1960s and 70s — look for variables that correlate with war
investigate whether correlation also meant causation
we talked about this difference: ice cream sales and skin cancer … was that it?
Research results:
more powerful states are often more capable of initiating war due to their greater resources and strategic capabilities
countries that are neighbors fight more often than with others
alliances can deter potential adversaries, but can also create obligations that might drag states into conflicts initiated by their allies
multipolar systems more prone to war — more players to keep an eye on
democracies don’t fight wars with each other
economic interdependence reduces the likelihood of war
I would argue that this isn’t that impressive — and the project cost a lot of money at the time
But they helped define concept
and gathered a lot of data that has been used by others
Cf. MacIntyre’s “holes”
There are holes in the world …
some are made by children digging in the sand at a beach
others are made by people working on roads, etc
more holes in Gaza than there used to be
You would never imagine there to be a “theory of holes”
they might look the same …
but they very obviously have different causes
Two observations:
Wars take place in social and cultural contexts
they will always have a different meaning
without that meaning we know nothing
A lot is up to chance
things that cannot be predicted
particular circumstances
a person like Putin or Netanyahu — how can there be a theory that includes them
Interests vs. identities
two different kinds of conflicts
quite different logic
they can be conflicts, but they can also lead to wars
Conflicts of interest
“Interests,” according to social scientists
a matter of what I want
utility — what makes me happy, gives me satisfaction
Problem of scarcity
there is not enough for everybody
some will get more than others
and we feel that this is unfair
Problem of distribution
will always lead to conflicts
water, air – but that too can become scarce in certain situations
Conflicts
we want the same things
someone else wants what we have
we want what someone else has
What we need to survive – sufficiency
but often: social status and standing
IR examples
get colonies
nuclear weapons
Absolute or relative levels?
absolute levels should be enough – enough to get by
but very often relative levels – we don’t just want more, but more than others
Conflicts of identities
Another kind of conflicts
not what we want, but of who we are
issues of identity
status and standing
The importance of recognition
we need to be recognized by others if we are to be who we think we are
I am a teacher, only as long as I’m recognized as such by my students
you can’t be a world famous pop star if people don’t recognize you as such
political leaders too – even in dictatorships – micro-repression is too costly
Non-recognition – crimes against an identity
we are not respected, not taken seriously
we can’t be who we take ourselves to be
International examples
issues of recognition involved in many ethnic conflicts
right to use one’s language, acknowledge one’s history
more respect!
Palestine, Kurdistan – and many other examples …
Identities are more fundamental than interests
it is only as someone that you can want something
it is only as a father, a teacher, a husband that I have certain interests
Fighting for one’s identity more fundamental than fights regarding interests
explains why these conflicts are so difficult to solve
and why they often are so ferocious
If we are denied recognition, we can …
give up – maybe we were wrong about ourselves
try to improve ourselves – become the person that we have not yet convinced others that we are
stand our ground and fight for our original self-conception
International example: “freedom for Palestine”
give up
negotiations, diplomacy – get rid of corruption, improve institutions
fight for one’s original conception of oneself
The levels of analysis problem
The causes of war can be organized —
the are of different kinds — from smaller to general
Three different levels (Waltz)
individual — state — system
Individual level
Individual characteristics
are certain persons more war-prone
matter of psychology
Psychological profiling of political leaders
not such a reputable discipline
Limits of psychological explanations
war is not actually about anger
wars are collective actions, not individual
Better: war as choice of action
rational choice
raison d’etat
Relates to the question of geopolitics
given the state that we are, it makes sense to …
capture a mountain range, a strategic port, a straight where boats pass through
but lot’s of problem making calculations
uncertainty
we just don’t know the outcomes
risk
we know the outcomes, but we don’t know which one that will come up
like throwing a die…
Individual psychology
Particular individuals are more conflict-prone, more violent
innate psychology – maybe DNA
social factors — childhood abuse, exposure to violence, computer games, etc
cultural factors – macho culture – violent culture
“Human nature”
