See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/372909508

War and Peace: The Causes of War and Conditions for Peace

Article · August 2023

CITATIONS READS
0 1,968

2 authors:

Benjamin Isah King Kekwop Musa

Pen Resource University University of Jos
6 PUBLICATIONS 4 CITATIONS 5 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Benjamin Isah on 11 August 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

GLOBAL PEACE COMMUNITY JOURNAL ( GPCJ ) VOLUME 1, NUMBER 1 2023

WAR AND PEACE: THE CAUSES OF WAR AND THE CONDITIONS FOR PEACE
KING KEKWOP MUSA1 BENJAMIN ISAH 2
1..
Department of Political Science Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Jos, Nigeria.
EMAIL: kingskekwop@gmail.com Phone no. 08034580818.
2.
Department of Political Science Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Jos, Nigeria.
EMAIL: benjamiisah@gmail.com Phone No. 07068731752

ABSTRACT
Security issues are the most salient, the most prevalent, and indeed the most intractable concern
engaging actors in International Relations. The questions on war and peace have occupied
major discussions in the international system over the years. This paper discussed the concepts
of war and peace, the causes of war and conditions of peace using the level of analysis in
international relations to bring the theoretical explanation into context. Secondary source of
data was used and the paper adopted content analysis to elucidate findings. The study further
recommended ways in reducing the frequencies of war by the improvement of diplomacy,
management of crisis, enlightenment, extending the scope of International Law and cooperation.
Keywords: Security, War, Peace, Level of Analysis

INTRODUCTION
Security issues are the most salient, the most prevalent, and indeed the most intractable concern
engaging the actors in International Relations. The anarchical world state exist in, with the
absence of international supreme authority, lack of centralized government to manage and
control the actions of individual elites, sovereign state, or even International Intergovernmental
organization leaves a vacuum to the question Why War?. To Karen Mingst, if a state prepares to
protect itself, if it takes self-help measures building a strong industrial base, constructing
armaments, mobilizing a military; other state then become less secure. And their response to
engaged in similar activities, increasing their own level of protection, brings about security
dilemma which further results in a permanent condition of tension and power conflicts among
states (Karen Mingst, 1999).
Napoleon also asked a pertinent question saying ―What is the war about? These questions have
attracted more attention in the field of International Relations (Simon Stander, 2014). The
reasons for this interest is that, war is almost universally regarded as human disaster, a source of
misery on a catastrophic scale and in this Nuclear age, a threat to the entire human race (Baylis,
et al, 2002). War is simply, a blanket term used to describe diverse activities (Baylis, et al,
2002).
War and Peace is often seen as two sides of the same coin, drawing the conclusion that peace is
the absence of war and by logical extension; war is the absence of peace (Johan Galtung, 1990
133
GLOBAL PEACE COMMUNITY JOURNAL ( GPCJ ) VOLUME 1, NUMBER 1 2023

