The Most Probable Causes of War - Literature review Example

Running Head: Causes of War Name Course Tutor Date Human Nature is a common cause of war. According to Brown (2005 pg. 13), there are some aspects of human nature that lead to the occurrence of war. There are a number of human behaviours that may aggravate enmity and hence give rise to conflict and war. These include character traits such as greed and violence. Seemingly, man can be very violent in nature and will tend to inflict harm to fellow human beings especially when provoked. Occasionally, two or more people may also develop interest in the same thing and become rivals (Brown, 2005). The greedy individual with the desire to gain more will do anything within his limits to get that particular thing. As such, he may employ all possible methods including fighting, which may result to war. Another human characteristic that causes war is anger. Anger arises out of bitterness. The most probable cause of anger is when an individual is offended by the actions of the other (Benoist, 2007). Anger will cause such a person to retaliate or revenge by fighting. This results in war and conflict. It may seem rather odd to list these as causes of war in regard to human behaviour. However, human beings are naturally triggered by such behaviours to start war. Hate also causes war as hatred between individuals or societies leads to strained relationships that may easily lead to the eruption of war. War is also caused by man’s ego. Generally, men have the characteristic of egoism which is associated with pride (Benoist, 2007). As such, they bear the natural tendencies of always wanting everything to happen according to their planned desires. If the other people do not act in accordance with their desires and philosophies, they are likely to cause chaos in an attempt of bringing these people under their rule. Thus man can wage war at any time to get the others do want they want them to do (Brown, 2005). The cause has however been criticised by various writers. First, it has been criticized that the nature of one individual cannot be attributed to a whole lot of people. Waltz, (as cited in Brown, 2005) categorizes it as a “reductionist” way of thinking that one cannot reduce the behaviour of a whole society to match with that of only one individual. One individual who is greedy does not mean that the whole population should be defined to be greedy as well (Waltz, 2000). Secondly, war can also be caused by the nature of societies, governments and their economies. This has been explained in different theories of war that have attempted to elaborate on the causes of war. The first is the hegemonic theory that was put forward by Robert Gilpin (Levy & Thompson, 2010). In his theory, Gilpin argued that war is caused by major international powers in their strife for power and leadership. This gives rise to an international system known as the hegemonic wars. In this theory, every international system has that one state that will always dominate above the rest. This leadership is majorly attributed to military power and strength. It is then coupled by the economic strength of that state (Ray, 2000). With such a setting in place, the dominant state achieves some powers over the rest of the states such as the international currency control and the overall leadership in the status quo. The interests of this state will then tend to be placed as of higher priority as compared to the others (Benoist, 2007). Subsequently, direct wars are bound to arise due to the contests between the dominant state and those being dominated. According to Gilpin in his realist approaches, the wars arise as a result of the increasing imbalance between the political organization of the system and the distribution of powers. International relations are usually made up of two institutions which are a balance of power and war (Ikenburry & Slaughter, 2006). The balance of power is accrued to the political stability and the sovereignty of every state. Peace can only exist if the balance of power has been distributed equally and is at equilibrium. Lack of such equilibrium makes the states very susceptible to war which is even seen as a means of restoring even distribution in the balance of power (Ray, 2000). At one point, the hegemonic state will begin to lose its powers which may lead to strife and wars. Indeed no state will accept to go down the ladder the easy way. It will always fight and struggle to maintain the power and the dominance it once held. The decline of the dominating power affects many of its spheres. These include a decline in its relative position that accrues out of several factors. There is always the cost of military expenditures in terms of stabilising it. The declining power will also experience loss in its technological and economic leadership. The other states may also take advantage of the situation and tend to erode the resource base of the affected state. With such a situation, strife wars and conflict will tend to arise between the states. Moreover, the liberal theory also states that the states will wage war against each other as a means of resolving the conflicts that arise between them (Ikenburry & Slaughter, 2006). There are also states that are autocratic in nature and which believe that wars are caused by the democratic ones. As such the democratic states possess characteristics that make them to go to war often. This point of view is covered by the