lec4 - trends in interstate war Flashcards
intro
term of war is hard to define, little agreement
what is the criteria for something be a war?
- was WW2 a war? it were multiple wars happening in the same time period, there are disputes about when it started, diff actors entered in diff times
- was the US invasion of Grenada in 1983 a war? it was small and pretty insignificant -> people often don’t think about it as a war (often talked about military intervetnion, but legally was more of a war)
- was the fighting between India and Pakistan around Kargil in 1999 a war?
- was the NATO air campaign against Libya in 2011 a war?
-> we need to properly define it
what other words do we use?
findings from the scientific community
background: scientific study of war
C20 development to really look into it
Quincy Wright: develops basic theory of war, arguing that the key factors for understanding it are technology, law, social organization, and opinions and attitudes concerning basic values
Lewis Fry Richardson: develops mathematical model of arms races as a cause of war
for contemporary polsci most important:
J. David Singer: Founded Correlates of War Project (COW 1963) – recognized advancing the scientific study of international conflict required data collection
- Key database on war after 1815
- Includes factors such as national capability, alliances, and geography
- Provides key typology of war used by other scholars
- this project is where most of our knowledge about wars comes from
what are quantitative research centers doing?
- provide evidence base: crises, wars, insurrections, negotiation, mediation, peace settlements
*militarized interstate disputes - the participants, start and end dates, fatality, hostility levels - identify and explain aspects of the origins, dynamics and resolution of conflict
- CREATE EARLY WARNING: alert policymakers if you see warning indicators something is getting serious, convince them there is a problem
definition of war
“organized violence carried on by political units against each other”
- Hedley Bull
= very general definition
- useful in that it eliminates concepts such as ‘war on drugs’, ‘war on poverty’
- does not help identify specific wars in history
COW project classifications of wars (for polsci purposes)
typology evolved over the years
traditional typology:
- international wars:
- inter-state wars
- extra-systemic wars
- imperial wars
- colonial war - civil wars
expanded typology:
- inter-state wars
- extra-state wars
- state vs independent non-state actors
- state vs dependent non-state actor - intra-state wars
- civil wars (for central control or for local issues)
- inter-communal wars
(subcategories were just mentioned as subcategories, nothing said about any of these)
trends; inter-state wars are the most deathly
*1869 US civil war
the problem of coding: historians sometimes don’t agree with coding/labels of political scientists
- e.g. Vietnam war coded in 3 diff periods and diff types of war (1946-1954 extra-state, 1960-1965 intra-state war, 1965-1975 inter-state war)
- diff coders/databases use diff starting and end dates for wars
-> always be a bit skeptical about databases on war (but don’t be cynical)
wanted: a useable definition
useful definition = one that points to specific, measurable criteria
do you need:
formal declaration of war?
- would rule out Korean war (officially labelled as a police action)
- would rule out Vietnam War and other post-WW2 US wars (no official declarations)
- Ukraine as ‘special military operation’
amount of time?
- but how much?
- 1967 Six Day War too short?
nr of deaths?
- clash of armies as opposed to skirmish or minor dispute
- US attack on Grenada invalidated due to not enough casualties
COW definition interstate war
at least 1000 battle deaths
interstate war = fighting between the regular military forces of two or mroe countries, directed and approved of by central authorities, whre at least 1000 battle deaths oc
casualty criterion distinguishes it from other types of conflict
!some controversy over 1000 deaths, recent preferene to reduce it to 500 deaths
- Falklands and Kargil deaths both hover around 1000, possible slightly more or less
below this level militarized interstate disputes
intra-state war
- occur between state and nonstate actors within the territory of a state
- Includes civil wars: effort to overthrow central government to take over nation or some territory controlled by it
Regional internal war – local/regional government fight against rebel group
Intercommunal war: conflict below government level – e.g. Christians and Muslims fighting each other in Lebanon in the 1970s
extra-state war
occurs when a state fights outside of its borders against a non-state actor
e.g. British vs Boers, Soviets vs Afghan Mujahadeen, NATO vs Taliban
militarized interstate dispute
includes threat to use force, the display of force, the actual use of military force
- explicit threats to fire upon another states armed forces, threats to blockade another state’s territory, or threats to occupy another state’s territory
- displays of force including putting one’s armed force on alert, mobilizing one’s armed forces, or public demonstrations of one’s forces such as sailing warships off the coast of another state
- uses of forces include firing weapons upon another state, initiating a blockade, or occupying territory
key criteria: actions must be explicit, overt, nonincidental, and government sanctioned
everything that does not meet the threshold for war
= it is below the level of war
Labels associated with the 2024 Donbas Conflict 2014-20
was it actually a war?
