Introduction Throughout time the study of war has always been a focal point in the study of international relations. Over time, there have been many theories proposed to help us understand what actually causes wars. Some theories depend on social and mental nature of man or separate learners in general. Other theories focus on the decision making process of the regime or domestic politics to describe the theories of war (Reiter 2003). Nevertheless, the most dominant theories or perceptions of what causes wars are Realism and Liberalism. These two theories place emphasis that the state is a single rational actor. In simpler terms both theories are system level theories that place emphasis on the state being the main actor in international relations. …show more content…
When looking at realism it can be sub-divided into three broad types: classical, modern, and neo-realism though they all share a number of core values. Realists have a pessimistic view of international politics. The writings of Thucydides (460-400BC), Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527) and Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) are normally associated with a classical realist perspective. Their writings placed a great importance on not just the supremacy of the state but also compared the supposed greed, selfishness and “human nature” of egoism on the character of the state. Machiavelli particularly believed that ethics and morals had no position in politics. Statism, self-help and survival are all core ideas of classic realism. These such writings central to the thinking of modern realists like E.H. Carr and Kenneth Waltz, who were often called structural realists, acknowledged that the perception of human nature in the use of power in international relations, placed a bigger importance on the anarchic nature of the international system which “fosters jealousy, insecurity, suspicion and fear” between states (Dunne, Schmidt, 2008 pp. 11-103). Modern realists state that the primary actors in the international system are states, who will act rationally, and along with security and the expansion of power an essential purpose for each state in an anarchical system. These …show more content…
Clausewitz was proposing that if states perceive war as something that is a necessary step so that they can promote their own interests and power, well then they will use it as a rational political tool. Kenneth Waltz and other modern realists have further built on Clausewitz idea of what causes wars and have also furthered and added to the idea. In Kenneth Waltz’s writing in “Man, the State and War”, he sets out three interconnected images of what causes wars. The first one, which keeps in line with a classical realist thought, is war has its origins in flawed human nature. This suggest that “the evilness of men, or their improper behaviour, leads to war” (Waltz, 2001, p.39). Waltz’s second image that he proposes is that the inner administration of the state component is essential for us to understand its tendency towards war. The image has two beliefs that state that for survival in central conflict or civil war, a state must endorse an entity that is homogenously unified. The third image that Waltz highlights the anarchy that exists in the international system. He proposes that as states have such interests that will all too often clash with the interest of other states, e.g. resources that may be scarce, and with no supreme authority to stop
War is a conflict that has been seen by every human civilization to some extent, and is sure to be seen by those in the future. These hostile situations can be caused by a variety of situations, including land, resources, philosophy, and religion. Though the exact cause and result of each war is different, there are ways to gauge the effectiveness and permissibility of the actions of governments and armed forces during war. This is the premise of Just War Theory. Just War is philosophy of rating a war as ethically just or not, which has three basic requirements along with a scale for comparison.
War is defined as “[a] state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict” (“War”). War existed throughout the history of mankind, and left its footprints deep within our society. Even though, we do not know what war truly is. We may assume that war is a complex matter that derives us to think and analyze its true meanings and values. It raises the question of ‘What causes war?’
Realism, in its most general form, closely ties power and survival, explaining that there cannot be survival without power, and that the state consists of rational thinkers that have this is at their best interest and who act as one. The main contributors to the theory of realism include Thucydides, Machiavelli and Hobbes. Thucydides’ contribution to the theory of realism lies mostly in one of the earliest scholarly works in history, History of the Peloponnesian War, which
Conclusion a. Restated thesis: As seen in the Great War for Empire of 1754-1763 and the American Civil War of 1861-1865, societal, political, and / or economic changes, although progressive in nature and intended to prevent conflict did impact whether societies waged “limited” or “total” war. b. Significance: The modern day officer must become a student of history, requiring evaluation of these influences on how we fight. Societal views change or differ, political environment and views often differ, and economic posturing is ever present. These factors determine not only if a country wages war, but how a country wages war.
This theory points out an interest in the individual, specifically in the behavior of man. In that order, if human nature can’t be changed, then the occurrence of war can’t be reduce by trying to change it. Supposedly, social and political institutions may have the chance to change the occurrence or at least decrease the chances of war. Instead, if human nature can be changed, and can be done with the interactions with social and political institutions, those institutions should be in main focus.