cited in Shedrack Best, 2006). This conceptualization is inadequate because peace does exist in
war situations; when there are peaceful interactions between countries that engaged in active war
for instance, the Palestinians and Israelis have been able to established peaceful use of water
resources even as the war between them has raged (Shedrack Best, 2006). According to Johan
Galtung (1990), War is only one form of violence, which is physical, open and direct. But there
is another form of violence that is not immediately perceived as such which has to do with social
conditions such as poverty, exclusion, Intimidation, oppression, want, fear and many types of
psychological pressure. To this end, it would be wrong to classify a country experiencing
pervasive structural violence as peaceful. In other words, although war may not be going on in a
country where there is persistent poverty, oppression of the poor by the rich, police brutality,
intimidation of ordinary people by those in power, oppression of women, or monopolization of
resources and power by some sections of the society, it will be wrong to say that there is peace in
such a country. Consequently, it is quite possible not to have peace even when there is no war
(Shedrack Best, 2006). An historical overview of War and Peace will give this paper much depth
needed for comprehension.
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF WAR AND PEACE
The history of war and peace will be much herculean to be broadly discussed in this paper.
However, a snapshot of historical events will do the paper much good.
WAR
Throughout history, different types of warfare have occurred in one point to other. The
Asymmetric warfare, biological warfare, chemical warfare, cold warfare, conventional warfare,
cyber warfare, insurgency, nuclear warfare, Total War etcetera, have affected human history in
one way or the other. The 20th century has witnessed three of the ten most costly wars, in terms
of loss of life. These are the two World Wars, followed by the Second Sino-Japanese War
(McFarlane, Alan, 2003). McFarlane, Alan further posited that, World War II witness over 60
million death toll and surpasses all other war-death tolls.
However, the earliest evidence of prehistoric warfare is a Mesolithic cemetery in Jebel Sahaba,
which has been determined to be approximately 14,000 years old. About forty-five percent of the
skeletons there displayed signs of violent death since the rise of the state some 5,000 years ago.
Military activity has occurred over much of the globe. The advent of gunpowder and the
acceleration of technological advances led to modern warfare. According to Conway W.
Henderson (2010), 14,500 wars have taken place between 3500 BC and the late 20th century,
costing 3.5 billion lives, leaving only 300 years of peace.
Throughout the history and pre-history of mankind, primitive warfare is estimated to have
accounted for 15.1% of deaths and claimed over 400 million victims killed by war, an estimated
1,680,000,000 people died from infectious diseases in the 20th century (Wikipedia, retrieved
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War ) In War Before Civilization, Lawrence H. Keeley, says
approximately 90–95% of known societies throughout history engaged in at least occasional
warfare, and many fought constantly ( Splenger, 2006). Keeley describes several styles of
primitive combat such as small raids, large raids, and massacres. All of these forms of warfare
were used by primitive societies, a finding supported by other researchers. Keeley explains that
early war raids were not well organized, as the participants did not have any formal training.
Scarcity of resources meant defensive works were not a cost-effective way to protect the society
against enemy raids (Wikipedia, retrieved https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War ). In Western
Europe, since the late 18th century, more than 150 conflicts and about 600 battles have taken
134
GLOBAL PEACE COMMUNITY JOURNAL ( GPCJ ) VOLUME 1, NUMBER 1 2023

place (Stéphane Audoin-Rouzeau & Annette Becker , 2019). During the 20th century, war
resulted in a dramatic intensification of the pace of social changes.
A distinctive feature of war since 1945 is the absence of wars between major powers—indeed
the near absence of any traditional wars between established countries. The major exceptions
were the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, the Iran–Iraq War 1980–1988, and the Gulf War of 1990–
91. Instead combat has largely been a matter of civil wars and insurgencies (Bunker & Bunker,
2016). Again the Human Security Report 2005 documented a significant decline in the number
and severity of armed conflicts since the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s (Hewitt, Joseph,
J. Wilkenfield and T. Gurr, 2007).
PEACE
Throughout history leaders have used peacemaking and diplomacy to establish a certain type of
behavioral restraint that has resulted in the establishment of regional peace or economic growth
through various forms of agreements or peace treaties. Such behavioral restraint has often
resulted in the reduction of conflicts, greater economic interactivity, and consequently substantial
prosperity (Wikipedia, retrieved https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/peace )
Martin Nilsson, (1983) posited that, in ancient times and more recently, peaceful alliances
between different nations were codified through royal marriages. Two examples, Hermodike I
c.800BC and Hermodike II c.600BC were Greek princesses from the house of Agamemnon who
married kings from what is now Central Turkey. Since classical times, it has been noted that
peace has sometimes been achieved by the victor over the vanquished by the imposition of
ruthless measures. In his book Agricola the Roman historian Tacitus includes eloquent and
vicious polemics against the rapacity and greed of Rome. One, that Tacitus says is by the
Caledonian chieftain Calgacus, ends Auferre trucidare rapere falsis nominibus imperium, atque
ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant. (To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles,
they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace. (Wikipedia, retrieved
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/peace )
Discussion of peace is therefore at the same time a discussion on the form of such peace. Is it
simple absence of mass organized killing (war) or does peace require a particular morality and
justice? (just peace). A peace must be seen at least in two forms: A simple silence of arms,
absence of war, an absence of war accompanied by particular requirements for the mutual
settlement of relations, which are characterized by terms such as justice, mutual respect, respect
for law and good will. More recently, advocates for radical reform in justice systems have called
for a public policy adoption of non-punitive, nonviolent Restorative Justice Methods, and many
of those studying the success of these methods, including a United Nations working group on
Restorative Justice Archived 26 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine, have attempted to re-define
justice in terms related to peace. From the late 2000s on, a Theory of Active Peace has been
proposed which conceptually integrates justice into a larger peace theory (
www.internationalpeaceandconflict.org , retrieved July, 2015).
CONCEPTUAL CLARIFICATION
The important point is that peace and war as facts differ formally rather than materially, and are
distinguishable by their locus and implements rather than by their intrinsic qualities as human
behavior (Kallen, 1939). War and peace differ not in the goals pursued, only in the means used to
attain them. (Barbera, 1973). In this article, we delineate very clearly the meanings of the two

135
GLOBAL PEACE COMMUNITY JOURNAL ( GPCJ ) VOLUME 1, NUMBER 1 2023

major concepts war and peace in other to enhance our understanding of the ultimate goal of the
paper.

