© 2012 Pearson Education
Chapter Four
War and Violence in World Politics:
The Realist’s World
JOHN MUELLER
“Unlike breathing, eating,
or sex, war is not
something that is
somehow required by the
human condition or the
forces of history.”
JOHN MEARSHEIMER
“. . . all of the major
states around the globe
still care deeply about
the balance of power
and are destined to
compete for power
among themselves.”
© 2012 Pearson Education
War and Violence in World Politics
• Throughout human history, war and threat of war have been a constant
part of international life and central to understanding how the world
works.
– Structural realist explanation for the persistence of war: rooted in
fundamental assumption of international anarchy
– No effective and reliable higher authority to impose order, so states,
according to realists, must assert and protect their interests through the use
of force and violence
• But wars, particularly interstate, have been on the decline in recent years.
– The great powers have not warred against each other since World War II.
– Conflicts of interest remain, but war as a means of settling them has become
“increasingly discredited.”
© 2012 Pearson Education
War in World
Politics
American view of conflict
•Scholars suggest that
Americans tend not to be
natural-born realists.
•Americans view war as an
exceptional state of the world.
•Probably due to location:
•No war fought on American
soil since the Civil War
•No foreign troops on
American soil since War of
1812
Prevalence of War and Violence
•
U.S., in its brief history, has fought in a
dozen major interstate wars and countless
smaller-scale military conflicts.
–
–
–
•
Global record is worse.
–
–
•
Correlates of War Project (COW) has identified
401 wars during the period 1816–1997
Defines war as a conflict with at least 1000 battle
deaths.
Types of wars
–
–
–
© 2012 Pearson Education
Average number of years in between major
conflicts has been less than two decades.
Every generation has experienced war.
Over a million American soldiers have died in
battle.
Interstate wars
Extra-state wars (involves at least one non-state
actor)
Intrastate wars, or civil wars
© 2012 Pearson Education
Prevalence of War and Violence
• Collectively, there is an average of 2.22 new wars per year.
• Other forms of military war and violence
– Coercive diplomacy: since 1816, more than 4,000 cases of coercive
diplomacy (called Militarized Interstate Dispute (MID) by COW)
• Mobilization of forces, raising military alert levels, warning shots, smallscale skirmishes
• Most never escalated to war
• Human cost of war and violence staggering.
– From 1816 to 1997, more than 53 million battle deaths
– Civilian casualties have been high as well.
• Estimated 87 million combined military and civilian deaths from conflict in
20th century alone
© 2012 Pearson Education
War and Morality
•
The realist view is that war is sometimes necessary.
– Realist view does not imply that war is always the preferred option for protecting
national interests—sometimes war should be avoided.
– Realists argue that the cost of war should be weighed against the potential benefits
before deciding to use force.
•
The philosophy of pacifism opposes all use of force.
– Any use of violence employed with the intent to kill or do physical harm to other human
beings is morally unacceptable.
– Thou shalt not kill.
– Leo Tolstoy: military = murderers
•
Critics of pacifism argue that it is an unacceptable position for two reasons:
1. Denies any right of self-defense
2. Denies the right to use violence when needed to defend other innocent lives
•
An approach that accepts war but places limits on it is just war doctrine.
– Accepts, in contrast to pacifism, that war can sometimes be both necessary and just
– Allows, in contrast to amoral realism, that ethical and moral considerations must be part
of determining when and how to fight
© 2012 Pearson Education
Morality and War
Jus ad bellum: justice of war
• Six criteria
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Just cause
Right intention
Last resort
Probability of success
Limited objectives
Legitimate authority
© 2012 Pearson Education
Morality and War:
Jus in bello: justice in war
• Two criteria:
– Discrimination
– Proportionality
• Just war has its critics
– Difficulty reaching consensus when applying the criteria
– Constructivists: norms against war
– Mueller: increasing psychological and physical costs of war
© 2012 Pearson Education
The Evolution of Modern War:
The Emergence of Total War
• While past wars were devastating, the pace and
efficiency of killing have increased dramatically in
the 20th century.
– Change related to the evolution of technology (new
battlefield weapons such as machine gun as well as
weapons used from afar such as aircraft).
– The nature of war also evolved; civilian population
now more involved in conflict.
•
•
•
•
Total population involved in war effort.
War must thus be fought “against” the total populations.
Net result: 22 million dead in WWI; 50 million in WWII.
Majority were civilian casualties.
© 2012 Pearson Education
The Evolution of Modern War:
Enter Nuclear Weapons
• August 6, 1945 – bombing of Hiroshima, Japan
– Combined effect of initial bombing and residual
effects of radiation led to 200,000 deaths.
• No longer necessary to have massive army to
inflict massive harm on an adversary
– Perfect weapon for war “against total population”
• Though such weapons are efficient, they are not
the only way to kill mass amounts of people
quickly.
• Rwanda 1994: 800,000 people victims of genocide in only
100 days killed by machetes, knives, clubs, and guns.
© 2012 Pearson Education
© 2012 Pearson Education
The Evolution of Modern War:
Enter Nuclear Weapons
• Can nuclear weapons bring peace?
– Some scholars argue that concept of Mutually Assured
Destruction (MAD) prevented war between the
superpowers.
