Page |1

UNIVERSITY OF JOS, NIGERIA

CRIMINOLOGY AND SECURITY STUDIES
THEORIES OF PEACE AND SECURITY: CSS 312 2 Credits. FIRST
SEMESTER
Instructor: Damla Kevin
M.
UNDERSTANDING CONFLICT, PEACE AND SECURITY
What is Peace?
1
Individuals, groups, communities, societies and cultures vary considerably in their
definition and perception of the meaning of peace. 2Peace has often been one of
humanity’s highest values, and even considered the prime or supreme for some.
3
Peace has been seen as the converse of war, i.e. war and peace are two sides of the
same coin. In other words, peace is defined as the absence of war, hence by logical
expression; war is the absence of peace. This conception of peace is tautological,
meaningless and lopsided (inapplicable to structural violence as Johan Galtung
calls it). War is only one form of violence – physical, open and direct. But there is
also structural violence which has to do with poverty, marginalization, exclusion,
intimidation, oppression, want, fear etc.The Instrumentalist and Functionalist
are two commoninterpretations in the Peace as converse of war argument. To the
instrumentalist, peace is a means to an end. i.e, the absence of war serves the end
of social progress and development. To the functionalist on the other hand, peace is
seen playing both as a social function, and as a product of the function of other
social structures and institutions. Hence, peace plays the social function of integration
and order in the society. These perspectives are criticized for not recognizing that
peace is an end in itself, preferred by the vast majority of the society.
Philosophical Definition of Peace
Here, peace is seen as a natural, original, God-given state of human existence. It is
the pre-corruption state of man in the society, as God established it. Hence, peace
is a state of perfection – an earthly expression of God’s kingdom that is yet
uncorrupted. Philosophers here include St. Augustine of Hippo, J. J. Rousseau, T.
Hobbes and Plato. St. Augustine of Hippo distinguished between ‘’two cities’’ as
the city of God -founded on perfect heavenly peace and spiritual foundation, and
the city of man – founded on appetitive possessive impulse, corrupt and torn by
strife); the two social contract theorists, John Jacques Rousseau and Thomas
Hobbes, as well as Plato in his Republic.To Rousseau, he sees a peaceful original
state of man in which there are no or few desires – man existed as a free and gentle
savage (men were naturally good), before this tranquil state subsequently became
 Page |2

corrupted by desires and greed, thus undermining the pristine ‘state of nature’. To
Hobbes, the ‘state of nature’ was rampant with strife (conflict and violence) – a
great person could be murdered in sleep or overwhelmed by a great number. Life
was solitary(lonely, private, unsociable), poor(deprived, unfortunate, meagre,
underprivileged), nasty(horrible, revolting, offensive), brutish(harsh, cruel, pitiless,
insensitive, ruthless) and short(brief, quick, rapid). In order to escape this nasty
life, people resolved to create a social contract, where each gave up their right to
self defence to a leviathan, a powerful force above all and to which all were
subject, thus creating a more peaceful and orderly life.
Sociological Definition of Peace
Sociologically, peace refers to a condition of social harmony in which there are no
social antagonism. That peace is a condition in which there is no social conflict and
individuals and groups are able to meet their needs and expectations. To achieve
this, two responses emerge; structural-functionalist and dialectical materialist.
Structural-functionalism sees society as a mosaic (variety) of functions (education,
goods, governance, law and order, security) and structures/institutions(schools,
industries, parliament, court, armed forces) that perform them; While the
dialectical materialism is associated with the German philosopher Karl Marx,
which suggest that we should focus on the process through which the society
produces and distributes the means of its material existence (work and reward) and
the struggle among social classes. In societies divided into classes, the dominant
classes do less work but appropriate most of the rewards. This exploitative relation
gives rise to the class struggle, which at times degenerates into violence. Two
forms of violence can be distinguished; state violence (covert physical – armed
forces/ structural – poverty, inequality, oppression, exclusion) and revolutionary
violence. In short, peace is not feasible insofar as society is divided into
antagonistic classes and there is a persistence of objective, structural and
revolutionary violence. Peace is only feasible in societies where classes are non-
existent because society produces enough and give each according to their needs.
Political perspective
Here, peace is seen as a political condition that makes justice possible. Peace
entails political order, which is the institutionalization of political structures,
otherwise groups will use their unique endowments to pursue and enforce their
interests – coups, riot, strikes, demonstration. Thus, to create peace, politics must
be mediated by stable structures and secular order, where political values like
negotiation, tolerance and bargaining becomes the norm.
 Page |3

4
Peace can be seen as harmony, tranquility, (Calm, worry-free serene) and peace of
mind. Peace is generally defined as the absence of war, fear, conflict, anxiety,
suffering and violence, and about harmonious coexistence. It is a state of
wellbeing, primarily concerned with creating and maintaining trust, compassion
and a just order. 5Peace is also seen as a process involving activities that are
directly or indirectly linked to increasing development and reducing conflict, both
within specific societies and in the wider international community (Best, 2012: 10).
6
According to Albert Einstein, “Peace is not merely the absence of war, but the
presence of justice, of law, of order… in short, of government”. This means that
when the fundamental human rights of citizens are respected, and an inclusive
government is formed, there will be peace.
7
In broadening the definition of peace, the Norwegian peace theorist, Johan
Galtung (1964: 2), outlined two dimensions of peace: ‘negative peace’. i.e the
absence of direct violence, war, fear and conflict at individual, nation, regional and
international levels, and ‘positive peace;.i.e the absence of unjust structures,
unequal relations, justice and inner peace (the integration of human society).
8
In summary, six meanings of peace are agreed on by many peace researchers
including; peace as the absence of war (absence of direct violence), peace as
justice and development (absence of structural violence), peace as respect and
tolerance between people, peace as Gaia (balance in and with the ecosphere), inner
peace (spiritual peace), and peace ‘wholeness’ and ‘making whole’.
9
As stated earlier, different cultures and civilizations have different interpretations
of peace. For example, Islam talks about ‘Salaam’ meaning Peace, the Jewish -
‘Shalom’, in the Gandhian tradition – ‘Satyagraha’, to Jainism - ‘Ahimsa’ and in
the African tradition - ‘Ubuntu’. 10Also, the particular historical and political
context of a country and community determines their perception of peace. Some
may see peace as absence of war and armed conflict, some as presence of justice
‘freedom’ and others as equity, development and access to existential necessities of
life. Peace is therefore relative.
11
Peace therefore means a state of social harmony, good governance, inclusiveness,
respect for human rights and even distribution of social amenities.
STUDY QUESTION
1. “Peace is the converse of war”, discuss with relevant examples.
2. Discuss the relativism of peace.
The Evolution of Peace Research
 Page |4

