

• Second Indochina War: US vs. USSR (1955–75).
• 1954: Geneva Peace Conference divided Vietnam into communist north (Ho Chi Minh) and independent south (Ngo Dinh Diem).
• The South was supported by the US, but guerilla insurgency was supported by northern Vietnam and the Soviet bloc, leading to conflict in the region.
• 1965: The US sent troops (eventually more than 500,000).
• 1975: The US was defeated, and south Vietnam came under the rule of North Vietnamese.

Opposing Opinions: Democracy creates peace among states

• For:
  • Kant: Representative government can bring an end to war.
  • Statistical tests suggest democratic states are unlikely to go to war against each other.
  • Democratic institutions make it harder for a state to go to war.
  • Democrats do not like to go to war against other democrats.
• Against:
  • Statistical tests are less convincing than they appear.
  • Democratic states have fought against democratic movements.
  • Democracies fight covert wars that do not appear in statistical tests.
  • Explanations for peace exist at the level of the international system, not based on regime type.

International and Global Security

• Fundamental questions that have fueled security debates in IR:
  • The causes of war (Waltz’s 3 images of war: man, state, and International system – three levels to explain war).
  • Whether conflict can be transcended/mitigated (optimists/pessimists).
  • Does globalization increase or decrease international security? (threats/opportunities).
  • How does globalization impact geopolitics? (increase/decrease).

The concept of security (I)

• Security is a contested concept:
  • Consensus: It implies freedom from physical threats to core values (for both individuals and groups).
  • Dissensus: Whether the main focus should be on individual, national, international, or global security.

Security concept

• Concept closely tied to developments in security studies (the study of the nature, causes, effects, and prevention of war).
• The field emerged between 2 WWs – initially looking for peaceful ways (collective security) to prevent another war.
• But as WWII set in motion, the focus shifted to national security and the military capabilities required to deal with imminent threats.

Security concept

• Emphasis on states military power expanded during the Cold War owing to nuclear war threat > debates monopolized by Realists (State as referent object and focus on external military threats).
• Greater diversity of perspectives emerged in the post-CW context.

Security studies

• End of CW + new generation of scholars (B. Buzan) > dimensions other than military gradually embedded in security debates:
  • Greater focus on non-military sources of threats to security – political, economic, social, environmental, energy security, cyber security etc…
  • States increasingly challenged as the dominant referent object of security (individual, global).
  • There is also increased interest in the concept of ‘human security’ (Annan, Acharya).

Human Security

• The concept arose in the early 1990s.
• Places individuals at the center of security strategies, increasing focus on non-military sources of threat.
• UNDP 1993 HDR: ‘Concept of security must change(…); from security through armaments to security through human development, from territorial security to food, employment and environment security.’
• UNDP HDR 1994 – devoted to concept of Human security: ’safety from constant threats of hunger, disease, crime and repression’
• Actively promoted by Canada & Norway, embraced by other UN agencies and many NGOs.
• But mainstream understanding of national security amongst policymakers remains tied to the protection of territory and core values from external threats (military dimension)…

Security concept

• This new conceptualization opens important research avenues:
  • whether national and international security can be compatible.
  • the extent to which states are capable of thinking in more cooperative international and global terms.

Security concept

• A stress on national and international security may be less appropriate because of:
  • the emergence of an embryonic global society in the post-cold war era.
  • The new risks and dangers brought on by the process of globalization - including international terrorism, a breakdown of the global monetary system, global warming, cyber conflict, and the dangers of nuclear proliferation.

The traditional approach to national security

• From the treaties of Westphalia, states have been regarded as the most powerful actors in a ‘self-help’ world.
• Many thinkers have been pessimistic about the implications of state sovereignty:
  • States claiming sovereignty inevitably develop offensive military capabilities to defend themselves and are thus potentially dangerous to each other.
• All states need to balance the power of other states to prevent any one from achieving overall hegemony.

The traditional approach to national security

• Neo-realists - national security is largely the result of the structure of the international system (self-help, security dilemma, power politics, balance of power).
• The structure of anarchy > highly durable > IR is likely to be as violent in the future as in the past.
• Cooperation possible but constrained by the logics of security competition (interests and structural constraints dictate propensity to cooperate).
• Predict: the end of the unipolar system is likely to give way to a multipower system (China, Russia, India, Brazil) > more power politics and insecurity.

The traditional approach to national security

• Liberal institutionalists:
  • Same structural framework but greater emphasis on international institutions > argue they play a crucial role in enhancing security.
  • Institutions have played a crucial role in enhancing security in many regions (i.e., EU).
  • Complementarity, mutually reinforcing institutions > path to a more peaceful world in the future > mitigate traditional security competition.

