Liberal Theory of International Relations - Essay Example

Moreover, violent conflict may not always arise in every situation because certain kinds of disagreements, such as those on economic issues, may preclude military action and the effects of such action would, in any case, be costly and uncertain.

Among the industrialized nations, with development in international relations and diplomatic initiatives, the perceived margin of safety has also widened and fears of attack have declined, hence force has become unimportant as an instrument of policy. The use of nuclear power functions as yet another deterrent to violent conflict, since the destructiveness of nuclear weapons, makes their use as a threat equally as effective as the actual force of force. In democratic countries, the opposition to prolonged military conflicts from members of the public is also very high and thereby limits and restricts engagement in violent conflict by those countries.

As also pointed out by Keohane and Nye, in a world characterized by complex interdependence, military security may not be the dominant goal of states. Each state may have a variety of other state goals to be achieved, and with variations in the distribution of power and political processes, militarily strong states are likely to find it more difficult to use their military dominance, when the use of military force is devalued for reasons such as those mentioned above. Linkage among the various issues, the strategies, and defenses against them will pose a complex set of strategic choices, not all of which may be resolved through violent conflict, since the awareness of potential gains and losses and the level of interdependence between States, both economically and politically, may limit the use of force in terms of the goals it can achieve.

John Mueller argues that the international system is not necessarily war-prone, as revealed by the strong rivalry that has existed between the United States and the Soviet Union for decades, without an escalation into military conflict. Mueller argues on the basis of Schnell’s views, that the causes of reduced incidence of violent conflict may be part of a historical process since the futility and destruction of war have been manifest in past centuries and led to a corresponding reluctance to resort to war in the resolution of conflicts. He offers a differing view from Keohane and Nye in assessing the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons in the incidence of violent conflict, suggesting that their impact may largely be confined to rhetoric and that the international scenario would have turned out the same way even if nuclear weapons had never been invented.

Mueller argues that the distasteful and destructive effects of the two world wars have shaped the current anti-violent stance. War has become an outdated institution, just as slavery became an outdated institution, despite its prevalence in the previous century. The realization that ultimately war does not serve a useful purpose but only causes destruction, is the underlying realization that appears to have reduced this incidence, in the same manner as the practice of dueling became extinct because of the realization that it “did not settle anything except who was the better shot.”

Another argument offered by Mueller is the rising costs of war. Not only is there a tremendous cost involved in the development of war weapons, but more importantly the costs in terms of human lives have led to a rejection of violent conflicts as a means for resolution of international disputes. Therefore, war is declining because it is an expensive exercise that does not accomplish a desirable end, but only causes destruction and is therefore rejected by a majority of the public and the States in conflict resolution.