Defining the Concepts of War

Defining war has become a big challenge as no universal acceptable definition can be subscribed
to it. War can be seen through Socio-political lens, quantitative criteria, judicial conceptions and
legal definitions etcetera (Johan & Dennen 1981). According to international law, war, in
principle, can only take place between sovereign political entities, that is, States. War is thus a
means for resolving differences between units of the highest order of political organization. The
majority of those who have been concerned with war as a socio-political phenomenon have also
adopted as their basic premise that there is a fundamental difference between domestic conflicts,
for which there are normally mechanisms for peaceful resolution, and international conflicts,
which occur in a state of anarchy. Wars have been seen to involve directly State institutions, such
as the foreign office and the armed forces. Since war is put in an international context, the stakes
of war may be the life and death of States (Aron, 1966).
Von Clausewitz (1911) defined war as ―an act of violence intended to compel our opponents to
fulfil our will‖, and elsewhere he emphasized the continuity of violence with other political
methods: ―War is nothing but a continuation of political intercourse, with a mixture of other
means.‖ Sorel (1912) defined war as a ―political act by means of which States, unable to adjust a
dispute regarding their obligations, rights or interests, resort to armed force to decide which is
the stronger and may therefore impose its will on the other‖.
Kallen (1939) seems to favour a political definition of war when he writes: ―If war may be
defined as an armed contest between two or more sovereign institutions employing organized
military forces in the pursuit of specific ends, the significant term in the definition is
`organized‘.‖ He further adds that this organization of the contending armed forces extends back
behind the battle lines and tends in modern wars to embrace all civilian activities, such as the
industrial, productive, and commercial, and also the social interests and individual attitudes.
Kallen (1939) criticizes von Clausewitz‘ (1911) definition of war as ―an act of violence for the
purpose of compelling the enemy to do what we will‖ as too general and indefinite. He says that
―this definition might apply also to much that is called peace, particularly in sport, business and
finance. It might apply to anybody‘s act of violence, whenever it occurs. As limited to war, it
applies to pre-Napoleonic and pre-industrial times and intentions, when war was a castle
enterprise, and a gentleman‘s game‖.
A. Johnson (1935) defines war as ―armed conflict between population groups conceived of as
organic unities, such as races or tribes, states or lesser geographic units, religious or political
parties, economic classes‖. This definition may, according to Bernard (1944), be regarded as
approximately sociological because it does not limit the armed conflict to political units but
includes any type of population units which is capable of resorting to arms as a method of
settling disputes. Perhaps the definition is too general, since it does not specify the duration of
the conflict or the magnitude of the conflicting parties. As it stands this definition could be made
to include riots.
B. Russell‘s ( 1916) definition of war as ―conflict between two groups, each of which attempts to
kill and maim as many as possible of the other group in order to achieve some object which it