1
Peace studies or peace research, as an academic discipline, developed in Europe in
the 21940s and 1950s, with a strong root in the 3Scandinavian countries (Sweden,
Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland). 4Peace research as an academic discipline
has developed as a multi-disciplinary field of study including politics, law,
international relations, sociology, development studies, economics, social
psychology, philosophy, history and political theory.
5
It is a distinctive method of inquiry and practice concerned with the understanding
of the causes of violence and conditions for peaceful world. It is primarily focused
on ‘Peace and the creation of Peace’, as well as with the movement from war to
peace.6 It is not an utopian state, but peace is something that can and does exist
alongside violence and war. As an academic field also, it is concerned with the
transformation of a culture of war to a culture of peace. 7It has emerged as a
critique of the realist interpretation of war and conflict, and in particular, has
developed as an alternative academic study of politics and international
relations.8The study of peace research became institutionalized as polemology–
science of peace, concerned with the causes and resolution of conflict. There are
various research strands (aspects, elements, components) to peace studies including
International Relations, Development Studies and Conflict Resolution. As a result,
we see the development of both undergraduate and post graduate degrees curricula
in peace and conflict studies, peace and development studies, politics and peace
studies conflict resolution etc.
9
The evolution of peace research is actually believed to bepredated bythe
emergence of what is known as peacemovements which has considerable influence
on the institutionalisation of peace studies. There were visible peace movements in
Europe between 1880 and 1945 not only opposing war, but also the participation in
war. There are many strands of peace movements such as religious pacifism which
is opposed to militarism and going to war, anti-nuclear (nuclear disarmament) and
environmentalist movements.
10
Peace research is a settled academic field of study, but has been, as with all other
disciplinary fields, accompanied by several debates in the attempt to define and
map-out the distinctive characteristics of the discipline. 11The field of peace
research is defined by sevenfeatures including: Peace studies as a problem-solving
field; an interdisciplinary field of inquiry: focused on non-violent processes of
political and social changes; concerned with multi-level analysis of complex
conflict transformation; preoccupied with global and cross-cultural issues such as
gender relationships, north-south divide and global inequality; focused on a
combination of objective analysis and normative commitment and maintains a
close relationship between theory and practice and between peace research and
peace activism.
 Page |5

STUDY QUESTION
Demonstrate your understanding of the evolution of peace research.

What is security?
1
There have been a number of studies that have attempted to define the concept of
security. However, as past authors have indicated, security is multidimensional in
nature and diverse in practice. This diversity leads to difficulty in providing a
single all-encompassing definition for the many applied domains of security.
Security cannot be considered singular in concept definition, as definition is
dependent on applied context.
[Security may be considered as assured freedom from poverty or want, including
all precautions taken to ensure against theft, espionage or a person or thing that
secures or guarantees(Collins English Dictionary and Thesaurus, 1992). According
to Fischer and Green, ‘security implies a stable, relatively predictable environment
in which an individual or group may pursue its ends without disruption or harm
and without fear of such disturbance or injury’(2004, p. 21).
3
Being secure is one of the most widely acknowledged components of a good life.
Henry Shue (1980 [1996]) describes the right to security as the first of our basic
rights. Political philosophers from Hobbes to Rawls consider the provision of
security the key task of political institutions(Herington_A., 2012).
4
According to Terry Terrifet al., even though peace is widely accepted as the
absence of warfare or of negative peace, the concept of peace has remained
unexplored, until recently as security issue. ‘Security’ is generally accepted as a
‘contested concept’, but is generally also, about the condition of feeling safe from
harm or danger. It is the defense, protection and preservation of core values and the
absence of threats to acquired values.
Simply put, security is about survival and the condition of human
existence.]5According to University for Peace, security is a subjective state in
which an individual or collectively feels freefromthreats (intimidation, pressure
fear coercion), anxiety (nervousness, concern, unease, worry), or danger(menace,
peril, risk, hazard).
The traditional conception of security has largely focused on the threat and the use
of force (which is largely militaristic).Based on the assumptions of the realist
theory of international relations - that security is the dominant concern for states,
and that force is the major instrument that governments preserve their unity as they
interact with one another - security is achieved once threats to security can be
prevented or at least managed (Nye, 1988, pp. 6 - 8).This largely military
 Page |6

conception of security has focused on the state as the primary referent object of
security. Hence, leading to the development of strategic studies with primary focus
on the military aspect of security.
Shortcomings of the state-centred security paradigm were highlighted, especially
that it did not provide an explanation for states threatening their own citizens or for
state collapse (Mack 2004, p. 48). The debate has led to the redefinition of security
to embrace non-military dimensions such as environment, migration, ethno-
religious and nationalist identities, poverty and human insecurity and disease.This
broadening and deepening of the security agenda is now broadly described as
critical security studies.As a result, the need for a human-centred perspective was
identified (UNDP 1994, p. 22).
The concept of security in general is now increasingly viewed as all conditions in
which the people live in freedom, peace and safety, and also participate fully in the
process of governance, enjoying the protection of human rights, have access to
resources and the basic necessities of life, in an environment that is not detrimental
to their health and well being
Human Security
Human security moves the focus away from states and towards individuals. It
emphasizes human rights, safety from violence, and sustainable development
(Paris 2001, p. 88). Although the term was coined by the United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP) in its 1994 Human Development Report(UNDP
1994), it emerged from the fusing of a number of different concepts (Hampson et
al. 2001, p. 152):
• The first concept is human development. The first UNDP report of 1990
called for a people-centred approach to all forms of development. Accordingly,
there was a demand that the development of national production and its impact on
human development must be further investigated (MacFarlane et al. 2006, p. 143;
UNDP 1990, p. iii).
• A second concept underlying human security is sustainable development.
The BrundtlandCommission’sreport of 1987 argued that protecting the
environment is a prerequisite for the survival of humankind. Sustainable
development was accordingly identified as a necessary long-term development
strategy (WCED 1987).
• The third important emergent point for human security is the responsibility
to protect. This thematizes tensions between the claim for universal human rights
and the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. If a
 Page |7