Alternative approaches: Constructivist theory

• Constructivist theorists: states are central in security debates, but fundamental structures of international politics are social rather than strictly material.
• The security dilemma is a social structure composed of inter-subjective understandings that assume worst-case scenarios about other states intentions > define their interests in self-help terms.
• Changes in the nature of social interaction between states > fundamental shift towards greater international security.
• A security community such as NATO is an example of shared knowledge and identity in which states trust one another to resolve disputes without war.

Alternative approaches

• Critical theorists focus their attention on the way existing relationships and institutions emerge and create unjust hierarchies/inequality and what might be done to change them.
• Critical security studies contend that individuals, not states, should be the center of analysis.
• Human security (Mahbub Al Haq & Amitav Acharya) broadens the conception of ‘security’ to include areas such as poverty, disease, and environmental degradation.

Alternative approaches (II)

• Feminist writers argue that gender should be brought into the study of international security.
  • Women are as much affected by conflicts, if not more (e.g., rape as a tool of war).
  • The patriarchal nature of structure and control legitimizes and perpetuates violence.
  • Women security perspectives will add new issues and alternative views (rethinking militarism and patriarchy).

Alternative approaches: Critical, feminist, and discursive security studies (II)

• Post-structural approaches hold that ideas, discourse, and ‘the logic of interpretation’ are crucial in understanding international security.
• The predominance of realism is the central problem of international security (encourages security competition).
• Aim to uproot the realist discourse of power with a different one based on alternative interpretations of threats to national security based on cooperative norms.

Globalization and the return of geopolitics?

• There is an ongoing debate about whether globalization and geopolitics are compatible in a changing world.
• Those who believe they are incompatible argue that:
  • Geopolitics has to do with national and imperial control of space and resources, whereas globalization has to do with the free flow of goods, capital, and ideas (Blouet 2001).
  • External threats increasingly transnational, rendering traditional geopolitics (centered on balance of power and interstate conflict) irrelevant (Kugler and Frost 2001).

Globalization and the return of geopolitics

• Others reject the idea that there is opposition between the two concepts.
• The Obama pivot to Asia as US strategic priorities > geopolitical analysis is still an important element in strategic thinking (reinforced by Trump and Biden).
• Contemporary international relations appears to be characterized by important challenges to globalization and a greater emphasis on the role of geopolitics.
• e.g., growing alignment between China and Russia and tensions with the West – Ukraine issue 2022).

Globalization and the return of geopolitics?

• Different views of globalization and geopolitics give rise to different conclusions about world order.
• Globalization can thus be imagined as bringing greater peace and security.
• For others, it can lead to greater fragmentation and conflict as the status quo is challenged.

Case study 1: Insecurity in the post-cold war world: The Democratic Republic of Congo (I)

• An estimated 6 million people have lost their lives in what is sometimes called ‘Africa’s world war’ (1996–2016).
• In 1996, the conflict in Rwanda spilled over into the Congo (then ‘Zaire’).
• Rwandan forces eventually invaded the Congo to depose the existing government.
• The new Kabila government fell out with its backers, leading to a wider conflict.

Case study 1: Insecurity in the post-cold war world: The Democratic Republic of Congo (II)

• Many neighboring countries were involved in the resulting power struggle.
• The country was also riven by internal conflicts based on ethnic division.
• The first electoral transfer of power in 59 years occurred with the December 2018 elections, but concerns remained about electoral fraud and continuing violence.

Case study: Growing tensions in the East China Sea

• 1895: Japan first claimed rights over Senkaku/Diaoyu islands.
• China argues that the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands have been part of its territory since ancient times.
• Taiwan claims the islands with a similar argument.
• Tensions, particularly between China and Japan, are ongoing.
• In both cases, renewed disputes have raised the level of regional insecurity, though major military conflict has been avoided in recent years.

Case study: Growing tensions in the South China Sea

• Dispute over the Paracel and Spratly islands between China, Vietnam, and the Philippines.
• China claims historical rights dating back 2,000 years.
• Taiwan mirrors those claims.
• Vietnam rejects these historical claims and says it has ruled over both the island chains since the 17th century.
• The Philippines claims the islands on a geographical basis.
• The most serious conflicts have been between China x Vietnam, but presently China x Philippines.
• China argues tensions are high because of US navy presence in the region.
• The Philippines argues tensions are high because of Chinese maritime militia actions (seemingly fishing vessels that force other claimants away from islands, shoals, and reefs).

The 2015 Nuclear Agreement with Iran enhanced international security

• For:
  • It removed nuclear proliferation risks.
  • Verification ensures success.
  • Arms control benefits international stability.
  • Normalization of international relations brings stability.
• Against:
  • It will not prevent a nuclear Iran.
  • Iran will continue to support reactionary forces.
  • Insecurity in the Middle East will continue.
  • A broken Agreement will be worse than no Agreement.