Levels of War and Just War Theory - Essay Example

Levels of War and Just War Theory War can be analyzed on several levels, each of which brings a different perspective to the causes and effects of war. These three levels are the international, state, and individual levels of analysis. Although these perspectives all make strong arguments as to their usefulness, none is really satisfying alone. This is because each seems to miss out vital clues as to the causes of war. The best way to use these three levels of analysis is not by selecting one and ignoring the other two, but by using all three to explore different aspects of a war. Another theory that can be used to talk about war is the Just War theory, which attempts to explain how to fight a war properly from the moral high ground. However, while some parts of Just War theory are useful the tool can ultimately be used to come up with excuses to declare war. Furthermore, it is really a tool for use by governments interested in war, and is not particularly useful for actually analyzing the wars themselves. The individual level of analysis usually seeks to explain political issues in terms of individual people. Everything that happens is more or less because of what individual people do, and so this level of analysis can be used to figure out why people act the way they do and what the consequences of their actions are. In terms of political science, these people are usually not just everyday citizens of countries but the individuals who are in charge of them, like presidents, kings, generals, or prime ministers. When talking about war with the individual level of analysis, though, looking at individual soldiers actions can also be telling. The individual level of analysis tends to suggest that war is brought about entirely for personal reasons. For example, World War II could be said to have been started purely because of Adolf Hitlers hunger for power, and because of his own mental issues regarding his own inferiority. Likewise in Medieval History it could be argued that most of the wars were just because the kings wanted more land and more people under their rule. This type of analysis seems to have some bearing on reality, but it ignores larger problems like natural resources and the global power structure. Additionally, many individuals are completely ignored by this, and it suggests that the only reason anything happens in history is because of specific people who are in power. Although individual analysis would also be interested in the actions of specific soldiers in the heat of battle, their actions would not be relevant when talking about the outbreak of war itself, unless it was in cases where one person accidentally insulted or shot somebody from another country, and that set off a war. Since this level of analysis seems to ignore well over 99% of the worlds population, it seems to not be the best way to discuss the outbreak of war. When looking for causes of war on the national level, the most common culprits are things like national security or lack of resources. When viewed from this level, the actions of individuals do no matter. It is only the driving forces behind nation-states or social structures that is considered. So a nation might go to war because it is worried about what another nation is planning to do, or because they need more oil, or more land, or any other natural resource that is scarce where they currently exist. On the other hand, the war might be a preventive measure aimed at keeping another nation or social group in check before they attack. Going back to World War II, Americas entry into that war can be understood on the national level. Initially the US was not planning on getting involved in the war because it was happening all the way over in Europe and there was no threat to their people. However, when Japan got involved and bombed Pearl Harbor, the US government decided that an Axis victory in Europe or Asia would in fact have a devastating effect on the United States as well. Likewise, most of Europes getting involved is because the various nations were afraid that Hitler would manage to control all of Europe, and would then initiate human rights abuses on many levels. Like the individual level of analysis, national interpretations do seem useful. Again, though, they seem to be missing some of the facts, and when there are in fact purely personal reasons for going to war these are ignored because they are not something that the entire nation or social system is involved in. An additional problem with the state level of analysis is that governments are not always up front about their real reasons for doing things. So that if someone was to read a governments version of the causes of a war, that person would be unable to tell if the government was telling the truth about its causes or whether they were trying to put a good spin on their involvement. The international level of analysis is useful when discussing current political events, but its use in talking about wars is mostly an extension of the state level. World War I, as opposed to WWII, is a good example for international analysis, because its occurrence was largely a result of various treaties that all the nation-states at the time had with each other. Because so many countries had alliances that meant they would wage war on enemies of their allies, what might have been just a regional conflict became a huge battle that engulfed most of Europe. This is mostly an extension of the state level of analysis in terms of war because it assumes that nations are the only powers in existence and ignores the individual. As can be seen, then, these three levels of analysis are best used all at once, and not one at a time. Each level has different things to say about the outbreak of war, but what they have to say is not necessarily contradicted by the other two levels. To get a truly complete understanding of why a war happens, the best method would be to explore it from the individual level, the state level, and the international level all at once. Another theory that is used to discuss wars is Just War theory. This theory tries to set up rules or at least guidelines for when war is a valid option. What this means is that just attacking somebodys country because they are different from you is not allowed. Before you could declare war, you would have to have a good reason, like the other country murdering hundreds of thousands of its own citizens, or sabotaging your countrys means of feeding its citizens. Although Just War Theory is a useful tool for a nations rulers, it is not particularly useful when discussing war from a political science point of view. This is because its rules are not set in stone anyway, and a nation could theoretically argue that a war is just when a different nation might completely disagree. Furthermore, nations might embark on a “just war” that is not just because the nations rulers are lying about what the other nation is doing. Because of the drawbacks of the theory, its uses to analyze war without some sort of bias are limited. However, it can still be useful, if you wish to compare national differences that might have had some role in causing a war. Read More