we are conflict-prone “by nature” – violent “by nature”
“Innate aggression theory” — there will always be conflicts and war
evolutionarily advantageous in human evolution — for securing resources or protecting kin
survival of the fittest – and the fittest are the most violent
But humans are also very good at avoiding conflicts – solving conflicts
we are cooperative — we are pack animals
cf. “alpha males” – negotiator and problem-solver
Dave Grossman, On Killing (1996)
evidence that humans don’t actually want to kill
soldiers throw away their guns, fire above the head of the enemy
Military training — make soldiers kill
a lot has changed with new military technology
soldiers kill more easily
suffer more mental distress
Human nature argument cannot tell us very much
context-dependent – social and cultural influences — all kinds of outcomes are possible
nature vs. nurture
Early human societies
learn more about human nature of we look at early human societies
Evidence of violence in prehistoric societies
archaeological evidence of conflict – military fortifications, skulls with wounds from weapons
but evidence varies greatly across different regions and time periods
Contemporary hunter-gatherer societies as models
quite problematic – they too have changed – impact of modern society
but they had a similar social structure – small with low degree of social complexity
Here too there is a lot of diversity
some hunter-gatherer groups are peaceful, others show evidence of frequent and intense conflicts
Very effective ways of solving social conflicts
the sanctions of the group
There is a lot of violence, but no wars
an attack on another tribe is interpreted as a private affair between the individuals concerned
Conflicts and violence correlates with resource scarcity
very little conflict in societies without hoarding
the more hierarchical the societies are, the more conflicts
Conflicts are not about land as such
there are no borders – land is overabundant
but perhaps resource-rich locations – a river with a lot of fish
Baboon society
Another way to investigate this – our natural inclinations
are monkey “violent by nature”?
Depends on the monkey
chimpanzees – hunt and eat each other
bonobo monkeys – very loving
The forest troop transformation (Robert Sapolsky)
aggressive males die after eating tainted meat from a garbage dump
Shift to a more peaceful society
more peaceful, with less aggression and more social behavior
measured by grooming – and care for children
This change persisted even as new males joined the troop
cultural transmission of less aggressive behaviors
applied to new males as well
Implications for humans
environments can significantly influence behavior
aggressive or competitive cultures can shift towards more cooperative and peaceful ones
Men and women
But also
a female-run society more peaceful
A feminist argument:
women are more peaceful than men
Men
too much testosterone – too aggressive and violent
always showing off — stir up unnecessary conflicts
Women
care more about their family and children
Ergo:
if the world was run by women, there would be fewer conflicts – and fewer wars
But difficult to answer this question since there have been far fewer female political leaders
Men, generally
more likely to engage in physical violence than women
violent crimes, including homicide and assault
true globally across various cultures
Women, generally
non-lethal forms — slapping or pushing
Use words rather than fists
“men are violent, women are bitchy”
Focus on individuals
Really only works for inter-personal conflicts
individuals in conflict with each other
Other conflicts are not caused by angry, violent, individuals
it is not because Palestinians are aggressive that they fight Israel
or because Hamas are male
or because they played too many aggressive computer games
Rather
because their land was taken away from them
It is political, economic,social factors that drive us – not psychological
since that is the case — we need social, political, economic explanations
Move away from individuals
State level
certain kinds of states that are more prone to war
Features of groups can explain why conflicts turn violent
groups of a certain kind are more violent
more difficult to resolve conflicts
Nature of a regime
“Autocratic regimes more conflict-prone”
there are no constraints on the leader
wake up one day and go to war
Saddam Hussein
war with Iran
annexation of Kuwait
Kim Jong-un
threatening to annihilate South Korea
Immanuel Kant: monarchies
wars as a “sport for kings”
great hopes for the French revolution – ordinary people don’t want war
actually not true – ordinary people very happy to go to war
French revolutionary wars were horrific – Napoleon etc.
“Democratic peace”
democracies don’t fight wars against each other
They resolve conflicts in other ways
ergo: if all countries in the world become democratic, there will be no more wars
But democracies very often go to war against other countries
not least in the Middle east
But is it democracy or something else?
liberalism, rights?