136
GLOBAL PEACE COMMUNITY JOURNAL ( GPCJ ) VOLUME 1, NUMBER 1 2023

desires‖ is even more general and uncritically inclusive. Russell states the object for which men
fight as ―generally power or wealth‖. Wallace (1968) considers war to be ―the sanctioned use of
lethal weapons by members of one society against members of another. It is carried out by
trained persons working in teams that are directed by a separate policy-making group and
supported in various ways by the non-combatant population‖. Ashworth (1968): ―Mass or total
war may be defined as a type of armed conflict between large nation-States in which populations
and resources are rationally and extensively organized for conquest. It is important to note that
populations are mobilized both in terms of activities and psychological states: the former implies
comprehensive military and civilian conscription; the latter implies the systematic development
of belligerent and hostile attitudes towards the enemy among all or most of the population.‖
Wright (1942; 1965) describes war as ―a legal condition which equally permits two or more
hostile groups to carry on a conflict by armed force‖. The Marqués de Olivert is quoted as
declaring that ―war is a litigation or suit (litigio) between nations that defend their rights, in
which force is the judge and victory is the judicial award‖. This analogical and figurative
characterization of war is perhaps more literary than factual (Bernard, 1944). Kelsen (1942) has
distinguished two basic modern interpretations of war, and in each of them it is assumed that the
existence of war is a matter for objective determination. His concern is with the legal status of
war. According to the interpretation war is neither a delict nor a sanction. It is not a delict
because war is not forbidden by any general international law. It followed, thus, that any State
could war against any other State without violating any law. Obviously no State would violate its
own laws in going to war, and, in the absence of international law forbidding war, there could be
no question of a delict. On the other hand, war cannot be a sanction either, since there is no
international law authorizing war. While every State authorizes its own wars and condemns its
enemies, this hardly constitutes a legal state of affairs. War is, thus, beyond legal praise or
blame.

Defining the Concepts of Peace

There is a developing divergence in regard to what may be understood by the word peace. Peace
is generally defined as the absence of war, fear, conflict, anxiety, suffering and violence, and
about peaceful coexistence (Shedrack Best, 2006). To Best, Peace is primarily concerned with
creating and maintaining a just order in society and the resolution of conflict by non-violent
means (Shedrack Best, 2006). According to Francis (2006), peace is a prime value in all human
societies, the most valuable public good, yet the most elusive. To him, peace is the absence of
war, fear, conflict, anxiety, suffering and violence. It is primarily concerned with creating and
maintaining a just order in the society and the resolution of conflict by non-violent means.
Ibeanu (2006), on the other hand, defines peace broadly in three ideological views: political,
sociological and philosophical. In political perspective, peace according to the University for
Peace is a condition that makes justice possible. It is also a political order that is the
institutionalization of political structures in a way that provides an undisruptive security
atmosphere (Albert & Eselebor, 2013). Sociologically, peace refers to a condition of social
harmony in which there are no social antagonisms. Many philosophers view peace as a natural
and original God-given state of human existence (Albert & Eselebor, 2013). Ibeanu emphasized
on interactions of various forces such as; political, economic, environment and cultural as major
determinant of Peace. To Ibeanu, the attainment of Peace is preceded on these conditions.

137
GLOBAL PEACE COMMUNITY JOURNAL ( GPCJ ) VOLUME 1, NUMBER 1 2023

Thomas Aguinas observes that ―absence of war does not equate peace in the absence of justice‖
(Wiberg, 1988). To him, you cannot talk about a society in peace without justice even when
there is no confrontation or war. UNESCO also conceived peace as ―not merely the absence of
war (…) but also interdependence and cooperation to foster economic and social development,
disarmament, arms control and limitation, human rights, the strengthening of democratic
institutions, protection of the environment and improvement of the quality of life for all‖ (quoted
in Molutsi, 1999).
THE CAUSES OF WAR
Though strategy these days is as much concerned with the promotion of peace as with the
conduct of war, the phenomenon of war remains a central concern. Previous generations might
have seen virtues in war, for example, as an instrument of change or as a vehicle for encouraging
heroic virtues, but these ideas have been rendered obsolete by the destructiveness of modern
warfare (Baylis, Wirtz, Cohen, & Gay, 2002). Since abolishing war became a top priority, the
first step in ending, however, is to identify its causes.
The causes of war are as numerous as the number of wars and nothing in general can be said
about them. For much understanding, this paper will identify similarities and patterns between
the causes of wars under such headings as Individual (Human Nature and misperception), the
nature of states, and the structure of the international system.
The Individual: Realist and Liberal Interpretation
According to Karen Mingst (1999), both the characteristics of individual leaders and the general
attributes of people have been blamed for wars. Some individual leaders are aggressive and
belligerent; they use their leadership positions to further their causes. Again, some realists and
liberals also affirmed that, war occur because of the personal features of major leaders. Liberal
thinkers prefer to emphasize the importance of nurture and are naturally attracted to the idea that
aggression and war can be tamed while conservative thinkers tend to throw their weight behind
nature and are therefore skeptical about the possibilities of ridding the world of war (Baylis et al,
2002).
Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud agreed that the roots of war were to be found in an elemental
instinct for aggression and destruction. Einstein thought that ‗man has in him an active instinct
for hatred and destruction‘, and Freud believed he had identified a ‗death instinct‘ which
manifested itself in homicide and suicide (Freud, 1932 cited in Baylis et al, 2002). In the same
light, Edward Wilson in ‗On Human Nature‘ noted that human beings are disposed to react with
unreasoning hatred to perceived threats to their safety and possessions, and he argued that ‗we
tend to fear deeply the actions of strangers and to solve conflict by aggression‘ (1978).
However, the individual level of analysis is unlikely to provide the only cause of war, nor even
the primary one. According to Waltz (1959), in his book Man, the state and War, posited that, it
is not very helpful to argue that human nature causes war. To him, if human nature causes war
then, logically, it also causes everything else that human beings do. In his words, ‗ human nature
may in some sense have been the cause of war in 1914, but by the same token it was the cause of
peace in 1910‘(1959).
State and Society: Liberal and Radical Explanations
A second level of analysis suggests that war occurs because of the internal characteristics of
states. States vary in size, geography, ethnic homogeneity, and economic and government type.
138
GLOBAL PEACE COMMUNITY JOURNAL ( GPCJ ) VOLUME 1, NUMBER 1 2023