state is unable to fulfill its obligation to protect its citizens, or if the state itself
becomes a danger, the responsibility to protectis transferred from the sovereign
state to the international community (Tajbakhsh et al. 2007, p. 27).
The concept of security has for too long been interpreted narrowly: as security of
territory from external aggression, or as protection of national interests in foreign
policy […]. It has been related more to nation-states than to people […] For many
of them, security symbolized protection from the threat of disease, hunger,
unemployment, crime, social conflict, political repression, and environmental
hazards” (UNDP 1994, p. 22).
Seven dimensions of human security are distinguished by the UNDP:
• Economic security—assuring every individual a minimum requisite income.
• Food security—the guarantee of physical and economic access to basic
foodstuffs.
• Health security—the guarantee of minimum protection from disease and
unhealthy lifestyles.
• Environmental security—protecting people from the short- and long-term
ravages of nature, man-made threats in nature, and deterioration of the natural
environment.
• Personal security—protecting people from physical violence.
• Community security—protecting people from loss of traditional
relationships and values and from sectarian and ethnic violence.
• Political security—ensuring that people live in a society that honours their
basic human rights (UNDP 1994, pp. 24–33).
By conceptualizing human security in the political context of the United Nations,
three pillars of human security have been identified:
• Freedom from fear—protecting the physical integrity of human beings.
• Freedom from want—providing access to the goods and services needed to
satisfy material and non-material needs.
• Freedom of future generations to inherit a healthy environment—
environmental protection (Annan 2000a, pp. 1; Owen 2004, pp. 384).
The need for a fourth pillar has been identified as freedom from hazard
impact.This implies that people are able to mobilize their resources and
 Page |8

concentrate on sustainable development goals instead of not being able to escape

the ‘survival dilemma’ (Brauch. 2008).
Dimensions of Security
The purpose of this section is to identify some dimensions that would facilitate
analyzing the rationality of security policy based on the broadened conception.
These include:
a. Security for Whom?
A conception of security should specify a referent object such as the state or
the individual.However, a simple specification, such as 'the state' or 'the
individual', does not suffice. Since there are many states and individuals, and
since their security is interdependent, the 'search for a referent object of
security' must go 'hand-in-hand with that for its necessary conditions'. For
purposes of specifying the concept of security, a wide range of answers to
the question, 'Security for whom?' is acceptable: the individual (some, most,
or all individuals), the state (some, most, or all states), the international
system (some, most, or all international systems), etc.
b. Security for which values?
Individuals, states and other social actors have many values. These may
include physical safety, economic welfare, autonomy, psychological, well-
being, political independence, territorial integrity and so on.
c. How much Security?
This refers to the degree; magnitude or quantity of security should this
referent object have. Should it be more or less, should they aspire for greater
or lesser measure. According to Gen. Jacob L. Devers: National security is a
condition which cannot be qualified. We shall either be secure, or we
shall be insecure. We cannot have partial security. If we are only half secure,
we are not secure at all.
d. From what threat?
Those who use the term security usually have in mind particular kinds of
threats. Home security systems, for example, are usually directed at potential
burglars; and national security systems are often directed at other states.This
dimension seeks to specify the sources of these threats including ideological
threats, economic threats, military threats or some combination thereof. This
also refers to epidemics, floods, earthquakes and droughts.
e. By what means?
This means the goal of security can be pursued by a wide variety of means.
For instance, many different policies may plausibly be adopted in the pursuit
of security.\
 Page |9

f. At what cost?
The pursuit of security always involves cost i.e., the sacrifice of other goals
that could have been pursued with the resources devoted to security.
Remember the TANSTAAFi.e., 'There aren’t no such thing as a free lunch'.
g. In what time period?
This dimension means security must take note of both short-run and long-
run. They differ or even conflict.In the short run, a high fence, a fierce dog,
and a big gun may be useful ways to protect oneself from the neighbours.
But in the long run, it may be preferable to befriend them.
STUDY QUESTION
a. Asses your understanding of the concept of security
b. Compare the dimensions of security and human security.

What is Conflict?
Usually, the misconception of conflict for violence has been the fundamental
problem of understanding conflict to very many peopletoday, but the fact still
remains that conflict itself is an integral part of human natural existence that occurs
within or between individuals, groups or states, though at different levels of
intensity. It is a universal phenomenon that occurs at anytime and anywhere, and
whenever it is amicably resolved, it tends to bring improvement and understanding
for all those involved. Conflict is good; it is natural(normal, usual, ordinary,
expected & accepted), neutral(unbiased, impartial, disinterested, nonaligned),
inevitable and unavoidable. It is as old as man himself; therefore, it is not limited
to any local environment. The inability to manage conflict situations positively or
constructively makes them to be violent. However, in the course of this unit,
various definitions will be examined. The intention here is to explore those
definitions in order to enlighten us, broaden our views and develop our horizons on
this subject matter
The term ‘conflict’ derives from the Latin confligere, which denotes “to strike
together”. The term initially means “opposition among social entities directed
against one another” (Otitte& Albert, 2002: 1-2). The use of the term “Opposition”
means a process by which social entities function in the disservice of one another.
Conflict is easily defined as the pursuit of incompatible interests and goals by
different groups and individuals.
It is a struggle or contest between people with opposingneeds, ideas, beliefs,
values, or goals. According to Coser (1956: 232), conflict “is a struggle over
 P a g e | 10

values or claims to status or power and scarce resources” in which the aim of the
parties is not only to acquire desired values but, also to neutralize, injure or
eliminate their rivals. The foregoing shows that conflict is an intrinsic and
inevitable part of human existence. It also shows that violent conflict is not
inevitable and as such is an anomaly. These definitions also show the elastic nature
of the concept, and the different stages including competition, opposition, rivalry,
disputes, war, reconstruction, change and progress.
It is also clear from the above that conflict involves parties who could be
individuals, groups, communities, states or even groups of states. These parties
have an issue or issues, and are pursuing some objectives or goals.
paradox of conflict
This basic means that confict in it self can be positive or negative. On this sense
confict can break a relationship between two groups or people to the extent that it
can not be repaired which makes it negative while A conflict can make a
relationship strong to the extent that the two parties will be strong in that
relationship that it can not be broke which makes conflict positive
Causes of Conflict
There are several causes of conflict, which ranges from land disputes, politics,
religious and cultural differences, resources, structural imbalances, change e.t.c.
Most conflicts are caused by combination of factors and it is often very difficult to
highlight the dominant or less dominant causes. Thomas Malthus the eminent
economist suggested that, reduced supply of the means of sustenance is the root
cause of conflict. To him, conflict is caused by the increase of population in
geometrical progression and food supply at arithmetical progression. To Charles
Darwin, the biological principle of “struggle for existence” and the survival of the
fittest are the main causes of conflict. Other psychologists hold the view that the
innate instinct for aggression in man is the main cause of conflict.
There are several causes of conflict which can be categorized into the following:
a. Resourced based: these conflicts occur when parties aspire for tangible
scarce resources (income, capital, possession, property). These include land,
territory, and natural resources.
b. Value based: values are strong beliefs that we hold. These include;
philosophy, religion, culture, ethnicity and ideology among others. People’s
beliefs easily appeal to their conscience. Thus, value-based conflicts are hard
to resolve because values define whom people are.
 P a g e | 11