people didn’t say it was an interstate war: everyone knows it is the Russian army, but for official purposes it was easier to label it as someone else
civil war?
interstate war?
hybrid war?
additional categories (important for exam)
many terms related to war, or that we use in stead of it
War (Oppenheim) =
- a contention between two or more States through their armed forces, for the purpose of overpowering each other and imposing such conditions of peace as the victor pleases
war (formal, legal definition) = declared war / state of war
- Formal state of war: state has either declared war on another state, or intention of one or more states means that a state of war has been asserted as a matter of international law
- But al Qaeda declaration of war does not count as a War in the technical sense
war (informal)
- designating something as war, civil war, stop the war, war on drugs etc.
armed conflict =
- a de facto state of hostilities dependent on neither a declaration nor recognition of the existence of “war” by its parties
Aggression (sounds worse than foreign military intervention)
- use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations
military intervetnion (e.g. mentioned in Libya rather than aggression)
- the movement of troops or military forces by one state, or a group of states in concert, across the border of another state (or colony of an independent country), or actions by troops already stationed in the target country
e.g. armed conflict we use when we don’t want to call it war, it is easier, allcompassing (e.g. Gaza now armed conflict, bc then we don’t have to think if Hamas is/has a state)
aggression definition UN
we’re against aggression, but what is it?
a. invasion or attack by armed forces of a state of the territory of another state
= quite obvious
f. action of a state in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another state, to be used by that other state for perpatrating an act of aggression against a third state (e.g. Belarus supporting RUssia against Ukraine)
g. sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another state (e.g. US said Taliban harbored terrorists, terrorists attacked US -> Taliban acted aggresive)
NATO art. 5
when can art 5 be invoked?
we’ll define it when we see it
“In cases of hybrid warfare, the Council could decide to invoke Article 5.”
“We reaffirm that a decision as to when a cyber attack would lead to the invocation of Article 5 would be taken by the North Atlantic Council on a case-by-case basis.”
“We consider that attacks to, from, or within space present a clear challenge to the security of the Alliance … and could be as harmful to modern societies as a conventional attack. Such attacks could lead to the invocation of Article 5. A decision as to when such attacks would lead to the invocation of Article 5 would be taken by the North Atlantic Council on a case-by-case basis.”
what do we mean by WW1?
term introduced when WW2 happened, initially it was called the great war, the world war, the European war
it covers a lot of wars within the war
- Cuba declared war on Germany
- many diff countries enter the war at diff times
- lots of wars within the big war, within the period of time, we label it as a single war
(problematic for the COW database: how should they classify it? one war or multiple? what effect will it have on our analysis)
Pinker thesis
(book: the better angels of our nature)
Pinker = part of decline of war school (social phenomenon in human history)
Over the course of human history there has been a steady move away from reliance on violence to settle disputes, as well as less reliance on the most savage and egregious forms of violence
= based on the idea that somehow humanity is becoming more civilized
- idea comes from Norbert Elias: the civilizing process (1939)
decline of war thesis
key argument: since 1945 relatively few large interstate wars, few wars among major/great powers, especially compared to pre-1945
= also referred to as the period of the ‘Long Peace’
- doesn’t seem really peaceful though: wars in the middle east, Ukraine
- but we haven’t seen the big wars
question: is the long peace an anomaly or have we turned a corner and we won’t see such major wars?
