Session 22: War or Peace?

War, which defined as “large scale organized violence between politically defined groups”, has been a central focus of theorizing in international relations. Over the evolution of the discipline, the concept of war has not remained the same. War has manifested itself in the form of inter and intra state wars – with the causes behind them varying over time and space.  As the nature of wars has varied, so has the lens through which the war in the international system can be analyzed. Jack Levy, in “War and Peace”, discusses how the realist and liberal traditions have posited the incidence of war in the international system. Although he recognizes that the methods he presents are not exhaustive, Levy proposes a “multi-method” approach that incorporates elements from both realism and liberalism, in an attempt to understand the complex concept of war. 

According to Levy, the scholarship regarding ‘war’ has treated the phenomenon in multiple ways. While some theorists have treated war as a constant, others have perpetuated the view that wars are variable in the international system. In addition theorists have often focused their attention to studying and analyzing particular wars in order to make sense of why they occur.

 Realist theorists may have differed on the causes of war; however, on the whole, the phenomenon is treated as a constant in the world system.  While Hobbes and Machiavelli point towards the innate, self-interested nature of man that advances the need for security and greater power, theorists such as Rousseau and Waltz maintain that the anarchic state of nature at the international level is an “important permissive of war”. Although these factors help explain the recurrence of war in an international system, they do little in terms of identifying the causes of war. The distribution of power within the international system, with an emphasis on the offensive/defensive policies of states, is what Levy believes contributes most significantly to the understanding the variations in the incidence of war. Therefore, by keeping the balance of power in the international system as the underlying cause for war, Levy posits the claim  that war may occurs of either as a consequence of direct conflict of interests and ideologies between states, or as a result of states seeking to enhance their security in a system where “there is nothing to prevent them”.

On the other hand, the Liberal school of thought treats war as variable in the international system. While Realists reject the idea of absence of war in the global order, Liberals maintain that under certain conditions of economic interdependence and domestic, political stability, peace between states can be achieved. The concept of economic interdependence focuses on international trade. As trade generates economic benefits for all the actors involved, the mere “anticipation” of disruption of flow of revenue and gains is enough to deter war. In addition, Liberal theorists have also alluded to the fact that the war between states is negatively correlated with the incidence of democracy. As the Democratic Peace Theory suggests, democracies are less likely to go to war with other democratic states. Therefore, peace in the international system may be achievable after all.

Levy has provided an excellent summary of the Realist and Liberal schools of thought. However, using the multi-method approach, that incorporates elements from both realist and liberal perspectives, the question still remains whether Peace is attainable in the international system.