All that the democratic peace theory says is perhaps
Western countries don’t go to war against each other
Holland unlikely to attack Belgium
Religion
Religion seems to be involved in a lot of conflicts
Ireland — Catholics and Protestants
Burma — Royingya Muslims and Buddhist
India — Muslims and Hindus
Palestine — Jews and Muslims
and so on …
Indeed Muslims have been singled out as particularly violent and dangerous
Samuel Huntington: “clash of civilizations” – “Islam has bloody borders”
implying that Islam can’t coexist with other religions
a very influential argument in the United states – in particular in 2003
And spectacular terrorist attacks
carried out by “Muslims”
But something is not right here
the conflicts are never about religious matters
no fights over whether Muhammad flew to heaven on a horse – or whether Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus
The fighters themselves are often very irreligious
or have a very flawed understanding
Truly religious people
understand each other very well
imams, rabbis, priests – a lot of respect
they all say the same thing – “ours is a religion of peace”
Traditional view:
remove religion from social life – remove a cause of conflict
but perhaps the opposite is true – more religion will make society more peaceful
Religion as a marker of identity
powerful way of uniting a group
but it is the group that matters, not the religion
The conflicts are not about religion, but often instead
discrimination and marginalization
lack of opportunities, lack of respect
true in northern Ireland – and Gaza
and everywhere else
General problem:
people decide that they have to live with people who are like themselves – and religion defines that identity
people decide that they cannot accept people who are different from themselves – and religion defines the difference
Religion is used to define the group
but it could in principle be anything
Western media: always identify perpetrators as “Muslims”
when Americans are bombing Iraq they are not identified as “Christian”
Systemic level
The political structure of the state moves conflicts to relations between states
here there is no monopoly on the legitimate use of violence
The structure makes wars more likely
wars happen mainly since there is nothing to stop them
The problem of international wars
every state is “sovereign” – they do what they want
One state defending itself will look like a threat to others
Sometimes threats lead to actual conflicts
a world government could prevent it – but there is no world government
The structure of international politics leads to conflict
IR scholars call it “anarchy”
individual states may be peace-loving, but the structure leads them to war
Some figures on deaths:
perhaps 150 million people died
85 million in World War II alone
Summary: “rules of the game”
The importance of a meta level
we must commit to continue living together
following the “rules of the game” is more important than having our way
rules of the game guarantee that we have a life together
Cf. family
our sister gets her way this time, but next time it’s my turn
Elections
making sure that the system survives is more important than winning
we lost this time, but we can recoup later
if this is not the case, we have no basis for a solution
cf. the US
Are wars obsolete?
Books like
John Mueller, The Obsolescence of War, 1990
Steven Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, 2011
Both sees a positive pattern:
Mueller: the decline in large-scale wars between major powers
Pinker: decreases in various forms of violence, including wars, murder, cruelty, and torture
Cause for the decline
Changing attitudes towards war
has become something unthinkable
barbaric rather than noble
Civilizing Process
Norbert Elias – court society – the role of the state
The Enlightenment
fostering a culture of reason, science, humanism, and moral progress
the spread of literacy, education, a more peace-loving public discourse
we are more empathetic — expanding moral circles
The doux commerce argument
we are more interested in profits and economic growth
interdependence, democracy, and global cooperation have made war less appealing and more costly
people just can’t afford to solve conflicts this way
International institutions play a mitigating role
more asymmetrical warfare – but this is not a return to large-scale wars
military-industrial complex is trying to scare us in order to make money
Deterrence
actually works
Criticism
Maybe true for interpersonal relations
modern societies are indeed less violent (except, maybe, the US)
Is this even true?
World War II
Ukraine vs. Russia or Hamas vs. Israel?
Ignores structural violence
Eurocentric argument
endless conflicts outside of the West
Technological change – the future of war
Vastly more destructive technology
nuclear weapons
Drone warfare
kill a single person at a great distance
Artificial intelligence
Autonomous Weapons Systems: AI can enable the development of autonomous weapons that can operate without direct human control. These systems could include drones, robotic combat units, or automated defense systems, capable of making decisions about targeting and engaging enemies based on programmed algorithms.
Enhanced Decision Making: AI can process vast amounts of data rapidly, offering military strategists real-time intelligence and analysis. This capability could significantly enhance decision-making processes, providing insights into enemy movements, potential threats, and strategic opportunities.
