International Relations: The Decline in Interstate War - Term Paper Example

Running Head: International Relations International Relations Name Institute Date Decline in Interstate War Introduction Interstate war can defined as prearranged and visibly endorsed aggression between recognized states. Over the past two decades, interstates wars have significantly and consequentially declined. The world is now considered to be safer than in the ancient times. For example, there has been no armed conflict in North America since 1916 when the United States attacked Mexico. There has also been no incidence of major war reported in Europe, Russia and Africa since 1945. Scholars have come up with various theories, such as the biological, neo-realist and social learning theories, to try and explain this decline in interstate war. However, the most persuasive explanation is the one presented by social learning theory that emphasizes on ideas and norms. Kant and Mueller are the major proponents of social learning theory (Raimo 2005). Proponents of social learning theory believe that war emanates from the minds of men and people create social institutions to serve its needs, interests and values. People are therefore more likely to change these institutions if their needs, interests and values so changes. The changes in international system can be linked to the decline in interstate war. Ideas have played a significant role in changing the international system. The destruction and losses associated with wars have forced many states to seek for peace and unity with each other. Many states have abolished the institutions of war as a result of the increasing series of devastating conflict (Alderson 2001). For example, the Great War successfully placated large part of Europe, although Hitler and his supporters regressed to more primitive ideas to rationalize a new round of invasion and aggressions. The destruction caused by World War II, led to changes in the way nuclear weapons were used in interstate war. Nuclear weapons are now increasingly taken to serve the interests of deterrence and prestige; they are not used as instruments of invasion and expansion. The destruction caused by the twentieth century great wars served as insightful learning experiences and they contributed to the global movements in support of disarmament, arms control and the conciliatory resolution of global conflict (Zacher 2001). Apart from the cost-benefit calculations reason, people are changing the institution of war for various reasons. Humankind is trying to make interstate war to be obsolete, just as it did with slavery and slave trade. The argument presented by biological and neo-realist theorists that war is a constant in human relationships and that there are no permanent solutions to this condition apart from balancing power are irrational. Men kill to win; there is no man who tries to win so that he can kill. War is not a necessity for humans but humans engage in war as a matter of choice. If the ideas of states changes, for example, from the conquest of territory to the innovation of technology and creation of employment, subsequently the application of force in international relations can turn out to be inappropriate and unproductive. For instance, the Japanese conquests of the 1930s gained them very little as compared to what they gained from their diplomatic trade, de-militarization and investment in education and industrious capacity (Crawford 2002). In today’s world, the use of armed force against others no longer serves national needs, interests and values and is only used at the extreme to promote worldwide community’s interest. While as ancient wars were fought primarily for personal glory and reputation, modern wars have little to do with such values. Ethnic and civil wars are still rampant today as they reflect the inherent weakness of many modern states. However, they are less likely to threaten the worldwide peace and security and therefore they are not likely to call for outside intercession. We can therefore confidently conclude that war is a social institution since it is surrounded by ideas and norms. The fact that human beings can change social institutions and learn though frequently only after going through catastrophic experiences lead to rejection of the determinism of biological and neo-realist theories of war (O’Connell 2005). Kant and Mueller believe that human beings have the capacity to learn, adjust and change. According to Kant, the pain experienced from the increased destructive wars has acted as source of change for human beings. For Mueller, the cost-benefit analyzes and the changing norms are the source of change. Human beings have learned that war is repulsive, wicked, uncivilized and methodologically unsuccessful. The decline in interstate war is consistent with the progressivism view of history (David 2008). Worldwide institutions, for example, the slave trade have become outdated and so do the institution of war. For example, the doctrine of conquest that was developed particularly to explain the expansion of Europe in the 15th century is legally wrong in today’s world. The United Nations Charter and other regional peace organizations have banned the use of force in defense of foreign policy objectives. Those who decide to behave in this way have a heavy price to pay for it. A good example is the crushing reaction to Saddam Hussein’s attempted invasion of Kuwait in July 1990. In this modern era, international legalization is required before a state can result to the use of force (Jackson 2000). The decline in interstate