I have enjoyed reading Jack Levy's War and Peace because it provides a comprehensive overview of almost all the topics that we have covered in the first half of this course: balance of power, hegemony, anarchy, war etc. Along with the topics that we have studied in the first half, he also introduces us to the positions that different renowned political scientists -- the ones we have come across such as Mearsheimer, Waltz, Bull, Allison, Doyle, Milner and Keohane etc -- have on war and peace. What I like about him is that he presents different schools of thought, their beliefs about war and peace and allows readers to choose a particular theoretical school that they find best suited for explaining the topic of war and peace. I found that he doesn't support a particular International Relations' theory. What he did is to present the ideas of different theoretical schools about this topic and includes pros and shortcomings of each school of thought.
While reading this piece, I felt like relating its theme with my example of 'War and Peace Restaurant', one of the most luxurious fine dining places in the town, where only dish is served: War and Peace. The waiter, Mr Levy, provides a menu card for dressings/sauces from which a customer is required to choose one dressing for his War and Peace dish. The dressings which are listed on the menu are liberalism, realism, constructivism and institutionalism. The waiter asks me how do I like my War and Peace dish to be served. I contemplate on the choices that are at front of me for a good couple of minutes because one bad choice will ruin my dish and my palate. After all who wants to puke all over the place and spoil his own 'le diner romantique' if he is willing to pay for it through his nose. If I select realism, the flavours of my dish will not be balanced. It will provide too much flavor to War, making it taste like an overcooked steak. The next choice that I have is institutionalism. According to my waiter Mr Levy, this is a new dressing that his restaurant has recently introduced. However, Jack Levy warns me that I must think twice before selecting this new dressing because it hasn't been tested by many customers before and there is still some work that needs to be done on its taste. He provides feedback of his two customer, Mearsheimer and Keohane, who believe that the "analysis of the impact of institutions on war and peace are still in an early stage of development, raise important analytic and historical questions, and have yet to be empirically tested" (Levy 463). Now my choices are narrowed down to liberalism and constructivism. After reading the descriptions of the two dressings, I found liberalism capable enough to add more life to my War and Peace dish. It is better to enjoy a dish which exercises your palate muscles with pleasant and intense flavors. Both the flavors of War and Peace are well balanced. I found its economic deterrence argument and trade-promote-peace hypothesis very amusing.
The economic deterrence argument of liberal theorists asserts that since trade promotes economic benefits for two countries in question, the apprehension that war will reduce the gains from trade or hamper trade altogether would deter political leaders from taking offensive actions against their strategic trading partners.
The trade-promote-peace hypothesis of liberal theorists asserts that trade advances prosperity which in return reduces "the domestic problems that sometimes lead to war, either through external scapegoating by elites to solidify their domestic political support, or through pressures for protectionism that can lead to...increase hostilities and trigger conflict spirals" (Levy 463). Levy includes Wilson's argument that economic depression often incites intra-wars. Pursuing prosperity goal would deter one state from allocating resources to its military sector.
While reading this piece, I felt like relating its theme with my example of 'War and Peace Restaurant', one of the most luxurious fine dining places in the town, where only dish is served: War and Peace. The waiter, Mr Levy, provides a menu card for dressings/sauces from which a customer is required to choose one dressing for his War and Peace dish. The dressings which are listed on the menu are liberalism, realism, constructivism and institutionalism. The waiter asks me how do I like my War and Peace dish to be served. I contemplate on the choices that are at front of me for a good couple of minutes because one bad choice will ruin my dish and my palate. After all who wants to puke all over the place and spoil his own 'le diner romantique' if he is willing to pay for it through his nose. If I select realism, the flavours of my dish will not be balanced. It will provide too much flavor to War, making it taste like an overcooked steak. The next choice that I have is institutionalism. According to my waiter Mr Levy, this is a new dressing that his restaurant has recently introduced. However, Jack Levy warns me that I must think twice before selecting this new dressing because it hasn't been tested by many customers before and there is still some work that needs to be done on its taste. He provides feedback of his two customer, Mearsheimer and Keohane, who believe that the "analysis of the impact of institutions on war and peace are still in an early stage of development, raise important analytic and historical questions, and have yet to be empirically tested" (Levy 463). Now my choices are narrowed down to liberalism and constructivism. After reading the descriptions of the two dressings, I found liberalism capable enough to add more life to my War and Peace dish. It is better to enjoy a dish which exercises your palate muscles with pleasant and intense flavors. Both the flavors of War and Peace are well balanced. I found its economic deterrence argument and trade-promote-peace hypothesis very amusing.
The economic deterrence argument of liberal theorists asserts that since trade promotes economic benefits for two countries in question, the apprehension that war will reduce the gains from trade or hamper trade altogether would deter political leaders from taking offensive actions against their strategic trading partners.
The trade-promote-peace hypothesis of liberal theorists asserts that trade advances prosperity which in return reduces "the domestic problems that sometimes lead to war, either through external scapegoating by elites to solidify their domestic political support, or through pressures for protectionism that can lead to...increase hostilities and trigger conflict spirals" (Levy 463). Levy includes Wilson's argument that economic depression often incites intra-wars. Pursuing prosperity goal would deter one state from allocating resources to its military sector.
Choosing liberalism will certainly add colour to your dish but it will also make it excessively sweet at the same time. Don't you think?
ReplyDeleteAlso, I was looking forward to your description of constructivism because it is certainly of my favorite theory.
haha... this is the best piece that I ever read! I like the way you explain and summarize the whole idea. lastly, I like your choice about the dish!
ReplyDelete