The question, then, is how do the characteristics of different states affect the possibility of war?
Do some state characteristics have a higher correlation with the propensity to go to war than
others do? (Karen Mingst, 1999). State and societal explanations for war are among the oldest.
Plato, for example, posited that war is less likely where the population is cohesive and enjoys a
moderate level of prosperity. Since the population would be able to thwart an attack, an enemy is
likely to refrain from attacking it. Many thinkers during the Enlightenment, including Immanuel
Kant, believed that war was more likely in aristocratic states. Drawing on the Kantian position,
liberals posit that republican regimes (those with representative governments and separation of
powers) are least likely to wage war against each other; that is the basic position of the theory of
the democratic peace. Democratic leaders hear from multiple voices, including the public, which
tend to restrain decision makers, decrease the likelihood of misperceptions, and therefore lessen
the chance of war. They also offer citizens who have grievances a chance to redress these
complaints by nonviolent means (Karen Mingst, 1999).
The nature of state, human collectives, factions, tribes, nations contesting over the structure of
states is a basic cause of war. Numerous civil wars have been fought over what groups, what
ideologies, and which leaders should control the government of the state. For example the
Nigerian Civil War (1967-1970). According to Friedrich Nietzsche, madness is the exception in
individuals but the rule in groups. To him, human collectives tend to encourage violence because
of the sense of differences that we all feel between ‗Us‘ and ‗them‘. Any time people can make a
distinction between those who belong to their own collective grouping be it tribe, state, or nation;
and other groups with which they cannot identify easily, they have laid the foundation for
conflict (Baylis et al, 2002)
The International System: Realist and Radical Interpretations
To realists, war is a natural, and hence an inevitable feature of interstate politics. War is as tragic
and unpreventable as hurricanes and earthquakes. In advancing this argument, contemporary
realists tend to focus on a single description of the international system as anarchic. Such an
anarchic system is often compared with a ―state of nature,‖ after philosopher Thomas Hobbes‘s
characterization, in which humans live without a recognized authority, and must therefore
manage their own safety, by them (Mingst & Karns, 2012).
In his most famous book, Leviathan, Hobbes argued that whenever men live without a common
power that keeps them all in fear, they are in a condition of war: ―every man against every man‖
(Thomas Hobbes,1968 cited in Mingst & Karns, 2012 ). This state leads to constant fear and
uncertainty. By extension, because states in the international system do not recognize any
authority above them, the international system is equivalent to a state of war, and Hobbes‘s
description of that state perfectly characterizes the realist view. War, Hobbes continued, was not
the same thing as battle or constant fighting. Instead, it was any tract of time in which war
remained possible. Hobbes likened this situation to the relationship between climate and
weather: it may not rain every day, but in some climates, rain is much more common than in
others. Essentially, Hobbes concluded that so long as a single strong man (or state) was not more
powerful than all the others combined, human beings would be forced to live in a climate of war
(Mingst & Karns, 2012). According to realists then, war breaks out in the interstate system
because nothing in the interstate system prevents it. So long as there is anarchy, there will be
war. War, in such a system, might even appear to be the best course of action that a given state
can take. After all, states must protect themselves. (Mingst & Karns, 2012).