Cyber Warfare: AI technologies can be used to develop advanced cyber warfare tools. These tools could conduct cyber-attacks, defend against hacking attempts, and perform surveillance. AI’s ability to learn and adapt makes it particularly effective in the constantly evolving landscape of cyber warfare.
Information and Psychological Warfare: AI can be used to analyze and manipulate information on a large scale. This could involve the use of AI-driven propaganda, deepfakes, and social media manipulation to influence public opinion or destabilize societies.
Logistics and Support: AI can optimize logistics in military operations, including supply chain management, equipment maintenance, and troop deployment. This optimization can increase efficiency and reduce human error in logistical planning.
Surveillance and Reconnaissance: AI can enhance surveillance capabilities through improved image and pattern recognition, which can be used in reconnaissance missions to identify threats or gather intelligence without risking human lives.
Defense Systems: AI can improve defense systems, such as missile defense, where rapid response and high accuracy are crucial. AI algorithms can help in predicting and intercepting incoming threats more effectively than human-operated systems.
Ethical and Legal Challenges: The use of AI in warfare raises significant ethical and legal questions, particularly around the decision-making in lethal operations. Issues of accountability, transparency, and compliance with international law become more complex when AI systems are involved.
Asymmetric Warfare: AI technology can be a great equalizer in warfare, allowing smaller nations or non-state actors to possess capabilities that were previously limited to major powers. This can lead to asymmetric warfare scenarios where the traditional balance of power is altered.
Human-AI Collaboration: The future of warfare might see increased collaboration between human soldiers and AI systems, where AI aids humans in tactical decision-making, threat assessment, and situational awareness.
Lawson, “Security and insecurity,” 2003
Realist conceptions of security
Security dilemmas
Liberal attempts to deal with security problems
“security communities”
Constructivism
all insecurity as “socially constructed”
not given by the situation in itself, but by how the situation is interpreted
a certain culture of insecurity
“Securitization”
the process whereby something is turned into a question of security
cf. terrorist threats
there is a process whereby this becomes something that everyone worries about
most obviously perhaps — the role of massmedia
different reactions — great difference between …
a police response
a military response
PKK or the Gulen movement
they become “terrorists” because they are defined as such
there is a process whereby this happens
the state as a source of insecurity
what is the subject of security?
the state?
individuals?
very different answers in the two cases
R2P — “responsibility to protect”
the state has a responsibility to protect its people
if it can’t do this — or refuses to do this
the international community can intervene
in fact, it has a responsibility to intervene
but a problem with interventions
rarely unselfish
Western countries — neocolonialism
invasion of Iraq in 2003
Alternative conceptions of security
climate security
pandemic security
alternative theoretical approaches
Feminism — men as a problem
a world in which women were equal would be a different world — also as far as IR is concerned
all of this is important, and relevant
but perhaps not best discussed together with traditional IR conceptions of security
perhaps refer security in IR to state security
the individual dimension takes us off in quite different directions
“Power”
sources of power
military force as a source of power
the country with the biggest military force is the most powerful country
but military force in turn depends on economic factors, steel production, etc
The limits of military power
the US as the most powerful country in the world —lost in
Afghanistan
Iraq
and Vietnam
these are some of the poorest countries in the world
if US power doesn’t prevail here it will prevail nowhere
Explicit power
“making someone do something that they otherwise wouldn’t do”
you put a gun to their head and force them
this is the prevailing IR conception of power
if you don’t do this, we will start a war
Power over the agenda
the power to put things on an agenda
or to take them away
invisible power — the issue never even comes up
climate change is not discussed
more equitable trade regime
Power over your way of thinking
structural power — establish a certain outlook on the world
examples:
women in traditional society accepting their inferior position
colonized people accepting their colonial masters
or
cultural imperialism
secularization
feeling of being “brain washed”
wake them up — “consciousness raising”
the task of nationalist leaders — to “awaken their nations”
the most far-reaching sort of power
you don’t even see it
against “one’s real interests”
always a difficult way to argue
look for times when the power structure is weakened
What about “soft power”?