c. Mismanagement of information: Communication plays a vital role in the

conduct of human and organizational interactions or relationship. Poor
communication generates conflict, while good or effective communication
resolves it.
d. Change: even when it is considered to be positive and beneficial, change
involves the risk of conflict. Where it is perceived as threatening (often
because it involves a move from the known to the unknown), the risk of
conflict is high.
e. Environment: erosion, drought, flood, earthquake, fire, wild-wind,
epidemic, famine etc
Types of conflicts
Nonviolent and violent
Violent conflicts- physical, structural
Levels of Conflict
a. Intrapersonal: this is a type of conflict that arises within an individual.
Here a person is in conflict within himself. It includes personal decision
making, moral question (to be honest or not) and initiating relationship (a
guy and a girl)
b. Interpersonal: this is a type of conflict that occurs between two or more
individuals.
c. Intragroup: intragroup conflict occurs within a group. It may involve a
division of the group into two (or more) opposing factions. For example, the
division within PDP.
d. Intergroup: this is type of conflict that occurs between two or more
separate groups. e.gPDP vs APC
e. Intrastate: this type of conflict occurs within a state. It could be between
groups within a state or against the state. It could be insurgency, terrorism or
civil war e.g Boko Haram all in Nigeria
f. Interstate: this type of conflict occurs between two or more independent
states. e.g between U.S and Iraq
g. Global – involving the whole world
Stages of conflict
Every conflict is characterized by different stages and phases of change
transformation. Simon Fisher (2000) identified five stages of conflict: Pre-
conflict, Confrontation, Crisis, Outcome and Post-conflict stages.
Study Questions
 P a g e | 12

Given your understanding of the concept of conflict, account for the prevalence of
conflict in any part of Nigeria.
What is a theory?
A theory is a fact-based framework for describing a phenomenon
A theory logically consists of concepts, assumptions and generalization. According
to Encarta 2004, A theory is an idea or belief about something arrived at through
assumption and in some cases a set of facts, propositions or principles analysed in
their relation to one another and used especially in sciences, to explain phenomena.
 A theory has explanatory, predictive and problem solving values
◦ Help us classify things: entities, processes, and causal relationships
◦ Help us understand how and why already observed regularities occur
◦ Help us predict as yet unobserved relationships
◦ Guide research in useful directions
Serve as a basis for action.
Types of Theories
It is possible to distinguish between four types of theories:
a. Scientific theory, also known as explanatory, descriptive or empirical, helps
to explain why and under what conditions certain situations take place. In
other words, scientific theories are practical statements that explain the
relationship between two or more types of events. They are universal.
b. Analytical theories, also referred to as interpretative or constitutive which
imposes meaning on events and issues with the objective to understand,
instead of explaining, the world. Like those in logic and the mathematical
sciences, do not address issues related to daily existence, but they provide a
set of time statements from which other statements leading towards other
theories are derived.
c. Normative theories are referred to as prescriptive, which prescribes values
and standards of conduct. In other words, they highlight a set of ideal states
to which humans may aspire: that means dealing, with how the world should
be instead of what it is.
d. Metaphysical theories which are not strictly testable and even though they
may be subject to rational judgment, they have little to do with sciencee.g
the theory of Natural selection is a specie survives long, it must
develop/posses feature to adapt.
 P a g e | 13

Functions of a theory in Research

Three ways of thinking about theory are:
a. That which underpins (support) research design
- Theory as ‘paradigm’ (an example: a pattern or a model)
- Philosophical assumptions about what constitutes social reality
(ontology)
- What we accept as valid evidence of that reality (epistemology)
- The means by which we investigate that context (methodology)
- The means by which we gather evidence (methods)
b. That which may inform our understanding of the phenomenon under
investigation
- Theory as a ‘lens’
c. That which may emerge from our study
- Theory as new knowledge
- Adaptation, revision or confirmation of existing theory
- Generation of new theory
Theories of Social Conflict
The nature, causes and impact of conflicts have been extensively written on by
scholars. Depending on the school of thought to which they represent, such
explanations have tended to place a lot of emphasis on one particular, or a set of
related theories while diminishing the importance or explanatory relevance of other
competing theories, the condition under which conflicts occur and sometimes the
condition for their resolution. Some of these theories are explained bellow:
Structural Conflict Theory
This theory has two main sub-orientations. The first is the radical structural theory
represented by the Marxist dialectical school with exponents like Marx and Engels,
V.I. Lenin, etc. the second is the liberal structuralism represented by the famous
work of Johan Galtung (1990) on structural violence, Ross (1993) and
Scarborough (1998). Structuralism sees incompatibleinterests based on
competition for resources which in most cases are assumed to be scares, as being
responsible for social conflicts (Collier, 2002: 2). The main argument of the
structural conflict theory is that conflictis built into the particular ways societies
are structured and organized. The theory looks at social problems like political and
economicexclusion, injustice, poverty, disease, exploitation, inequality etc. as
sources of conflict.NOTE: study on the radicals’(F Engels, K. Marx, J. Lenin &
Mao Tse Tung) and dependency’s(A. G. Frank, W. Rodney, S. Amin & E.
Wallerstein) views!
 P a g e | 14

The solution to these types of conflict to the Marxists is that the contradictions will
end in a revolution – a civil war, or some form of violence leading to the overthrow
of the exploitative system (capitalism). Liberal structuralism calls for the
elimination of unjust structures with policy reforms.

REALIST THEORY
1
Realism also known as power theory, highlights inherency (permanently present)
and traces the root of conflict to a flaw(fault, defect, imperfection) in human nature
which is seen to be selfish and engaging in the pursuit of personalized self-interest
defined as power. 2The theory originates from classical political theory and shares
both theological and biological doctrines about an apparent weakness and
individualism inherent in human nature. Thusthe individual level is the starting
point for explaining conflict.
3
Realism believes that “competitive processes” between actors, primarily defined
as states is the natural expression of conflict by parties engaged in the pursuit of
scarce and competitive interests (Morton, 1973). 4This theory has three component
parts:
- Descriptive realism which sees the world as an arena of conflict,
- Explanatory realism which seeks to show that there are genetic defects
which push human kind into behaving negatively and that war becomes
inevitable because there is no mechanism to stop them from occurring;
and
- Prescriptive realism which builds on the two above to say that decision
makers (individuals, groups or nations) have a moral justification to
defend their basic interests and ensure self-preservation using any means
necessary.
5
Morgenthau (1973: 4) and realist after him like Walt, argue that the imperfectionin
the world, namely conflict, has its roots in forces that are inherent in human nature;
6
that human nature is selfish, individualistic and naturally conflictive; 7that states
will always pursue their national interests defined as power, and that such interest
will come into conflict with those of others leading to the inevitability of conflict.
8
In conclusion, actors should prepare to deal with the outcome and consequences of
conflict since it is inevitable, rather thanwish there were none.
9
This theory greatly justified the militarization of international relations and the
arms race, and also given rise to theories like deterrence theory and balance of
terror, etc. 10The theory has been accused of elevating power and the state to the
 P a g e | 15

status of an ideology, hence has had tremendous impact on conflict at the

international level.