139
GLOBAL PEACE COMMUNITY JOURNAL ( GPCJ ) VOLUME 1, NUMBER 1 2023

Marxists in this same context, see the international system structure as responsible for war.
According to the Marxist school of thought, dominant capitalist states within the international
system need to expand economically, leading to wars with less-developed regions over control of
natural resources and labor markets, or with other capitalist states over control of less-developed
regions ( Karen Mingst, 1999).
THE CONDITIONS FOR PEACE
The conditions in which peace can exist are now just what they have always been (even if time
and place make them appear different): a higher expected utility from peace than from war; a
'civic culture'; a commitment to the peaceful resolution of disputes; strong institutions; an ethical
code; mutual legitimization; peacemakers (because peace is socially constructed); a social-
communicative process; material and normative resources; social learning (to take us from here
to there); shared trust; and, most important, a collective purpose and social identity (Emanuel
Adler, 1998).
According to Immanuel Kant, democratic peace among republics is the necessary conditions for
'perpetual peace'. To him, democracies do not make war on each other'. Even Kenneth Boulding,
who was keenly aware of the ontological and epistemological traps of characterizing peace in
'negative' and 'positive' ways, defined 'stable peace' merely as 'a situation in which the probability
of war is so small that it does not really enter into the calculations of any of the people involved
(Emanuel Adler, 1998).
Liberalism also argues that stability and relative peace can be achieved in the international
system via a hegemon who sets the agenda for global institutions by playing an active part in
international politics.(Nye,1990,p.153;Doyle, 1983). This theory which is known as the
hegemonic stability theory holds the view that a hegemon in the international system of states
who has more economic and military power than other states can produce economic stability
which is seen as a collective/public good in the international system and all the states benefit
from it. The hegemon can do so without disregarding its own security interests because other
countries benefit from the economic stability that is produced regardless of whether or not they
contribute to it. (Webb & Krasner, 1989, Kindleberger, 1973) Nye (2004) further adds to this
argument in the post-cold war world and emphasizes the nature of soft power that can be used by
the United States of America, as the hegemon to control political environment and ―getting
others to want the same outcomes as it wants‖ which will decrease conflict of interest and
promote stability in the world (Nye, 2004). For the hegemonic stability theory to function the
hegemon must, put lead trade liberalization, stay committed to an open market economy in
recession and also encourage development in underdeveloped areas of the world. (Webb &
Krasner, 1989).
Neo-realists thus explain that state‘s serve their own interests in the international system by
following a strict code of self-help due to the absence of any authority above them. Moreover, as
all states exist in a state of anarchy in the international arena of politics, they all pursue self-
interest and try to acquire power to secure themselves and ensure their survival in a system
where no other state or authority will come to save them if they fail to do (Waltz, 1979).Neo-
realism also puts forth a theory f or relative peace to be achieved by suggesting the concept of
mutually assured destruction based on the fundamental principles of nuclear deterrence. A
concept which helped maintains peace during the cold war between the Soviet Union and the
United States of America courtesy of their possession of the nuclear weapon (Sagan & Waltz,
2010). However nuclear deterrence never proposes to establish world peace, nonetheless it does
140
GLOBAL PEACE COMMUNITY JOURNAL ( GPCJ ) VOLUME 1, NUMBER 1 2023