He states that, “the phenomenon of the political can be understood only in the context of the ever present possibility of the friend-and-enemy grouping” (Schmitt 35). Schmitt maintains that in order for politics to exist, there must be a conflict or rivalry between two sides and that conflict exists because the enemies provide the possibility of a violent attack against each other’s state. Schmitt continues this argument by asserting, “the justification of war does not reside in its being fought for ideals or norms of justice, but in its being fought against a real enemy” (Schmitt 49). Here Schmitt is successful in identifying the core of politics and how it distinctly identifies itself in juxtaposition to other spheres, such as justice and economics, which he contends are separate from the pure concept of the
Introduction (Ritchie, 1940) Identifies to some point we will notice that we are all pacifists in a way, even the strongest and the most aggressive individuals or states do not use war as their first resort to dissolve conflict. They would rather send threats of war than real war. Everyone wants to achieve their goals peacefully. This essay is aimed to outline the Ritchie’s dilemma.
Realist Perspective of the War: According to realists, the International Political system is anarchical. There is no sovereign entity ruling above the sovereign states in the world. Whilst this anarchy needs not to be chaotic, for various member states of the international
Realism theorists emphasize that the anarchical international system command states to position security as their main interest because other states have a tendency to look opportunities to take benefit of each other by any means such as getting advantage from military force. This notion derived from the philosophy of necessity which views states actions as a result of predictable condition. In addition, realism view states violence as a result of the prevalent power struggle in international system. As Morgenthou said, “International politics is struggle for power”. Within this conditions the daily life in international system is always characterize by struggle among states with the possibility of war in the background.
In this quote, the realist’s position is confirmed. Indeed the antagonism in international relations currently exists in high percentages. Power politics and interests rather than democratic views are the driving forces of the word. Quoting Lord and Harris (2006) “the main criticism of cosmopolitanism is that its civilizing project presumes a degree of universality which is far from present at the global level and its morally contestable whether it should be”. Concluding this first part of explaining my thesis on why realists are against the idea of global polity and they don’t see it as a viable or practical plan at least not based on current political situation, I will now present arguments in support of why global polity can not
The current work is meant to explain the differences and similarities between the most dominant theories in international relations, Realism and Liberalism, both theories have some similarities and differences but much more important and interesting is to discuss and explain what differs and makes similar both theories. Conflicts and wars, Similarities and differences between Realism and Liberalism: Both Liberalism and Realism believes that there is no world government that can prevent countries to go to war on one another. For both theories military power is important and both Realism and Liberalism can understand that countries can use military power to get what they need or want. Also, both theories are conscious that without military
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK It involves using theories to explain the existing problem in various situations. Realism theory and the dependency theory will be used to explain the existing conflict between Israel and Palestine. It will also be able to justify the use of force by the Israeli government when dealing with Palestinian Hamas. Realism theory in the Israeli and Palestine conflict Realism theory explains how states are selfish, struggle to gain power and succeed in acquiring its national interests in the international system. Realists identify world politics as a trans-historical and trans-geographical struggle for power, and that in this context Thucydides’ dictum that, “the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept” (where strength and weakness are calculated by military capabilities) is the stark and universal truth (Schmidt, 2007; Thucydides, 1972, p. 402).
Instead Waltz sets out to prove his international relations theory in a scientific manner, while choosing to ignore the normative concerns of classical and neoclassical realism (Jackson and Sørensen, 2003: 84). The theory of neorealism – or structural realism – focuses on structures (and on the interacting units, the constants and the changes of the system) as the determinative powers within the scope of international relations (main principle of those being that of anarchy). Jackson and Sørensen (2003: 84) also point out that actors are viewed
Classical realism and structural realism are both theories of International Relations, therefore huge differences are noticed in between those two. The main difference lies in the motivation to power, which is seen differently by both theories. Classical realism is concentrated in the desire of power- influence, control and dominance as basic to human nature. Whereas, structural realism is focused on the international system anarchic structure and how the great powers behave. Classical realists believe that power is related to human nature, thus their analysis of individuals and states is similar.
The international relations schools of thought known as Realism and Idealism identify specific and similar characteristics of actors in the conceptual development of their theories. While many of these characteristics can be generalized as being synonymous with the two theories, both theories make a separate distinction in what specifically constitutes an actor. In Realism, the term “actor” refers directly and solely to the state: a combination of government, leaders, decision-makers, etc, that act as a unitary entity to promote the interests of the state. Idealists, however, expand on what constitutes an actor to include both the state and people. Not only do the principles of Idealism assert that the state and people should be considered actors, in fact, both they must be viewed as actors.