• Based on deterrence: ability to dissuade another state from acting
against one’s interest by the threat of harm one might do in
response.
• Necessitates second strike capability: ability to survive initial
attack and have sufficient retaliatory nuclear capacity to respond.
– Critics point out that during the Cold War, conventional
war continued.
• U.S. lost almost 100,000 soldiers in Korea and Vietnam
• Stability/instability paradox
© 2012 Pearson Education
The Evolution of Modern War:
Enter Nuclear Weapons
• Shift in philosophy in 1980s: Nuclear Utilization Theories
(NUTS)
– Under Reagan, effort to devise ways to use nuclear weapons
effectively
– Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI)
• Trying to control proliferation
– Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968
• Israel, Pakistan, and India are not members and have nuclear
weapons.
• North Korea and Iran are in violation (but Iran does not yet have
weapons).
– Is proliferation stabilizing?
• Fear of loss of command and control of weapons
• Could they fall into the hands of terror groups?
© 2012 Pearson Education
War in Decline?:
The Post–Cold War Era
• Recent trends: post–Cold War decline in interstate war
• Scholars have found that the world is less violent, less
warlike.
– Since 1991 the trend in interstate war has been consistently
downward.
– The trend has been toward avoidance of the most destructive
kinds of wars (direct clashes between the great powers).
• Security communities
– A group of countries that no longer threaten or fear war from
one another
© 2012 Pearson Education
© 2012 Pearson Education
A Realist Explanation of Peace
Explanations of Peace
•View of realists: recent
downturn in interstate war
can be explained within
the parameters of the
realist paradigm.
© 2012 Pearson Education
• Distribution of power
– Bipolar and unipolar systems may be
more stable.
– In the Cold War, bipolarity may have
limited war.
– In the 1990s, U.S. hegemony may have
limited war.
• Power transition theory
– Argues that war is most likely when one
or more states is surpassing the power
of another major power.
• Realists note that current downward trend
may not last.
– There have been other periods with
limited war.
– If the unipolar system goes away,
violence could return.
A Liberal Explanation of Peace
Explanations of Peace
•Liberal view
•Kantian triangle suggests
three potential sources of
peace in world politics
•International institutions
•Economic
interdependence
•Domestic regime type:
spread of democracy
• Democratic peace theory: democracies do
not fight one another.
• Democracy defined by three essential
elements:
1.
2.
3.
•
•
When the definition of democracy is
applied most strictly, the observation that
democracies do not fight with one
another appears close to absolute law.
Number of democracies has increased
over time.
–
–
© 2012 Pearson Education
Participation
Contestation
Civil liberties
Democratic waves
Fukuyama’s “end of history” argument
A Liberal Explanation of Peace
• Critics of democratic peace theory (realists and others)
– Contend that even if one accepts that democracies tend not to
fight one another, the world still has a significant number of
nondemocratic states, and that democracies routinely fight
nondemocracies.
– They point to the prospect of backsliding among countries
currently categorized as democratic.
– Argue that the core assumption that democracies will not fight
one another, through largely true to this point in time, has not
been sufficiently tested.
• Historically, nondemocracies have outnumbered democracies.
• Significant numbers of democracies have not been around very
long.
© 2012 Pearson Education
© 2012 Pearson Education
Constructivist Explanation of Peace
Explanations of Peace
•Constructivist’s view on
peace
•Gives more attention to
changes in global norms
• Mueller argues that the long peace after
World War II reflects a fundamental change
in state behavior.
– Realists theories cannot account for
changing state behavior.
– Liberals confuse cause and effect: economic
interdependence and international
institutions are effects of this change, not
causes.
– Individuals and states are coming to believe
that war is an evil to be avoided.
– States have developed a stronger common
identity.
• If this common identity breaks down, a return
to a violent system is possible.
© 2012 Pearson Education
The Future of War
• Asymmetric Warfare
– A war in which there is a fundamental difference (or
asymmetry) in the nature of the participants, and in their goals,
capabilities, and tactics
– Van Creveld, “. . . War will affect people of all ages and both
sexes. They will be affected not just accidentally or incidentally
. . . but as immediate participants, targets, and victims.”
– Can be states versus nonstate actors, states with dramatically
different capabilities, and/or actors with very different weapons.
– Examples of Kosovo and Gaza
© 2012 Pearson Education
The Future of War: Terrorism
• Terrorism is politically motivated violence aimed at civilian
targets in order to spread fear and alarm.
• Terror may be a rational, purposeful activity toward a
strategic end.
– A tactic often used by military weak groups to achieve certain
objectives
– This does not make it moral.
– Frequently unsuccessful in achieving objectives
• Impact of terrorism
– Relatively few casualties (more likely to be killed in a car crash,
or struck by lightning, or drowning)
– Generates exaggerated reactions due to the dramatic nature of
the attacks
– New technologies could increase the impact of terrorism.
© 2012 Pearson Education
Conclusion
• Declining trends in interstate wars, BUT few scholars
are prepared to argue that war is likely to disappear
completely from the world
• No agreement on the trajectory of violence in the
21st century
• Realists argue, however, that not much has changed.
© 2012 Pearson Education