work towards the maintenance of relative peace between two nuclear powers. As states are seen
as maximizes of security, nuclear weapons are its last resort to seeking security in a world
which offers none on its own. If a state feels sufficiently scared or threatened by the actions of
another state in the system of anarchy, then it can pursue nuclear weapons as they are the
ultimate deterrent and providers of security. (Sagan & Waltz, 2010). The concept of mutually
assured destruction functions on the basis of fear of whole scale destruction between two nuclear
weapon states. If one state launches its nuclear weapon, it can be assured that the other one will
respond in kind via its second strike apparatus and thus ensuring destruction of both the states in
question courtesy of the highly destructive powers of the weapon in question (Sagan & Waltz,
2010).
The balance of power theory is yet another one which sheds light on the possibility of peace
inside the neo-realist paradigm. The balance of power theory stipulates as to how states can
achieve a balance of power against their rivals in the anarchic system of politics by internal and
external efforts. Internal efforts include increasing economic and military strength whilst external
factors include alliance formation (Walt, 1979). The balance of power once achieved puts both
the alliances/competitors on equal footing and thus from there on in, it is a game of preserving
the balance of power to ensure survival and preservation for unit actors such as states. However
for such equilibrium to be formed, states who are in an alliance must accept there strains on them
due to the framework that they are a part of to achieve mutual goals and interests. As Waltz
states, ―only if states recognize the rules of the game and play for the same limited stakes can the
balance of power fulfill its functions for international stability and national independence‖
(Waltz, 1979).
Even though, Liberalism and realism offers certain concrete proposals and conditions for peace;
both theories are not devoid of fault lines which actually exhibit some of the issues that lie within
their arguments for peace. Taking the liberal democratic peace theory, which has been termed
―almost as good as an empirical law in international relations‖, has its weaknesses where it fails
to address democratic states‘ and their attitudes towards non democratic nations (Levy, 1989).
Realists have presented their own thesis with regard to the democratic peace theory and stated
that the democratic peace theory‘s assumptions such as democracies and their peaceful
predispositions, decentralized distribution of power should hold when confronted with conflict of
interests with non-liberal states (Jervis, 2002). Whilst realism does not make acclaim to be a
theory of peace, liberalism‘s claim towards peace between democratic nations and cooperation
through economic interdependence remains largely relevant. Nonetheless, liberal interventions in
other parts of the world still pose a threat to peace in both relative and absolute terms, something
that is counterproductive for a theory which actually takes an optimistic and reformist outlook on
the subject of international relations.
Conversely, realism‘s claims of mutually assured destruction suffers imbalances when empirical
evidence such as Pakistan‘s Kargil conflict with India is used to highlight the potential for
nuclear blackmail under nuclear cover and the overestimation of deterrence. On the other hand,
claims that realist policies actually lead to a more humane world should not divert attention away
from the fact that realists still claim that security competition can lead towards war which is
often the case in international politics. It has been argued that both realism and liberalism
provide insufficient accounts and of security and peace in the international system. Liberalism
with its focus on universalism and harmony makes for an unstable world; whereas realism and its
pessimism don‘t say much about prospects for peace.

141
GLOBAL PEACE COMMUNITY JOURNAL ( GPCJ ) VOLUME 1, NUMBER 1 2023

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

There is no shortage of ‗cures‘ for the ‗disease‘ of war. Some are bizarre. For example, linus
pauling once suggested that wars are caused by a vitamin deficiency and that we eat our way out
of aggression by swallowing the appropriate tablets (Baylis et al, 2002). Others advocated that,
for wars to be rid out, human nature must be change, state system must be reconstructed, the
world‘s wealth must be equitably redistributed, abolishment or armaments, reeducate mankind
and so on. But Baylis et al, observed that, since there is no prospect of implementing them in the
foreseeable future, in a sense, they are not solutions at all (2002).
On the other hand, peace is not a panacea in which all human antagonisms are resolved. Peace is
simply the absence of war, not the absence of conflict. As the Cold war demonstrated, it is just as
possible to wage peace as it is to wage war. Though peace and war are usually regarded as
opposites, there is a sense in which both are aspects of the conflict that is endemic in all social
life.
Ideally, people desire a global ‗just peace‘. Unfortunately, this is an unattainable dream. It would
require agreement on whose justice is to prevail. It would require a redistribution of the world‘s
wealth from the haves and the have-nots. Just peace would require religious and political
movements- Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, traditionalist, Communists, capitalist and so on,
to tolerate each other. It also would require an end to cultural imperialism and an agreement that
differing cultural values are equally valid. It would probably require the disappearance of borders
and differentiated societies with their ‗them‘ and ‗us‘ mentalities.
In a nutshell, since justice and peace do not go together, statesmen will have to continue
choosing between them. The pursuit of justice may require them to wage war, and the pursuit of
peace may require them to put up with injustice. In the interest of peace, there is something to be
said for the Realist policy of fighting ‗necessary‘ rather than ‗just‘ wars.

Recommendation
However, these are not spectacular, radical, of full proof solutions to the problems of the causes
of war, but they are practical steps that offer the possibility at least of reducing its frequency, and
perhaps also of limiting its destructiveness. This study recommend thus:
1. By improving our techniques of diplomacy, communication, crisis avoidance, and crisis
management.
2. By developing a concept of enlightened self-interest which is sensitive to the interests of
others
3. By extending the scope of international law and building on existing moral constraints;
4. By learning how to manage military power through responsible civil-military relations
and sophisticated measures of arms control and,
5. By strengthening co-operation through international organizations and world trade.

