Question: what are the major sources of war?

Explain
OR
Analyse the various sources of war.

The level of analysis framework

The level of analysis framework was first systematized by
Kenneth waltz, who suggested that the causes of war can be found at the levels of
the individual, the nation state, and the international system. The individual
level focuses primarily on human nature and instinct theories and on individual
political leaders and their belief systems, personalities, and psychological
processes. The national level includes both governmental variables such as the
structure of the political system and the nature of the policy making process and
societal factors such as the structure of the economic system, the role of public
opinion, economic and non-economic interest groups, ethnicity and nationalism,
and political culture and ideology. systemic level causes include the anarchic
structure of the international system, the number of major powers in the system,
the distribution of military and economic power among them, patterns of military
alliances and international trade, and other factors that constitute the external
environment common to all states.

Waltz framework was modified by some scholars by collapsing the individual and
nation state levels to create a simplified dichotomy of nation, the system level. At
the systemic level, it is useful to distinguish among system characteristics common
to all states, dyadic relationships between pairs of states, and the external
environment of individual states. scholars generally use the level of analysis
concept as a framework for classifying independent variables that explain state
foreign policy behaviors and international outcomes. The framework helps us to

1
know whether the causes of war are found primarily at level of the international
system, the nation state, or the individual, how variables from different levels
interact in the foreign policy process. The systemic level of analysis refers to
explanations of patterns and outcomes in the international system, the dyadic level
to explanations of strategic interactions between two states, the national level to
explanations of state for foreign policy of behavior, and individual level to
explanation of the preferences, beliefs, or choices of individuals.

National or individual level variables can be the primary causes of systemic or

dyadic level outcomes. Domestic political pressures, bureaucratic conflicts and
compromises, or the belief systems of individual leaders can be the main causes of
some wars.

THEORIES OF THE CAUSES OF WAR

Systematic level sources of international conflict

The causes of war has been dominated by the realist
paradigm, a broad systematic level framework that incorporates several distinct
theories. Each of these theories assumes that the key actors are sovereign states
that act rationally to advance their security, power, and wealth in an anarchic and
threatening international system. Wars occur not only because some states prefer
war to peace; they also occur because of the unintended consequences of actions
by those states that prefer peace to war and that are more interested in minimizing
their loses than in maximizing their gains, but that are willing to take considerable
risks to avoid losses. States took efforts to provide security through armaments,
alliances, and deterrent threats, which leads to counteractions and conflict spirals
that become difficult to reverse.

2
Balance of power theory
The leading realist theory is balance of power theory which
posits the avoidance of hegemony as the primary goal of the states and the
maintenance of an equilibrium of power in the system as the primary instrumental
goal. States in particular great powers, will balance will balance against those who
constitute the primary threats to their interests and particularly against any state
that threatens to secure a hegemonic position. Balance of power theorists argue that
the balancing mechanism almost always works successfully to avoid hegemony,
either because potential hegemons are deterred by their anticipation of a military
coalition against them or because they are defeated in war after deterrence fails.
The unresolved debate between classical realists who argue that stability is
supported by the presence of a “balancer state”, the absence of permanent alliances
or a polarized alliance system, and especially by a multipolar distribution of power;
and neorealists who argue that bipolarity is more stable than multipolarity. Balance
of power politics often generates a checker board pattern of alliances.

Power transition theory

An important alternative to balance of power theory is power
transition theory, a form of hegemonic theory that shares realist assumptions but
that emphasizes the existence of order within a nominally anarchic system.
Hegemons commonly arise and use their strength to create a set of political and
economical structures and norms of behavior that enhances the stability of the
system at the same time that these structures and norms of behavior that enhance
the stability of the system at the same time that these structures and norms advance
the security of the hegemon. Differential rates of growth lead to the rise and fall of

3
hegemons, however, and the probability of a major war is greatest at the point
when the declining leader is being overtaken by the rising challenger.

An interesting combination of balance of power and power transition theories is

“hierarchical equilibrium theory”, in which peace is most likely under conditions
of equality of power between two major blocs, but with hierarchical dominance
within each block by a hegemon. Hegemonic theories and hierarchical equilibrium
theory suggest that the erosion or collapse of hierarchical authority within an
empire or bloc system will increase the probability of violent conflict between
political entities or communal groups in that system.

Lateral pressure theory

Growing population and advancing technology generate
increasing demands for resources that cannot be satisfied by the state’s domestic
resource endowments or by existing levels of foreign trade. These demands
generate “lateral pressure” for access to external raw materials and markets and
often for political control through colonial expansion to guarantee such access.
Expansions by several states intersect, leading to pressure for states to defend their
expanding interests through increased military expenditures and alliances,
reciprocal actions by adversaries, conflict spirals and an increasing probability of
war. Although lateral pressure theory has not received as much attention as balance
of power theory or power transition theory, its emphasis on population pressures
and resource scarcities increases its relevance for the contemporary era.