FRUSTRATION-AGGRESSION THEORY
1
This theory was originally developed by John Dollard and his research associates
in 1939, and has been expanded and modified by scholars like Leonard Berkowitz
(1962) and Aubrey Yates (1962). 2In an attempt to explain aggression, scholars
point to the difference between what people feel they want or deserve to what they
actually get-the “want-get-ratio” (Feierabends, 1969:256) and the difference
between “expected need satisfaction” and “actual need satisfaction” (Davies
1962:6).3Where expectation did not meet attainment, the tendency is for people to
confront those they hold responsible for frustrating their ambitions. 4Thus, in
situation where feeling of frustration become widespread among the population
and the feeling is that people are getting less than they deserve, the most advisable
thing that political leaders can do is to find out what the expectations of such
individuals and groups are and to seek ways of negotiating with them e.g the Niger
Delta Area.
ECONOMIC THEORY
1
This theory is also referred to as greed and grievance theory. 2This theory assumes
people in conflict to be fighting over, not about, something that is material. 3The
question then becomes, is the conflict a result of greed (intension to ‘corner’
something) or of grievance (anger arising over feelings of injustice). 4For instance,
P.Colier (2003: 4) pointed out that some people (commonly referred to as ‘conflict
entrepreneurs’) actually benefits from chaos, while the overwhelming majority of
the population are affected by the negative impact of conflict.He also pointed out
that while the prospects of pecuniary(financial, economic or fiscal) gains is seldom
the principal incentive for rebellion, it can become for some insurgent groups, a
preferred state of affairs.
There are other theories such as; dysfunctional theory-which sees conflict as a
deviation from what is normal, what is expected or what is usual, and is a
disturbance to the normal functioning of society. The functional theory of conflict
which holds that conflicts play the social function of strengthening social systems
at particular times; the communications theory which sees conflict as a result of
poor communication misperception as well as bad socialization between parties,
communities etc. the Biological theory which sees human kind as naturally
conflictive and evil.
 P a g e | 16

Self assessment: using any of the theory of conflict to explain the conflict in the
middle belt of Nigeria
BIOLOGICAL THEORY
According to Hobbes, it is inherent in human natureto be selfish, solitary, poor,
nasty, brutish and short. The theory believes that since man’s ancestors were
instinctively violent beings, and through evolution man evolved, therefore all men
must bear destructive impulses in their genetic makeup. According to conflict
theorists like Hobbes, St. Augustine, Malthusian and Sigmund Freud, human
beings are driven by a natural instinct to self-preservation. To Neibuhr (1953),
humans are driven by a natural quest “will-to-live” and “will to power”, in order
to seek power, personal security and survival at the expense of others around
them. This theory also supports the innate theory of conflict which states that,
conflict is innate in all social interactions among all animals, including
human beings; and since human beings are the higher animal species they have
the tendency of fighting naturally over things that they cherish. It is believed
that conflict will be definitely inherent in man; this can be explained from
man’s inner properties, attributes, hormonal compositions and heredities.
Therefore, the aggressive instinct will be provoked when man is being threatened
and challenged. More importantly, Sigmund Freud described the destructive
tendencies in human beings as a product of a “dialectical struggle” between
the instincts associated with life and survival that iscalled Eros. While the instincts
associated with death are called Thanatos. It depicts that all societies have to learn
how to control, or develop a control and coping mechanism in terms of life or
death instincts. According to Freud, both instincts are always in a struggle, and the
one that wins the contest of domination, will overcome and manifest itself.
Whenever Eros instincts are released first, its resultant effects will be aggression
against others, which tends to conflict in nature, but when Thanatos becomes
an overcommer or releases first, it will be a suicide mission or a tendency of self-
killing end results.
Human Needs Theory: According to Faleti(2004), the position of human
needs theory is similar to that of frustration-aggression and relative
deprivation theory. He believes all humanshave basic needs that they are seeking to
fulfill, and the denial / frustration of such needs by the other groups or individuals
could affect them or cause conflict. This is because all basic human needs include
physical, psychological, socio-cultural and spiritual needs in which if care is not
taken, the denial of one opportunity or having fair access to another
 P a g e | 17

opportunity could amount to frustration and aggression, which can lead to violent
conflict. According toMaslow, the psychological needs----safety needs,
belongingness and love, esteem and self actualisation are part of the factors
thatcause conflict. Burton(1979:72) sees response, stimulation, security
recognition, distributive justice, the need to appear rationally and develop
rationality, and the need for a sense of control or the need for defense, as crucial
to human survival and can lead to conflict if they are tampered with. Burton
recognised food, shelter, sex and reproduction, etc, as basic things. Azar(1994)
listed security, distinctive identity, social recognition of identity and effective
participation in the processes that shape such identities as basic needs. Burton
said it is the relationship between frustration and aggression that forces humans
to be violent in nature, due to their denial of basic needs. He further said, human
needs for survival, protection, affection, understanding, participation, creativityand
identity are shared by all the people, and they are irrepressible and cannot be easily
given up. No matter how much a political or socio-cultural system tries to
frustrate or suppress these needs, it will either fail or cause far more
damage in the long run.
THEORIES OF PEACE:
PACIFISM
1
Also referred to as “anti-warism”. 2Pacifism refers to opposition to war,
militarism, or violence. 3A pacifist believes that we should not kill or harm others.
Hence, war is wrong because it is basically a matter of killing. Pacifism is of the
moral principles that the use of force is wrong for any reason. i.e it applies to both
the initiation of force, as well as defensive or retaliatory force. 4Pacifism as a word
was coined by the French peace Campaigner Emile Arnaud (1864 – 1921), and
adopted by other peace activists at the tenth universal peace congress in Glasgow
in 1901. 5A most closely related concept is ahimsa which means to do no harm. It
is a core philosophy among Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism (Central and Eastern
Asia). 6Lately, pacifism was revived by people like Leo Tolstoy in his work “The
Kingdom of God is within you”.
7
Gandhi (1869-1948) propounded “satyagraha” which calls for steadfast non-
violent opposition, which was instrumental in the Indian independence movement.
Its effectiveness inspired many including Martin Luther King Jnr.
SUMMARY
 P a g e | 18