142
GLOBAL PEACE COMMUNITY JOURNAL ( GPCJ ) VOLUME 1, NUMBER 1 2023

REFERENCES
Albert, I. O. & Eselebor, W. A. (2013). Managing Security in a Globalised World.
Society for Peace Studies and Practice (SPSP).ISBN 978-978-51368-7-6
Andrew, H. (2011). Global Politics. London: Palgrave Macmillan
Baylis, J., Wirtz, J., Cohen, E., & Gray, C.S. (2002). Strategy in the
Contemporary World: An Introduction to Strategic Studies. Oxford:
University Press
Best, S.G. (2006). Introduction to Peace and Conflict Studies in West Africa.
Ibadan: Spectrum Books Limited
Brown, C. (2005). Understanding International Relations. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Buzan, B. (1991). People, States and Fear: An Agenda for International
Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era, 2nd edition, London:
Harvester Wheat sheaf.
Buzan, B. & Hansen, L. (2009). The Evolution of International Security Studies,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Buzan, B., Waever, O., & Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A New Framework for
Analysis, Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Chigozie, N. P. (2018). The Quest for Global Security and Peace, and the Rise
of International Organizations: Historical Perspective. Equatorial Journal
of History and International Relations.
Dokubo, C.Q. (2010). Enhancing Nigeria‘s National Security Interest through
International Relations. Nigeria Journal of International Affairs, vol.36,
No. 1, pp. 25-44
Francis, D.J. (2006). ―Peace and Conflict Studies: An African Overview of Basic
Concepts‖, in Best, S.G. (2006), Introduction to Peace and Conflict Studies in West
Africa. Ibadan: Spectrum Books Limited.
Hans, M., (2005). Politics Among Nations, 7th edition. New York: Mcgraw-Hill
Education.
Hedley, B. (2002). The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics,
(London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ibeanu, O. (2006). ―Conceptualisation of Peace‖, in: Best, S.G. (2006.),op.cit.
Imobighe, T.A. (1990). Doctrines for and Threats to Internal Security. In:
Ekoko, A.E and M. Vogt (ed.), Nigerian Defence Policy: Issues and
Problems. Lagos: Malthouse Press. Integrated Regional Information
Network. www.google.com
Galtung, J. (1964). ‗An Editorial‘, Journal of Peace Research, vol. 1, no. 1,
Gambo, A.N. (2008). Conflict in the Niger Delta and National Security in
Nigeria. Jos; Mono Expression Ltd.
Kant, I. (2013). ‗ To Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch (1795). In:
V.khanna, International relations, 5th edition, (India: Krishna Prakashan
Media.
Khanna, V. (2013) International relations, 5th edition. india: Krishna
Prakashan Media.
Robert, G. (1983). War and Change in World Politics. New York: Columbia

143
 GLOBAL PEACE COMMUNITY JOURNAL ( GPCJ ) VOLUME 1, NUMBER 1 2023

University Press.
Odo, O.U. (2012). An Introductory Text on International Relations. Matkol
Publishing House. Jos, Plateau State
Schelling, T.C. & Halperin, M.H. (1961). Strategy and Arms Control. New York:
Twentieth Century Fund. Schlosser, E. (1993). Command and Control:
Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety.
London: Penguin
Sharkey, N.E (2012). The evitability of autonomous robot warfare, International
Review of the Red Cross, 94 (886), 787-799. Retrieved from
http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/review/2012/irrc886-sharkey.pdf. Stander, S. (2014).
Why War: Capitalism and the Nation-State. Bloomsbury
Publishing inc.
Palmer & Perkins (2001). International Relations. New Delhi: CBS Publishers
and Distributors.

Peter, H., Shahin, M., Andrew, M., & Bruce, P. (2015). International Security
Studies: Theory and Practice. Published by Routledge London and New
York.
UN (United Nations) (2002). The State of Global Peace and Security: In Line
with the Central Mandates Contained in the Charter of the United Nations.
United Nations publication
UN (United Nations) (1945). Charter of the United Nations. New York: UN.
Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/charter-united-
nations/index.html. UN (United Nations) (1948). Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. New York: UN. Retrieved from
https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights.

144

View publication stats