Liberal economic theory of war

Another systematic level theory, one that derives from a
liberal rather than realist paradigm and that also includes a substantial domestic
component. The basic argument which goes back to smith and Ricardo is that free
trade within an international market economy is the best guarantor of peace.one
4
idea is that trade promotes prosperity, following the law of comparative advantage,
and that prosperity promotes peace. Tariffs, quotas and any other restrictions on
the natural operation of market mechanism have the opposite effect. Trade
increases interdependence and creates mutual vulnerabilities to any interference
with free trade, the fear of loss of the welfare gains from trade deters political
leaders from initiating militarized conflict. Thus, trade is more efficient than
military coercion in promoting state wealth. Liberals conclude, that trade is
economically efficient and it promotes peace among the advanced industrial states
in the contemporary era.

Realists and economic nationalists, on the other hand, argue that because trade and
interdependence are usually asymmetrical, they promote war. The economic
relationships are likely to become increasingly important sources of international
conflicts in the future, particularly for developing states that face serious economic
scarcities, but also for the advanced industrial states.

Societal level sources of international conflict

While interest in Marxist-Leninist theories has waned,
scholars have given enormous attention to the relationship between democracy and
war and to the ways in which political leaders resort to external military force as a
means of bolstering their domestic political support. In addition, many of the newly
emphasized causes of war including ethnonationalism, environmental scarcity and
degradation, and population movements either fit into the societal level of analysis
or include that level as a major step in the hypothesized causal chain leading to
war.

Marxist-Leninist theory focuses on the domestic economic structure of capitalist

Societies and posits that the inequitable distribution of wealth generates

5
underconsumption, inadequate domestic investment, and stagnant economies.
There have been numerous critiques of the logical consistency and empirical
validity of the Marxist Leninist theory of foreign policy and imperialism and one
common criticism focusses on the economic determinism and the absence of
political variables to explain the linkages between social and economic conditions
and the state policies that result.

Snyder’s model of coalition formation and strategic mythmaking, Snyder

observes that states often expand beyond the point at which their imperial interests
can be supported by available resources. He focuses on a coalition of elites, each of
which prefers a different form of limited expansion, military buildup, or economic
autarky. These groups create logrolled coalitions that secure power. The coalitions
reinforce their positions of power and rationalize their policies by propagating self-
serving strategic myths. Snyder applies his model to the great powers in the
industrial era and the history can also applied to other states in other contexts and it
continues to be quite relevant for the future.

Cultural and normative model: Scholars have proposed two types of models to
explain the dual finding that democracies engage in frequent wars.in the cultural
and normative model the norms of peaceful conflict resolution that have involved
within democratic political culture are extended to relations between democratic
states. In the structural or institutional model, checks and balances, the dispersion
of power, and the need for public debate make it more difficult for democratic
states to use force against each other .in both models, there are fewer constraints on
the use of force by authoritarian regimes, which often attempt to exploit the
conciliatory tendencies of democracies.

The primary sources of conflict in the future will be cultural,

rather than ideological or geopolitical, and that a clash of civilizations between
6
ethnically and religiously defined peoples will be the primary source of
international conflict in the future. Cultural self-awareness is increasing, and
conflicts over culturally defined identities are more difficult to resolve through
compromise than are conflicts tangible strategic or economic interests.

Ethnonational conflict may also contribute to international migration, which has

increased significantly since the end of the cold war and which is now defined by
numerous scholars as a possible issue of high politics and source of conflict
between states. Communal conflicts, violent secessionist movements, and the
political and economic oppression from which they derive create incentives for
ethnic minorities to migrate in search of security. Government sometimes adopts
forced emigration as a strategy of achieving cultural homogeneity or the
dominance of one ethnic community over another, eliminating political dissidents,
colonizing areas beyond borders, destabilizing or influencing another state.

There are also economic and environmental sources of international migration.

Substantial differentials in income and employment opportunities create economic
incentives for people to migrate in search of economic security. In the
contemporary era, the collapse of authoritarian regimes has removed some of the
political barriers to population movement across borders, and expanding global
communications and transportation networks have created new opportunities for
the international migration. In addition, environmental degradation, droughts,
floods, and famines, generates large number of environmental refugees. Population
movements can contribute to conflict within and between states: migration can put
added strain on scarce resources in the host country, particularly in urban areas;
change land distribution, economic relation, and the balance of political power
among ethnic, religious, or other social groups; undermine state capacity to create
markets and other institutions that facilitate adaption to environmental change;

7
generate a perceived threat to the host country’s cultural identity; generally
increase communal conflict, political instability, and the likelihood of civil strife.