war has led to economic and social development. There are few incidences of interstate wars which have been recorded since 1945. This has led to peaceful de-colonization processes in most of the countries. The international economy has also grown at a high rate and has benefited most people, though not equally. The end of clod war resulted to decreased fear of accidental war and provoked most countries to reduce their defense expenses. The international trade system has increased at extraordinary rates. Most poor countries, for example Hong Kong, Kuwait and Singapore have become rich (Raimo 2005). Though we concede that learning can change structural patterns, learning may not be always progressive. There are some inevitable instances in which course of history of human behavior and social institution does not improve. The historical development of war can be looked at in terms of a set of ideas, norms, rules and practices. It is therefore possible for human being’s behavior to regress. The 18th century European wars were based on models of decorum, restraint, rule-guided and protected the welfare of the non-participants, where as, World War II was destructive and led to massive massacre of human beings. The 18th century wars were conducted in a gentle manner with low military casualties, which were often caused by disease and illness as opposed to fighting (Cederman 2001). However, in the 20th century, armies became vast assassination equipment focused against citizens as combatants. Most of them violated the rules of laws developed in the 18th and 19th century as regard the use of force. War became de-institutionalized in that rules and norms failed to control the use of force. For Hitler, Rousseau’s assertion no longer held. He did not seek to kill in order to win but sought to win in order to kill. Hitler reversed the conventional Clausewitzian notion of war as a rational activity to support the state’s interests. Hitler used war to seek for state conquest that foresaw the subjugated population turned into slaves contrary to Clausewitz imagination. Therefore, we can argue that the course of war as a practice has not always been progressive (Ikenberry 2001). The decline in interstate war is therefore not likely to remain permanent viewed from this social learning perspective. This is because human beings are likely to forget what they learn and regress. The availability of advanced technology and ideologies can change the character of war from an equipment of state policy to a means of genocide and annihilation. The current global economic crisis is likely to lead to increase in interstate war. The other risk factors that are likely to lead to increase in interstate war include pollution, environmental degradation, and drug trade and resource scarcity. In this kind of an environment, necessity for war might replace choice. During times of extreme hardship, human beings are more likely to result to war. A system headed for economic and financial breakdown, high unemployment and depletion of natural resources can lead to a new era of additional modern security threats, wars of conquest and copy-cat hostilities (Morrow 2007). Conclusion The recent decline in interstate war can best be explained by social learning theory. This is because war is an international institution surrounded by ideas and norms. The societal changing ideas and norms have contributed significantly to the decline in interstate war. Human being best learn from their personal experiences and are likely to change if the experiences are painful. As a result of the harmful experiences of war, state’s needs, interests and values have changed from territorial conquest to economic and technological development. States have also increasingly resulted to use of mutual means to acquire wealth as opposed to use of force. They have also come up with international laws to guide state’s use of force. However, this decline is not likely to be permanent as humans as are more likely to forget what they have learned and regress. The current global economic and financial crisis provides an enabling environment for interstate war to emerge. The other risk factors which can lead to increase in interstate war include pollution, environmental degradation and depletion of resources. References Alderson K. (2001). Making sense of socialization. Review of international studies, 27 (3):415-34. Crawford N. (2002). Argument and change in world politics: Ethics, decolonization and humanitarian intervention. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press. Cederman L. E. (2001). Back to Kant: Reinterpreting the democratic peace as a macro historical learning process. American Political Science Review, 95 (1):15-32. David C. (2008). Peace: a history of movements and ideas. Cambridge: Cambridge University press. Ikenberry J.G. (2001). After victory: institutions, strategic restraint and the rebuilding of order after major war. Princeton; Princeton University Press. Jackson R.H. (2000). The global covenant: Human conduct in a world of states. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Morrow J. D. (2007). When do states follow the laws of war? American Political Science Review, 101(3): 559-72. O’Connell, M. E. (2005). International Law and the use of force: Documentary Supplement. New York: Foundation Press. Raimo V. (2005). The waning of major war: Theories and debates: Contemporary security studies. London; Routledge Zacher M. W. (2001). The Territorial integrity Norm: International boundaries and the use of force. International Organizations, 55 (2):215-50. . Read More