Nuclear weapons
Drone warfare
The future of war
Additional points
II. Evolution of Warfare:
Throughout history, warfare has evolved in response to technological, tactical, and strategic developments. Some significant milestones in the evolution of warfare include:
A. Prehistoric and ancient warfare: Early human conflicts were primarily small-scale and tribal, often involving hand-to-hand combat and basic weapons like clubs and spears.
B. Classical and medieval warfare: The rise of empires and organized states led to larger-scale conflicts and the development of advanced weapons and tactics, such as the Roman legions or medieval knights.
C. Gunpowder and modern warfare: The introduction of gunpowder weapons in the late Middle Ages revolutionized warfare, leading to the development of artillery, firearms, and eventually, industrialized warfare.
D. World Wars and total war: The scale and intensity of conflict reached unprecedented levels during the two World Wars, as nations mobilized their entire economies and populations for war.
E. Nuclear weapons and the Cold War: The advent of nuclear weapons fundamentally altered the nature of warfare, leading to a strategic stalemate between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
F. Asymmetric warfare and terrorism: In the post-Cold War era, the rise of non-state actors and asymmetric warfare has challenged traditional notions of security and warfare, with terrorism becoming a significant global threat.
III. Security in a Globalized World:
In today’s interconnected world, the pursuit of security has become increasingly complex, as states face a wide array of challenges, including:
A. Interstate conflict: Traditional threats from other states continue to pose challenges to security, as evidenced by ongoing territorial disputes, arms races, and rivalries between major powers.
B. Intrastate conflict and civil wars: Many contemporary conflicts occur within states, often driven by ethnic, religious, or ideological divisions.
C. Terrorism: States must contend with the threat of terrorism, which can originate from both domestic and international sources.
D. Cybersecurity: As our reliance on digital technology grows, states face new challenges in securing their information networks and critical infrastructure from cyberattacks.
E. Environmental and resource security: Climate change, resource scarcity, and environmental degradation can exacerbate tensions between states and contribute to instability.
F. Human security: In addition to traditional security concerns, states must also address issues related to human security, such as poverty, inequality, and the protection of human rights. These factors can contribute to social unrest, migration, and conflict, impacting overall security.
G. Non-state actors: The proliferation of non-state actors, including transnational criminal organizations, armed militias, and terrorist networks, has further complicated the security landscape.
H. International cooperation and institutions: In order to address these multifaceted security challenges, states increasingly rely on international cooperation and institutions, such as the United Nations, NATO, and regional organizations, to coordinate their efforts and promote collective security.
IV. Approaches to Security: Various approaches to security have emerged in response to the evolving nature of warfare and the growing complexity of security challenges. Some of these approaches include:
A. Deterrence: The strategy of deterrence seeks to prevent conflict by maintaining a credible military threat, making potential adversaries think twice before initiating an attack. This approach was central to the Cold War-era doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD).
B. Compellence: Compellence involves the use of military force or the threat of force to persuade an adversary to change its behavior, such as stopping an ongoing conflict or reversing an act of aggression.
C. Preemption and prevention: Preemptive and preventive strategies aim to neutralize potential threats before they can materialize, often by striking an adversary before they have the opportunity to launch an attack. This approach has been controversial, particularly in the context of the 2003 Iraq War.
D. Defense and containment: Defensive strategies seek to protect against threats by fortifying borders, investing in advanced military technologies, and maintaining a strong national defense. Containment strategies, on the other hand, aim to limit the expansion of potential adversaries by supporting allies and creating a balance of power.
E. Diplomacy and negotiation: Diplomatic efforts and negotiations can play a critical role in resolving conflicts, building alliances, and promoting cooperation between states.
F. Soft power and public diplomacy: Soft power refers to a state’s ability to influence others through attraction and persuasion, rather than coercion. Public diplomacy, which includes cultural exchanges, educational initiatives, and international broadcasting, can help promote a state’s soft power and enhance its international image.
V. Conclusion: As we have seen, war, warfare, and security are complex and multifaceted topics that have shaped human history and continue to play a significant role in the modern world. By exploring the causes of war, the evolution of warfare, and the pursuit of security in an interconnected global landscape, we can better understand the dynamics of international relations and the challenges we face in promoting peace and stability.