In summary, 8apacifism beliefs that international disputes can, and should be

peacefully resolved; bthat the institutions of the military and war should be
abolished; cthey (pacifists) are opposed to any organization of society through
governmental force (anarchist or libertarian pacifism). They reject use of physical
violence to obtain political, economic or social goals, and an opposition to violence
under any circumstance, in defence of self or others.
9
FORMS OF PACIFISM
There are several forms of pacifism which include:
- Active pacifism: who are actively engaged in political activities and
campaigns to promote peace.
- Absolute pacifism: who belief that it is not right to take part in any form
of war because nothing can justify the killing of others.
- Relative pacifism: they belief war is wrong but there may be
circumstances when war is the lesser of two evils.
- Selective/nuclear: there opposition to war also includes weapons of
mass destruction because of the consequences of such weapons are
unavailable.
10
Pacifists generally reject theories of just war.
11a
One criticism against the pacifists is that pacifism has no place in the face of
extreme evil e.g the war against Nazi, Germany. bAnother criticism is that pacifism
and non-violence are an attempt to impose the morals of the bourgeoisie upon the
proletariat, that violence is a necessary accompaniment to revolutionary change or
self-defense is fundamental.
GANDHIAN PHILOSOPHY AND THEORY OF ‘SATYAGRAHA’
1a
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, a.k.a Mahatma Gandi, was born October 2, 1869
in Porbandar, India and died Jan. 30, 1948 in Delhi. bHe was an Indian Lawyer,
politician, social activist and writer who became the leader of the nationalist
movement against British rule in India. cAs such, he came to be considered the
father of his country. In the eyes of millions of his fellow Indians, Gandhi was the
Mahatma which means “Great soul”. dHe is internationally esteemed for his
doctrine of non-violent protest referred to as Satyagraha which was first evolved
and practiced in South Africa and later extensively applied in India.
Satyagraha is Gandhi’s technique of non-violent activism. 2The term has variously
been translated as ‘passive resistance’, ‘non-violent resistance’ non-violence direct
action and even ‘militant non-violence (Weber, 1991: 2). 3For Gandhi, it was not
only a method of conducting conflict, it was also a way of life of living in truth.
 P a g e | 19

4
Some guiding principles of Satyagraha
- A Satyagrahi must never forget the distinction between evil and the evil
doer.
- The essence of non-violence technique is that it seeks to liquidate
antagonisms but not the antagonists themselves.
- It is often forgotten that it is never the intention of a satyagrahi to
embarrass the wrong doer
- The satyagrahi’s object is to convert, not to coerce, the wrong doer.
- It is the acid test of non-violence that, in a non-violent conflict, there is
no rancor left behind, and in the end the enemies are converted into
friends.
- For Gandhi; in a conflict situation, there is no other planthan the
adherence to non-violence in thought, word and deed, and no other goal
than to reach the truth (and ultimately the Truth). Because good ends can
never grow out of bad means the opponent (for Gandhi there may be
opponents but never enemies) is not forced to expose him or herself to
loss. There is ideally no threat, coercion or punishment. Instead, in the
Gandhi’s scheme, the idea is to undergo self-suffering in the belief that
the opponent can be converted to seeing the truth by touching his or her
conscience.
5
BASIC FACTORS OF SATYAGRAHA
a. Truth: that truth is beingness or the realization of beings. The foundation
and purpose of existence. He admitted that God and truth are convertible
terms. Satyagraha is based on truth or soul force. Inner voice is the voice of
truth and justice.
b. Non-violence: which means ahimsa and ahimsa means non-killing including
non-injury and positive will to action for the wellbeing of the others
c. End and Means:satyagraha see ends and means as inseparable. That it is
contradictory to try to use unjust means to obtain justice, or to try to use
violence to obtain peace.
d. Faith in God: to Gandhi, a true satyagrahi is a believer of God. Gandhi once
said “I may live without air and water, but not without God” to him, there
are many religions in the world but there is only one God.
e. Ethics or moral force: Gandhi’s ethics is based on his religious life. To
him, truth is the highest law, but Ahimsa is the highest duty. His aim of life
was religion based on humanity, love, devotion, social service and self-
devotion.
 P a g e | 20

f. Brotherhood of man: this means “that we are one of another”. That a

person should not injure or harass his neighbor in words or deed. That
Satyagrahi must honour honesty in his life.
6a
The word Satyagraha is of Sanskrit origin. bIt is a compound word formed from
‘Satya’ meaning truth and ‘Agraha’ meaning holding fast, adherence or insistence.
Hence the compound word Satyagraha means clinging to truth, holding fast to
truth, and insistence on truth or firm adherence to truth. 7Satyagraha is the law of
love, it is not to destroy or harass the opponent but also to convert or win him/her
over by sympathy, patience and self-suffering. Satyagrahi hates all evils and will
never compromise with it; he/she approaches the evil doer through love.

DEMOCRATIC PEACE THEORY

1
The primary claim of democratic peace proponents is that democratic states do not
wage war against each other.2aSome theorists modified the claim that democracies
are less likely to fight wars with each other. bSome other scholars prefer terms like
‘mutual democratic pacifism’ or ‘inter-democracy non-
3
aggressionhypothesis’(explain). The democratic peace theory also includes other
claims such as:
- Democracies tend to prevail in wars they fight with non-democracies;
- That in wars they initiate, democracies suffer less or fewer casualties and
fight shorter wars than non-democratic states:
- That democratic states locked in disputes with each other choose more
peaceful means of resolution than other pairings of states.
4
Democratic great powers do not initiate preventive wars, democratic institution
place constraints on the ability of leaders to fight other democracies or simply
make them reluctant to choose war. 5That the norms and values shared by
democratic states cause them to view each other as pacific and unthreatening; and
that 6democracy tends to foster economic interdependence which reduces the
likelihood of war.
Realists argue that it is not common polities but rather common interests that can
best explain the low incidence of war between democracies.
THEORIES OF SECURITY
THE REALIST
 P a g e | 21

