please log in to view this image please log in to view this image please log in to view this image please log in to view this image please log in to view this image please log in to view this image please log in to view this image please log in to view this image [/IMG]
War and conflict has been present throughout history across the globe, from Athenian-Spartan wars to modern day conflict in the middle-east. Some political thinkers argue that this conflict is inevitable in the inter-state system. These people are known as Realists. There are two main types of Realist thought; Classical and Structural. Although these two types of Realism come from a similar school of thought, they have different views as to why there are no laws between states. Classical realism (also known as Human nature realism) asserts that war and conflict are inevitable due to man’s desire for power, known as ‘maximisation of gain’ and that it is essentially human nature that causes war. Morgenthau’s ‘Politics among nations’ is a key work in this school of thought, and describes states constant seeking for opportunities to ‘take the offensive and dominate other states’. The second branch of Realist thought, Structural realism (or Defensive realism) provides an alternate explanation for the inevitability of war and conflict between states. Structural realism claims that the anarchical system (the lack of a greater authority over sovereign states) essentially forces states to seek power maximisation to prevent attack from other states, to maximise their security. Waltz, author of ‘Theory of International Politics’, defined the structure of the international system into three parts; organising principle, differentiation of units and distribution of capabilities. Waltz said that the distribution of capabilities was key to the outcome of international politics. An example given is the bipolar international system of the USA and the Soviet Union during the Cold War period. This, Structural realists would argue, is much more stable and less prone to conflict than having many great powers (a multipolar system). However there is a contrasting school of thought, known as Liberalism, which argues that that war and conflict can be prevented and is not inevitable. Liberalism argues that the use of systems and structure can prevent conflict. For instance, through one branch of Liberalism known as democratic peace thesis, Francis Fukuyama claims in his book ‘The end of history and the last man’ that the spread of liberal democracy, both at the end of the Cold war and currently in the middle-east, will eventually lead to a peaceful world. This is because, in the opinion of Liberalists, liberal democracies are less aggressive and will not seek to maximise power by invading or starting wars, as opposed to dictatorships such as the Nazi regime. Another form of Liberalism comes in the idea that free trade between sovereign states will encourage peace between them. This is a theory of the liberalist Cobden, who said that mutual gains will be brought to states with economic interdependence, so states will seek to secure stability by preventing conflict with other states that they trade with, and will make war very costly for both states, thus making it much more unlikely. This theory is known as Cobdenism. Neo-Liberalism states that institutions (such as the League of Nations and the UN) can regulate the anarchical inter-state system and help the relationship between states, through treaties, norms and rules which must be observed. Woodrow suggested this theory in his famous ’14 points’ speech, where he said a general association of nations must be formed to protect the territories and economies of nations great or small. Finally, another form of Liberalism associated with the philosopher Immanuel Kant is Classical Liberalism or Enlightenment. Firstly, Kant said that the civil constitution of every state should be republican, or in other words it should be the decision of the people whether war should be declared. Secondly, Kant said that states should enter peace treaties with other states to prevent conflict, which he called a federation of free states. Thirdly, Kant said that there should be international rights of humanity to protect citizens. Liberalists will argue that war and conflict is the inter-state system is actually preventable, through economic interdependence, international institutions and the spread of democracy. For instance, many believers in the democratic peace, such as Francis Fukuyama, will use the very small number of wars/conflict between liberal democracies as proof that liberal democracies rarely go to war with one and other, so the spread of democracy ensures a more peaceful inter-state system. The most significant and violent wars in modern have been the fault of authoritarian/totalitarian states, such was the First and Second World Wars, plus the massive amount of inter-state conflict seen in dictatorships, in China, Russia and South America. Fukuyama argues that with the sudden increase in Liberal democracies, there is a significant decline in total warfare, ethnic warfare, interstate warfare and revolutionary warfare. The argument given is that if Liberal democracies continue to spread (as seen in the Arab Spring of 2011) throughout the interstate system, eventually war and conflict will cease to exist between states. Liberalists also claim that economic interdependence and free trade between states is a key factor in ensuring peace in the inter-state system. A state with trade links with another is unlikely to initiate conflict because the trade links will bring mutual benefits to both states, so war would only serve to damage the economy of both states. This can be seen throughout the European Union, where there is free trade between states, with no wars or conflict. This is Cobdenism, a theory of the political thinker Richard Cobden. Realists believe that war and conflict is inevitable in the interstate system, either because of man’s desire for power maximisation or because the anarchical system fosters a mentality of insecurity which leads states to become offensive and initiate conflict. One Realist criticism of Liberalist thinking is that institutions and treaties cannot guarantee peace. This can be seen in the Munich Agreement of 1938, where British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain signed an agreement with Adolf Hitler to ensure peace between the United Kingdom and Germany. Chamberlain returned to Britain promising ‘peace in our time’. Less than a year later German forces had invaded Poland, and soon Britain entered in a war with Germany. This example can help to prove both Classical and Structural Realist thought, because it shows how there are essentially no rules between states as Hitler could do as he pleased, and due to the anarchical system there was no greater international authority to prevent Hitler’s offensive. Further evidence for this is the fact that the League of Nations could do little to stop the offences of Nazi Germany. Realists could also criticise Liberalists view that economic interdependence ensures peace, because it relies on a strong economy to make sure that there is no war or conflict. If in times of economic crisis, such as the Great Depression in the 1930s, war and conflict may follow. A strong economy cannot be relied upon for peace because in the present day the economy is unstable as ever. Although the democratic peace theory does show a considerable reduction in war and conflict in modern times, Liberal democracies have and can still go at war with one and other. Examples are the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, the American Civil war and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (though there is some argument as to whether Palestine is a sovereign state). These examples undermine the democratic peace theory and show that war and conflict is still very possible between states. Although the democratic peace thesis does not account for conflict between states and terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda, offensive action taken by Liberal democracies such as the USA towards these groups could be seen as not adhering to international law – most notably the assassination of Osama Bin Laden, where American soldiers killed a foreign man on foreign soil. This helps to show that, despite being members of international organisations such as the UN, America still did not adhere to international law and did what they pleased.
