Is war an inevitable feature of international politics - Essay Example

multiplicity of governments are not reduced to one government and international politics transformed to domestic politics." In order for war to begin, a relationship should exist between two parties, as it is a mistake or disagreement in this relationship which leads to war occurrence. So is the growing number of formed relationships due to globalisation increasing the unavoidability of war (1) Fighting is more than only competition between countries, because competition does not inevitably entail a party trying to gain an advantage by dropping their adversary's position.

War is more aggressive; it includes conflict and it usually violent. The causes why countries go to war are plentiful and varied; instances include countries going to war to gain or enlarge the territory they possess, in support of other countries, to keep prestige and to defend or advance their economic interests. The goal of war could be disputed to be to show which party is 'stronger' in cases where this is not definite, as weaker countries will frequently be too frightened to fight, and stronger countries won't have a necessity to fight.

It was revealed that the closer two countries are in terms of political and cultural features, the lower the opportunity of a war beginning between them. But the great amount of countries around the world means that there is a large quantity of cultures and background, and the alliances formed between like-minded countries are raising the disagreement between the different-minded countries. Donnelly analysed the relationship between international war and the creation of alliances and states that this is where the start of war lies.

In general, countries which have lasting formal alliances frequently go through more wars than those nations which do not. And since alliances between major powers oftenhave alliances of other majors powers as opponents, the incidence and size of wars is likely to augment in the following years. (3)There are two main ideas regarding war: that it is natural, and that it is not. The 'rational act' view argues that people are naturally aggressive and hostile, and war is therefore something inherent to humans, and that although war is unpleasant, it is sometimes necessary.

Some theorists who regard war as part of human nature have traced it to being a result of our animal descent, or cruelty in an earlier age. Von Bernhadi stated that war is a "biological necessity" and that it was beneficial as it allows the taking away the weaker countries and therefore ensures the continued existence of stronger countries. "War was regarded as a fact of life and as a useful instrument of diplomacy, not as a problem. Peace, considered as an essential condition of international relations, was no preoccupation" (Ceadel 1996) Many European sociologists even consider conflict, and consequently the war, to be serving a positive idea in humanity.

On the other hand, in spite of the plentiful claims made about the easiness of war, the facts to support this are too weak. (1)If war is peculiar to humans, then why are wars not conducted between countries at all times Why is it that wars only happen at definite times, and not all the time The contrasting view of war is that it is not innate in humans, but that it is brought about by exterior factors. The examination of the "irrational act"