Realism originates from the works of classical political thinkers like T. Hobbes, N.
Machiavelli and lately Morgenthau. Realism is centered upon four impositions.
The common assumptions:
a. That the international system is anarchic as there is no supranational
authority that can enforce rules over the states. i.e
- No actor exists above states, capable of regulating their interactions,
states relates with others willingly, rather than being dictated to.
- The international system exists in a state of contact antagonism
b. That states are the most important and central actors rather than individuals
or international organizations.
c. That all states within the system are unitary and rational actors, who will
pursue their self interest; and
d. That all states desire is power in order to survive. Hence, they build up
military for security.
In short, realist think that mankind is not inherently benevolent but rather self-
centered and competitive. The realists have an “us versus them” mentality. They
feel everyone in the world is struggling for power against everyone. Therefore, the
primary obligation of the state is to promote and protect the national self-interest.
All other national objectives including domestic objectives (education, jobs,
environment, healthcare etc) should be subordinated to that primary objective-
promoting self-interest. To most realists, national self-interest means national
security and national security is most often defined in military terms. It then means
that national security to them is best served by doing whatever is necessary to
promote self interest. The realists view international relations as the survival of the
fittest, where no state should ever rely on international law for protection. That the
national interest dictates to states that they should promote and protect their self
interest through military capabilities. That a powerful military machinery would
deter attack by potential enemies and the capacity for self-defense might also be
increased by acquiring allies e.g Balance of power (NATO vs Warsaw Pact).
LIBERALISM
Liberal thinking dates back to enlightenment such as Voltaire, locke, smith,
Thomas Paine and the German Thinker Immanuel Kant. Liberalism is opposed to
realism, which saw the international community as a jungle. The liberalist
perceived this community as a garden, which could be taken care of in order to
consolidate the global security. Liberalist believes that world peace and security
can be maintained both by military interventions as well as protecting and
promoting individual rights, but with the cooperation of the states.
 P a g e | 22

Central to the liberalists are two concepts of collective security and weapons
control. Collective security is a protection measure adopted by several allied states
e.g (NATO), so that when one of the state is threatened, then its allies intervene
and annihilate the aggressor. Weapons control, at the level of global security, is
translated as having less security elements for the states.
Four instruments of Liberalism
a. International law: is a judicial mechanism for moderating or constraining
states’ behaviour. Provide an alternative method of resolving some conflict
other than military intervention, it is often constrained by the lack of a
legislative body at a global level designated to adopt and implement the
stipulations.
b. International Organisation: governmental and non-governmental
organizations
c. The effect of inter dependence: free trade
d. Democratization: the democratic peace theory

THE BALANCE OF POWER THEORY

The underlining assumption when international actors relate is that the
international system is anarchic, chaotic and disorderly by nature. This belief is the
main derive for nation’s sovereignty in essence on one hand, and the limitations
that hinder the effectiveness and efficiency of international law. In order to attain a
measure of stability therefore, state actors have had to devise mechanisms that
limit the propensity of the international system for chaos, anarchy and
disorderliness. Specifically, states have had to contend with curbing the misuse of
power/capabilities among themselves. Hence, the creation of a balancing act in
order to ensure that very powerful states are not left to ride roughshod over the
less- powerful ones.
This unit would undertake a thorough examination of the balance of power theory
against the background of competition for power among state actors.
What is Balance of Power Theory?
There is no universally accepted definition of balance of power. What is constant
among the numerous explanations of balance of power is that it is a mechanism
devised to check the tendency towards armed hostilities between and among
 P a g e | 23

nations through the balancing of capabilities that may be available to a single state
or a group of states. In effect, it is a coalition of minds that deter or ward-off
intending aggressors so that the possibilities of conflict can be countered or nipped
in the bud.
The international arena is made up of state-actors with varying degrees of interests,
which is encapsulated as the goals of the country’s national interest. These interests
may be variable, permanent, long-range, etc. but they form the core of the reasons
for the existence of the state. The divergent nature of these interests among state-
actors and the determination for their pursuit often degenerate into inter-state
conflicts. For instance, there were clashes of interest between the US and Saddam
Hussein’s Iraq a number of times. Two of the most devastating outcomes of
the conflicts were the Gulf War and the US invasion of Iraq.
In both pre-modern and modern societies, human nature is restrained and contained
through the legal system and the enforcement of the legal codes by the
government. However with the absence of a “world government” in the
international system to regulate and curtail the actions of states, the international
system is presumed to be anarchic, because even with the existence of international
law, the international system lacks the capacity to work as a government. For
instance, the sentencing of the Sudanese President, Omar Al-Bashir by the
international criminal court bears only a moral weight, there is no government to
ensure that the President of Sudan is indeed prosecuted for the offences he was
charged. In effect, the balance of power mechanism exists on the belief that order
can be ensured, assured and maintained through the collaboration of power by
countries of like- mind.
The term “Balance of Power” therefore refers to the distribution of power
capabilities of various states through the creation of alliances. The BOP theory
operates on the assumption that “when one state or alliance increases its power or
uses it more aggressively, threatened states will increase their own power in
response thus, forming a counter- balancing force” (Akinboye & Ottoh, 2009).
One may wonder how the balance of power system may resolve or act as deterrent
to conflicts. A good example of the balance of power theory in operation was
during the Cold War (which pitched the East against the Western bloc of states),
where the combination of the powers available to both United States and its allies
and the Soviet Union and its allies had parity both in terms of conventional
weapons and nuclear arms. Both groups of states had the capability for “overkill”,
and this acted as deterrent for going to war. Going to war between both blocs
would have resulted in mutually assured destruction. Under such circumstances,
the possibilities of war become very remote, as such, peace is maintained.
 P a g e | 24

The theory therefore provides the justification for the application of alliance
networks and collaborations in deterring aggressor states in the international
system. The theory is premised on the assumption that the coalition of forces
would be presumed to be more powerful than the military strength and possession
of a single aggressive force or a coalition of forces.
The Workings of the Balance of Power System
In clear terms, balance of power refers to the conglomeration of states devolved
into two or more groups whose combination of military, economic and diplomatic
weights and capacity for action are more or less same (Spanier, 1987). Since each
group of states possess similar capabilities, none would have the capacity to
effectively dominate the others. This greatly reduces the possibility of aggression
and conflict because there is much to lose in going to war with an equal power.
This is in contrast to a situation in which a very powerful country deals with a very
weak one, victory is more assured to the more powerful country and as a result,
aggressive action is more attractive as a means to protect a country’s national
interests. Based on the high level of actual risks, states are necessarily forced to
deal with one-another through other means when a situation of balance of power is
achieved and maintained. The balance of power mechanism took its roots from
Europe and for centuries was applied as a tool for maintaining the peace. It was
prominent in Europe between the end of the 30 years war and the subsequent
Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 till the outbreak of the First World War in 1914.
Essentially, the major initiators and participants in the mechanism were European
nations, because all international power resided in Europe, and there no states
outside of Europe that was capable of exerting the required influence on the
balancing process.
State of Equilibrium
A state of equilibrium implies the condition of a system in competing influences
and balanced forces. The equilibrium state indicates symmetry or balance,
such that an addition or subtraction from either side of the spectrum would result in
a tilt. It is essential to attain and maintain balance in the international system; it
remains the most assured guarantee of global peace and harmony.
Theoretically, a state of equilibrium is one in which there is an even distribution of
power among groups of states that have formed one form of alliance or the other.
This ensures that no one group of states is perceived as the singular dominating
entity in the global arena. It should be noted that a state of equilibrium is not static
but rather is constantly being adjusted by the relative changing fortunes of nations
 P a g e | 25

