War or Peace? The answer to this question is very ambiguous in classical theory; arguments laid out by both liberalists and realists are consistent although the empirical evidence so far tends to support the realist notion of perpetual conflict. Especially taking into account terrorism, intervention and intrastate conflict, a pessimistic outlook seems unavoidable. So the overwhelming empirical arguments still win the case in favour of Realism, in my opinion.
To come to this argument, the first paragraph is denoted to give definitions of the most important terms and a description of the international system. After this initial clarification, the liberal position of a possible peace defended by what can be called the ‘interconnectedness’ thesis in political, economic and institutional terms will be presented. This will then be confronted with the realist argumentation for a never-ending state of war. The last part of the paper will deal with intrastate wars, humanitarian intervention and terrorism as the ‘new threat to eternal peace’ leading to a pessimistic conclusion.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction and definition of terms
2. Liberalist perspective on international peace
3. Realist perspective on international conflict
4. Intrastate war, humanitarian intervention and the war on terror
5. Conclusion
Objectives and Core Themes
This essay explores the debate between liberalist and realist schools of thought regarding the nature of conflict within the international system, specifically questioning whether conflict is inherent to it. By examining theoretical frameworks and empirical evidence, the author evaluates the stability of the international order against the persistence of war.
- Theoretical contrast between Liberalism and Realism
- The role of interconnectedness and international institutions in maintaining peace
- The realist critique of anarchy and human nature as drivers of conflict
- Analysis of contemporary security challenges such as terrorism and intrastate wars
- Evaluation of the cyclic nature of international conflict and stability
Excerpt from the Book
The Realist Critique of International Institutions
Grieco (1993:116) denies such institutionalism and advantages of cooperation, however: “international institutions are unable to mitigate anarchy constraining effects on interstate cooperation”. Mearsheimer (2001) is in favour of Grieco’s view stating that cooperation is possible but nevertheless senseless to prevent war in the international system. For him, the Great World Wars are the most striking counterexamples for the inhibiting character of institutions concerning war: even though the German and Soviet armies were working together before the war, this “amount of cooperation can {not} eliminate the dominating logic of security competition” (2001:60). America’s acting concerning the war against terror can be seen as another example here: although one of the strongest institutions, the UN Security Council, opposed against the invasion of Iraq, America and its allies could not be prevented from doing so (Hurrel, 2007:188).
Overall, realists are very sceptical of the liberal arguments discussed above very critical and denounce them as Carr puts it as ‘idealist’ or ‘utopian’ (Carr, 1946). Besides the often empirical arguments against the liberal theories, Realism has two central theoretical claims opposed to Liberalism: neo-realists assume that states live in an “asocial society, in which the recourse to violence is normal” (Hall, 1996:9; see Waltz, 1959:224-38). They mainly search for their own security their own interests (Luard, 1988:3), are often driven by fear (Mearsheimer, 2001) and try to balance power in order to protect themselves (Waltz, 1979a:117 ; Morgenthau, 1975). In their view, the anarchical society eventually leads to conflict.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction and definition of terms: This chapter defines key terminology and sets the stage by identifying the central tension between realist and liberalist perspectives on the international system.
2. Liberalist perspective on international peace: This chapter examines the liberal argument, focusing on how political, economic, and institutional interconnectedness can foster cooperation and prevent conflict.
3. Realist perspective on international conflict: This chapter presents the realist counter-argument, emphasizing that international anarchy and human nature render cooperation fragile and make conflict an inevitable feature of state behavior.
4. Intrastate war, humanitarian intervention and the war on terror: This chapter analyzes new forms of conflict, shifting the focus from traditional interstate wars to civil conflicts, interventions, and the ideological challenges of terrorism.
5. Conclusion: This chapter synthesizes the arguments and offers a pessimistic outlook, suggesting that the international system moves in cycles of conflict rather than progressing toward permanent peace.
Keywords
International Relations, Liberalism, Realism, International Anarchy, Interconnectedness, Interstate War, Intrastate Conflict, Collective Security, Human Nature, Humanitarian Intervention, War on Terror, Sovereignty, Global Order, Security Competition, Power Balancing
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core research question of this essay?
The essay investigates whether conflict is an inherent characteristic of the international system, evaluating the claims of competing international relations theories.
Which theoretical perspectives are primarily discussed?
The work primarily contrasts the Liberalist school of thought, which emphasizes cooperation and peace, with the Realist school, which views conflict as unavoidable.
What is the main goal of the author's analysis?
The goal is to determine which theoretical framework better explains the empirical reality of the international system through an assessment of historical and modern conflict data.
How is the "Liberalist" approach defined in the text?
Liberalism is described as a school of thought that focuses on 'interconnectedness'—political, economic, and institutional links—as a mechanism to reduce the incentive for states to engage in war.
What is the "Realist" viewpoint on international institutions?
Realists, such as Mearsheimer and Grieco, argue that international institutions are generally incapable of overcoming the constraints of international anarchy or the logic of security competition.
What role does human nature play in the author's argument?
The author highlights the classical realist notion that human nature is essentially selfish, leading states to pursue their own interests, which inevitably translates into conflict within the anarchical system.
What are the 'new' forms of conflict addressed in the paper?
The paper identifies intrastate wars, humanitarian interventions, and the 'war on terror' as modern forms of conflict that challenge the traditional interstate-focused theories.
How does the author interpret the impact of the United Nations?
The author discusses the UN as a tool for collective security but notes critical perspectives that view it as a "toothless tiger" lacking independent enforcement power.
Does the author reach an optimistic or pessimistic conclusion?
The author concludes on a pessimistic note, siding with the view that the international system moves in cycles, where conflict remains a persistent feature of global politics.
What is the significance of the "Westphalian Peace" mentioned in the text?
The Westphalian Peace (1648) is cited as the historical origin of the current decentralized system of sovereign nation-states, which forms the basis for the concept of 'international anarchy'.
- Quote paper
- Johannes Lenhard (Author), 2010, Is War inherent in the international system?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/146995