liberal approach according to which mankind is naturally a species that loves peace. But in democracies, the governments tend to protect the citizens that have elected them into power and will do anything to make sure their citizens are safe (Brown, 2005). In as much as the democracies will try to prevent conflicts and act for their non-violent civilians, it does not guarantee that they will not attack the other states if they are provoked even in the least. The other approach is Leninists, whereby he attributes the cause of war as springing from the capitalist societies (Waltz, 2000). On the other hand capitalist societies see the communist counterparts as the ones who trigger and start wars. This is also known as the economic system. An example is demonstrated from the periods of the cold war where the capitalist countries were termed as imperialistic and causing war. Lenin improved on the work of John Hobson who was deeply against capitalism and imperialism (Benoist, 2007). He attributed his own countries’ practice of capitalism as being merely a drive for the aggressive expansion of the colonial interests, hence a major cause of war. Imperialism and colonialism have a major role to play in interstate wars. Even for democratic states, the presence of an imperialistic system of economic sector means that the country will have a lot of economic rivals (Ikenburry & Slaughter, 2006). These being the case, there will always be competition between the states for overseas trade and opportunity for investment. Each state will strive to gain exclusive control over resources such as the markets, the raw materials available, the available investment opportunities as well as the cheap sources of raw materials (Levy & Thompson, 2010). It reaches a point when some of these facilities that are being composited for must be gained through struggles and conflicts. This economic rivalry and conflict may eventually lead to military conflict hence causing wars. Lenin built on this as he believed that war was inevitable in such a circumstance where an international system of trade was experiencing economic rivalry for economic expansion. The states will also continue to fight even in the future over limited resources (Ikenburry & Slaughter, 2006). The inevitable interrelation between international states is also another cause of war. According to Cashman, (as cited in Brown, 2003 pp.99, the states make up an international system composed of an organization states, individuals, sovereign states and even international co-operations and treaties. Only states of anarchy do not have existing governments. Such states lack a force that will drive the authority of the state on an international level (Benoist, 2007). In such a situation, other states that are more powerful are likely to take certain actions against it due to the power imbalance. When this disruption in balance of power occurs, the lesser states will feel threatened by those that have a stronger military power. Because of the instability in the international anarchy, the less powerful states live in constant fear of being attacked. By this, they are always ready to defend themselves and their people at all times. According to Brown (2005), the security of the state is its paramount importance. As a result of the paranoia, there is constant suspicion of the states against each other. They will always look any single opportunity to gain power, a venture that is likely to lead to war. Another cause of war has been explained in the democratic peace theory that was first enunciated by Michael W. Doyle in 1983 (Williams, 2008). In his argument, he argues that liberal democratic states are very peaceful and do not easily engage in war against other liberal democratic states. These states relate casually, and their tendency towards war is very limited (Baylis & Smith, 2005). Notably, the democratic states have enjoyed a peaceful correlation with the other states for ages. Despite of all this attributes and compliments, it has been noted their tendency to go to war is just as much as the other states would do. This will mostly happen in instances in which they are provoked. That they are in fact just as aggressive as any other state that engages in international relations (Dunne in Baylis et al. 2011 pg. 105). Works Cited Baylis, J., & Smith, S. (2005). The globalization of world politics: An introduction to international relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.pg. 13-25 Benoist, A. (2007). “Global terrorism and the state of permanent exception: the significance of Carl Schmitt’s thought today” In Odysseos, L. & Petito, F. The International Political Though of Carl Schmitt. Routledge pg. 33-57 Brown, C. (2005). Understanding International relations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.pg. 7-12 Dunne, T. (2007). International relations theories: Discipline and diversity. Oxford [u.a.: Oxford Univ. Press.pg 105 Ikenberry, J & Slaughter A.N. (2006). “Forging a World of Liberty under Law” Final Report of the PPNS 2006 http://www.princeton.edu/~ppns/report/FinalReport.pdf. Levy, J. S., & Thompson, W. R. (2010). Causes of war. Chichester, West Sussex, U.K: Wiley-Blackwell.pg 11-15 Ray, J. L. (April 01, 2000). R.J. Rummel's "Understanding Conflict and War": an overlooked classic?. Peace Research Abstracts, 37, 2.) Waltz, Kenneth N. (2000). “Structural Realism after the End of the Cold War”, International Security 25(1).pg. 5 Read More