so that new equilibriums are always in the process of being created, or old states
restored.
State of Disequilibrium
A state of disequilibrium is when there is a preponderance(multitude, majority,
mass) or one-sided shift of power to a single nation-state or existing alliance. What
this implies is that, there are no counter-balancing force(s) to the manoeuvrings of
the dominant state. A recent event as the Libya crisis of 2011 should drive home
this point. While the Western allies under the aegis of North Atlantic Treaty
Organisation (NATO) assisted the civil society in Libya to topple the Gaddafi
regime, it must be made clear that the system was in a state of disequilibrium as it
concerned the Libyan case. If Libya had its own allies commanding similar power
and capabilities commensurate with that possessed by NATO, the possibility of the
Libyan invasion would have been very remote. Indeed, some other methods and
means would have been employed to resolve the Libyan imbroglio. Thus, a state of
disequilibrium provides the opportunity for the powerful state or alliances to
dominate the less powerful ones.
Techniques of Balance of Power
Alliance
This is a technique of balance of power whereby a state seeking to curb a potential
hegemon before it becomes too strong, therefore enters into a security co-operation
of two or more states so as to ally against the prevailing threat. A good example of
this occurred during the Second World War when the Allied Nations united in
alliance against Germany and her allies. States will woo alliance partners by
adapting to them. Example: France and Russia attempting to appear more
alike one another in order to form their alliance in 1894. For security, states are
willing to align with anyone. The weaker partner in an alliance will determine
policy in a moment of crisis International competition will tend to force states in a
multi-polar order into two blocs. Having two blocs does not mean that the system
is bi-polar, because alliance shifts and defections can still occur. These alliance
shifts and defections make the multi-polar order dangerous. The flexibility of
alliances makes for rigidity in strategy. For bi-polar alliances:
Alliance leaders do not need to worry much about the faithfulness of followers. In
bi-polar systems, there will be unequal burden-sharing between the major and
minor powers in an alliance. Major powers in a bi-polar system do not need to
make themselves attractive to alliance partners. Example: the Soviet Union and the
U.S. did not alter their strategies to accommodate allies. The rigidity of bi-
polar alliances makes for flexible strategy.
 P a g e | 26

For its parsimony and theoretical rigor, neorealism has been the baseline for most
of international relations theory over the last 20 years. It has prompted a rich
literature critiquing it on a number of fronts: for instance, neoliberals say that
it does not take seriously enough the possibility that states may choose absolute
over relative gains, particularly in situations where institutions can alter payoffs;
constructivists argue that its fails to recognise the manner in which agents and
structures are mutually constitutive; and people from all over the map say that it is
too generalised and yields little in the way of testable implications. Nevertheless,
the theory has been hugely influential.
Armament
This is where two nations in their struggle for power build up arms or engage in
arms’ race in preparation for war or in a bid to overwhelm the others. An example
of this scenario played out during the Cold War, between the Eastern and the
Western blocs of states. The resultant effect of this is that, it creates tension and
instability in the international system. Also, the socio-economic development of
citizens suffers as a large chunk of budgetary expenditures go to acquiring
military hardware. Balance of power uses this technique to make sure that no
single nation has monopoly over the weapons of destruction. This system
would deter either nation from resorting to war without first exploring other means
of resolving their conflicts.
Divide and Rule
This is where two nations are put against one another so as to take away the
chances of them combining forces. Divide and rule could also be seen as a
situation in which a country is divided among some powers so as to maintain
equilibrium in their power base. A typical example is the division of Poland among
Russia, Austria and Russia. This was used to ensure balance in Europe at the time.
Neutralization
This is best explained by the circumstances of Germany, France, Italy and
Switzerland during the First World War. Having confessed to neutrality, the
position of Switzerland during the war was fundamental to the effects of the war
on its neighbours, namely; Germany, France and Italy. Thus, in preserving the
balance, none of Switzerland’s neighbours could agree on its addition to one or
both of the other states, because Switzerland was too strategically important. In
effect, the agreement was to accept the neutrality of Switzerland and to keep
“hands off”, thereby maintaining the country as a buffer zone between the three
neighbours.
 P a g e | 27

Balance of Power Today

The collapse the Soviet Union in 1991 left the United States as the World’s sole
super power. Balance of power suggests that without the Soviet threat, the United
States, as the dominant world power will cause a disequilibrium in the global
system. For example, key countries such as; China, Russia, France and Germany
all opposed the United States’ invasion of Iraq in 2003. Yet, this opposition did not
stop the United States from acting, thereby exposing the huge gap in military
capability that now exists between the United States and the rest of the world.
Small states that fear the United States are no longer able to join a counter
balancing coalition to protect their security. Instead, many are developing nuclear
weapons in an attempt to dramatically expand their military capability. For
example, North Korea claimed in 2003 that it was developing nuclear weapons to
balance against United States power. Similarly, the intentions of Iran in
embarking on a nuclear programme are still causing ripples among the powerful
countries of the world.
The changing nature of power in today’s international system further complicates
the operation of the global balance of power. Globalisation, the internet, weapons
of mass destruction and other technological developments have made it possible
for small states and even non-state groups to acquire significant power. In the
future, the balance of power may continue to operate among states engaged in
prolonged disputes, but it is less applicable to conflicts involving terrorists and
other non- state groups.
Weaknesses of the Balance of Power
The balance of power system has been very useful in curtailing the excesses of
states, but it has also received some criticisms. One of such is that, even with the
balance of power in place, the Second World War still broke out. What this implies
is that balance of power as an instrument of preventing war was unable to prevent
the anarchy that engulfed the world as a result of that war.
Also, critics have argued that the collapse of the Soviet Union has created
hegemony in the United States and this poses a challenge for the balance of power
system. The challenge to the balance of power in international relations is how to
correct the present power configuration in the international arena without
disturbing the present balance which tilts in favour of the United States. However
despite the shortcomings of balance of power it remains a useful system for
stabilising the international arena