Systemic & Dyadic Explanations of Interstate Conflict

Systemic Explanations of Interstate Conflict

The Basics The systemic, or structural, level of analysis points to characteristics of the international system as the root of war between states. Systemic explanations of war posit that international structures can create consequences that are not intended by any of their constituent actors. In other words, states may go to war because of the nature of the international system, not because they themselves are warlike. International structures as an explanation of war are particularly important in realism and liberalism

Three structural factors Anarchy Polarity Interdependence

Anarchy The international system is anarchic according to realists States are forced into adopting an aggressive posture for their own protection – which leads to security dilemma Under anarchic conditions it is inevitable for wars to break out periodically However, this does not explain why some wars occur while others are averted Anarchy is a realist explanation for interstate conflict

Polarity Distribution of power in international systems is another structural factor explaining likelihood of interstate conflict Polarity refers to number of power centers (poles) in international system – unipolar (hegemonic), bipolar, multipolar etc. Theorists do not agree on which system of polarity is likely to lead to increased chance of conflict This is another realist explanation

Interdependence Liberal theory emphasizes the role of interdependence in the international system Liberalism argues that multiple channels across states facilitated by international organizations, transnational links among non-state actors, and the varied nonmilitary issues in which states and other actors have interests means that war becomes more costly and states are constrained from using war as a policy tool. In relationships that are characterized by a high degree of interdependence, the effects of an anarchical system that realists would expect are simply not seen. We will look more at interactions between states & non-state actors next class.

“Particularly among industrialized, pluralist countries, the perceived margin of safety has widened: Fears of attack in general have declined, and fears of attacks by one another are virtually nonexistent. . . . Canada’s last war plans for fighting the United States were abandoned half a century ago. Britain and Germany no longer feel threatened by each other. Intense relationships of mutual influence exist between these countries, but in most of them force is irrelevant or unimportant as an instrument of policy” From A Reader in International Politics & Political Theory

Dyadic Level Explanations for War

Some state-level explanations argue that some types of states may be more war-prone than others Factors such as nature of economy, internal political opposition, nature of political system etc.

Dyadic Explanations Dyadic explanations refer to the interaction of the characteristics of two states War within democratic dyads is extremely rare

Three factors… Economy Internal opposition Nature of political system

Type of Economy: A Marxist Explanation Argues capitalist states are more war-prone. Why? Capitalist economies experience overproduction, surplus capital, wealth inequality etc. Seek to address these through imperialism – new markets, cheap labor, access to raw materials

Marxist explanation… Imperialism, by its nature, involves military conflict “In a world of many capitalist countries imperialism means economic competition between rival states. Each state strives to gain exclusive control over markets, raw materials, sources of cheap labor, naval bases, and investment opportunities. At some point, these can be gained only at the expense of other capitalist states. Economic conflict eventually leads to military conflict”

Criticism of the Marxist view One group of arguments focuses on the Marxist assumptions for why capitalist states must engage in imperialism, pointing out, for example, that not all capitalist states were experiencing economic problems at home when they engaged in imperialism and that they often did not secure the benefits of imperialism. Another group of criticisms focuses on the historical record, pointing out that not all capitalist states have engaged in imperialism, that not all conflicts between capitalist states ended in war, that war has been around longer than capitalist economic systems, that wars between capitalist states were not necessarily fought for economic reasons, and that states with socialist or centrally planned economies have often been engaged in conflict, even with each other

But…does not rule out possibility that economic conditions/force provide explanation for war Conquering others’ resources in order to address economic problems may be a major motivation for some states to initiate wars. Evidence that good economic conditions may be related to war because that is when states can afford military adventures.

War may benefit certain economic interest groups in a society Weapons manufacturers make increased profits from war Concept of military industrial complex focuses on the relationship among the military, the bureaucracy, and the defense industry as a coalition of economic and political interests that benefit from international conflict

Types of Political Systems In addition to the systemic-level characteristic of interdependence, liberal explanations of international conflict include the type of political system that states have. Specifically, liberalism expects states with democratic systems to be less war prone than nondemocratic states because of the constraints that are built in to democratic structures and the cultural values of peaceful resolution of conflicts that are related to democratic processes

Internal Opposition Supposedly, democracies are constrained from choosing war because of an opposition that views war as counter to cultural norms Leaders of democratic states are accountable through the ballot box

Democratic Dyads Democratic states are just as likely as non-democratic states to go to war Evidence suggests that democratic states are much less likely to become involved in war against each other Known as the democratic peace proposition – democratic states will not go to war against each other Democratic dyads are conflict free

A disclaimer… The validity of this proposition is heavily dependent on the definitions of democracy and war used It is easy to discredit the idea by adopting very broad definitions Equally easy to make the proposition invulnerable to contrary evidence, (and empirically meaningless) by adopting a definition of democracy that is so strict as to eliminate virtually every state that has ever existed

But… “if democracy is defined as a type of political system in which the identities of the leaders of the executive branch and the members of the national legislature are selected in elections involving at least two independent political parties, in which at least half the adult population is eligible to vote, and in which the possibility that the governing party will lose has been established by historical precedent, then . . . none of those [controversial] cases is appropriately categorized as an international war between democratic states”