According to realist theory, war is an inevitable feature of interstate politics. In the view
of realists, war is a product of the anarchic international system. For realists, since there is no
ruler to control the other states, states will continue to go to war. “War breaks out because no
authority exists to prevent it” (Mignst et al., pg.195, 2022). War becomes the only and best
option for states to obtain resources and power over other states. War is also a tool for states to
be respected by different states and create alliances with others unwilling to be caught in a war
with the growing state. The anarchic international system is seen as powerless to help peacefully
resolve opposing grievances between the two contending states.
Many states throughout history have fought each other over territory achievements, and
history shows that most of the past and present war conflicts have been based on territory
disagreements. For realists, without an arbitrator to settle these disagreements, a state might route
to violence to win the region it claims as its own. For instance, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,
which has killed tens of thousands of lives throughout the years and has displaced millions of
people, is an excellent example of war over a contentious territory. On October 7, 2023, the
terrorist group Hamas launched a land, sea, and air assault on Israel from the Gaza Strip which
was just the “beginning” or continuation of the never-ending Israeli-Palestinian conflict. About
1,200 deaths were counted, mainly Israeli citizens, presenting it as the deadliest day for Israel
since its independence. The next day, Israel declared war against Palestine, the home of the
terrorist group Hamas, and the war started with the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) running air
strikes on the Gaza Strip. By the beginning of 2024, tens of thousands of Gazans have been
killed, and over half of the buildings in the Gaza Strip have been ruined or damaged. Still, Israel
is fighting to bring back home some Israeli citizens who were taken by Hamas (Britannica,
accessed May 13, 2024).
Realists believe that states also face the problem of power distribution in an anarchic
international system. For instance, according to realist theorists, Organski refers to this problem
as “power transition theory,” which means that war happens because states think that more
power leads to expectations of more influence, wealth, and security (Mingst et al., pg.197, 2022).
Organski explains that the power transition can cause war in one or two ways. One way is that
the power might launch a war against another state to solidify its position. A great example was
Germany, considered pretty small compared to the United Kingdom and France after World War
I. Still, over the next two years before World War II, it gained parity with the other two states by
the beginning of WWII. “The prediction of power transition theory that Germany would act
militarily to help secure its new position in the international system played out in this case”
(Mignst et al., pg. 197, 2022). The second way is that the currently most potent state might
launch a war to prevent the other state from rising for the challenge. The United States, for
instance, played an excellent example of this when it launched a war against Iraq in 2003. The
reason for the war in Iraq was the development of nuclear weapons and its nuclear programs,
which the U.S. believed needed to be demolished before it was used.
Liberalists think the opposite of realists when it comes to the cause of war. While realists
examine war as a characteristic of the anarchic international system, liberal theorists focus on the
characteristics of the state and national and international institutions. This view of the causes of
war is backed by Plato, whose argument is that “unlimited acquisition of wealth, disregarding the
limit set by our necessary wants,” drives cities to war” (Hunt, 2010). Enlightenment thinkers like
Immanuel Kant believed that war was linked to an aristocratic form of government, where a
small, privileged group ruled the people. Kent suggests three ways to foster peace in the state and
avoid war: democracy, economic interdependence, and international institutions. 1795, when
Kant proposed his thesis, we did not know about international laws or organizations. Besides
trade, there was no form of international membership among the states. However, Kant’s ideas of
democracy, international trade, and participation in international organizations to achieve world
peace are valid and the main ways liberals view how war should be treated.
Liberal theorists believe that democratic states rarely go to war against another
democratic state. They think that democracy is based on some norms of commitment and
cooperation that hinder this time of behavior. Ideally, at the national level, the democratic state
offers its citizens with objections a chance to deal with these complaints nonviolently. When this
behavior is projected to the international community, two democratic states who share the norms
of nonviolent decisions in conflicts will likely pursue peaceful ways to solve their differences.
Another argument that liberal theorists have is that international institutions are more transparent
with each other and in the decision-making process, providing the leaders involved with more
trust and commitment to each other. Meanwhile, there is a strong correlation between democracy
and peace and robust supporting clarifications; observed evidence finds that partially democratic
states tend to fight in wars more frequently, which worries many liberals who have seen the
relapses of some states in the past few years (Mignst et al., pg. 198, 2022).
Liberals also believe that international institutions, especially economic institutions, help
to build positive connections between states, allowing them to adopt interconnection. When a
state is linked with a global institution, there is a greater sense of peace when it has backing from
other states connected by the same institution. States left out of the institutions can create a sense
of discomfort and feel threatened by the connection built through the institution. For instance,
Ukraine started relations with the National Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1991,
following Ukraine’s independence after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. In 2017, the poll
showed that 69% of Ukrainians wanted to join NATO. In February 2019, The Ukrainian
government voted to amend the Constitution of Ukraine to state Ukraine’s goal of NATO and
European Union membership. Before additional actions on NATO were taken, Russia launched a
complete invasion of Ukraine in February of 2022. This is an excellent example of international
institutions being considered a threat by other outside states. Though Ukraine is not entirely a
member of NATO, it has received tremendous support from its members. On March 21, 2024,
NATO responded to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by saying:
“NATO condemns in the strongest possible terms Russia's brutal and unprovoked war of
aggression against Ukraine - which is an independent, peaceful, and democratic country and a close
NATO partner” (NATO, March 21, 2024).
Source:
Encyclopædia Britannica, inc. (2024b, May 10). Israel-Hamas war. Encyclopædia Britannica.
https://www.britannica.com/event/Israel-Hamas-War
Hunt, P. (2010). Peace. InIWar, Peace, and Alliance in Demosthenes’ AthensI(pp. 237–264).
chapter, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mingst, K. A., McKibben, H. E., & Snyder, J. L. (2022). Essential readings in world politics.
W.W. Norton & Company.
Nato. (2024, March 21). NATO’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. NATO.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_192648.htm
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