Migration also contributes to international conflict by serving as a focal point for

relations between home and host countries. Environmental change is one of
several sources of large-scale population movements, but it can also contribute to
international conflict through other casual paths, the implications of environmental
change for national security and international conflict have recently attracted
considerable attention in the literature. Increasing urbanized populations competing
for scarce resources and the depletion of those resources by land degradation,
desertification, deforestation, rising sea levels, and population will generate
economic and social problems, environmental refugees, political instability, and
serious domestic and international crises. The combination of population growth,
uneven resource distribution, and the environmental degradation of scarce
resources leads to scarcities that can contribute to violent conflict through a
number of different casual paths.

Bureaucratic organizational sources of international

conflict
The bureaucratic politics and organizational processes
models of foreign policy decision making retain the rationality assumption of
realist theory but rejects its unitary actor assumptions. They assume that different
actors in different bureaucratic roles within the executive branch of the government
have different interests and different degrees of political power. Bureaucratic
politics and organizational processes can contribute to war through a variety of
casual paths. The real impact of the military on decisions for war is likely to be less
direct. Military organizations have an interest in enhancing their size, budget,
autonomy, and prestige, and they support those interests by propagating myths or
8
ideologies regarding the severity of external threats and the necessity of enhanced
military preparedness. This often leads to arms buildups that go beyond real
security concerns and these can trigger arms races, conflict spirals, and war.

military organizations generally have a preference for offensive doc trines, which
help rationalize larger military budgets, enhance military morale and prestige, and
facilitate seizing the initiative, structuring the battle, and hence reducing
uncertainty. Offensive doctrines contribute to war by increasing incentives for
territorial conquest, preemptive strikes, and preventive war, by fueling arms races
and conflict spirals because they increase the threat to adversary security, and by
increasing the destructive ness of war.

Individual level sources of international conflict

Different decision makers with different belief
system or “operational codes” about the world politics will respond differently
under similar situations, so that individuals make a difference in state foreign
policy behavior. These beliefs arise from differences in political socialization,
personality, education, formative experiences, the lessons people learn from
historical experience, and a host of other variables. Theories of foreign policy and
international conflict that recognize the importance of individual beliefs must
incorporate not only the beliefs themselves, but also an explanation of how the
policy preferences of different individuals in different roles and positions of power
get aggregated into foreign policy decisions for the state.

Foreign policy behavior can be affected by the psychological processes involved in

individual judgement and decision making, as well as by the content of their belief
systems. Misperception based explanations are often seen as necessary causes of
war, on the assumptions that if both sides had correctly assessed the adversary’s

9
intentions and the likely outcome of the war, they could have agreed to a
settlement commensurate with that outcome while avoiding the costs of fighting.
The concept of misperception is extremely difficult to define analytically or
measure empirically, and there are plethora of types of misperceptions, but the
ones most likely to have a major impact on the processes leading to war are
misperceptions of the capabilities and intentions of adversaries and third states.

Exaggeration of the hostility of the adversary’s intentions is particularly

important.in the short term it can induce one to take counteractions that trigger a
conflict spiral and unnecessary war, and in the long term they can lead to an arms
race or system of alliances and counteralliances. Misperceptions of adversary
capabilities can also be critical. The underestimation of adversary capabilities
relative to one's own generates military overconfidence and the common belief that
a rapid military victory involving minimal costs is quite likely. The overestimation
of adversary capabilities may lead one to overreact and initiate an arms buildup
that is followed by an arms race and conflict spiral. Misperceptions of third-state
capabilities, and hence the impact of third states on the course of the war should
they choose to intervene, have similar effects.

Conclusion
Systemic distributions of power will continue to be important in pro
viding the context within which regional systems and dyadic rivalries operate, and
although balancing against primary threats and adjusting to changing power
differentials through alliances and armaments will continue to be central themes in
international relations, realist theories are probably too limited theoretically and
too tied to the great-power experience of the past to provide an adequate
explanation of international conflict over the next several decades. The locus of

10
conflict has clearly begun to shift. away from the great powers and away from the
West. Although realist theories help to explain the origins of this shift, they need to
be broadened if they are to explain the dynamics of conflict in a changing world.

In terms of levels of analysis, far more attention needs to be directed to societal

level variables. These have been important but neglected in the past, and in all
probability, they will become increasingly important in the future in shaping the
preferences of state leaders and the constraints on their actions. Ethnonational and
other identity-based conflicts will be particularly important in influencing the
political agendas. of states and in contributing to domestic instability and
international tensions. The importance of economic variables is also likely to
increase, for several reasons. The collapse of the Soviet Union has significantly
reduced a major source of military threat to the leading economic powers in the
system, and this, along with the declining utility of military power, has increased
the importance of economic competition among advanced industrial states.

In addition, resource scarcities -exacerbated by environmental degradation and

resulting population migrations will likely threaten the economic welfare of many
developing societies, while processes of democratization will increase popular
expectations of a minimum level of economic prosperity and also the influence of
parochial economic groups. The combination will put enormous pressure on
domestic political systems, many of which have only recently began to develop the
institutions to aggregate demands from different groups in society.

11