what can we infer about general wars in the modern great power system?
general wars: involving lots of great powers
- War of Dutch Independence / Spanish Armada (3/5 powers involved)
- thirty years war (6/7)
- Dutch War of Louis XIV (6/7)
- war of the league of augsburg (5/7)
- war of the spanish succession (5/6)
- war of Jenkins’ Ear/Austrian successoin (6/6)
- seven years’ war (6/6)
- french revolutionary and napoleonic wars (6/6)
- ww1 (8/8)
- ww2 (7/7)
*nrs are highly contested
trends? didn’t say
theories of General War (are they inevitable)
- for revising for the exam
often talk about cycles, see war as inevitable, agency is not really relevant, it is not about specific situations it is about structures
Wright: wars with a great power on each side which lasted as long as two years
Farrar: high level of violence and seriously threatens or alters the system fundamentally usually as a result of one power’s attempt to dominate the system
Toynbee: a bid for world domination by the leading power evokes an opposing coalition of all the other powers
Long Cycle: world power emerges from a global war with control over world trade – costs of running world too high – new rivals gradually overtake it – cycle begins again
World-Economy: World war leads to maritime hegemon (ability of one power to impose rules on key sectors in the world market – agriculture, industry, commerce, finance) – then leads to confrontation with land power – results in another world war, restructuring of system and rise of new power with help of declining power
Gilpin: Hegemonic wars are unlimited in means as well as ends and expand to encompass the entire international system = gernal war determines the internatinoal system after
Doran: Relative power of states follows regular cycle of ascendance, maturation, and decline – largely a function of internal economic cycles
Power Transition Theory: Likelihood of a major war is greatest when the military capabilities of a dissatisfied challenger begin to approach those of a dominant power
democratic peace theory
democracies aren’t fighting each other -> idea that if you want to reduce war, you need to promote democracy (e.g. neocons)
= central political idea that shapes actions, comes from polsci looking at data
“Ultimately the best strategy to ensure our security and to build a durable peace is to support the advance of democracy elsewhere. Democracies don’t attack each other’’
Bill Clinton, 1994
“the reason why I’m so strong on democracy is democracies don’t go to war with each other. And the reason why is the people of most societies don’t like war, and they don’t understand what war means … I’ve got great faith in democracies to promote peace”
George W. Bush, 2004
are the claims true?
- pairs of democracy are less likely to fight each other than other pairs of states
- distinguish fighting and war: there are fighting but doesn’t rise to the level of war
- not necessarily case that democracies are more peaceful: they do fight against non-democracies
- depends on ability to measure/define a democracy
- focus on interstate wars vs militarized interstate disputes
democratic peace refers to extreme disinclination of two STABLE (but are they stable?) democracies go to war with one another
emphasis on stable democracies (anocracies include elements of democracy and autocracy)
need to account for process of democratization (transition to a stable democracy)
Also need to account for breakdown in democracy (e.g. how to account for Russia – trappings of democracy but really an autocracy? Yeltsin vs Putin)
definition democracy
- most citizens can vote
- gov come to power in a free and fair election contested by two or more parties
- executive is either popularly elected (presidential) or is held responsible to an elected legislature (parliamentary) or both
democracy vs autocracy
+ in the middle anocracy (has a bit of both regime types)
explanations democratic peace theory
= one of the greatest challenges polsci
NORMATIVE EXPLANATIONS
- democracies try to externalize peaceful norms associated with democratic politics
- non-democracies likely to externalize their norms of violence and coercion
- but how to explain democracies attacking non-democracies?
- how to explain non-democracies using means of conflict resolution?
INSTITUTIONAL
- checks and balances + more responsive to popular support
- wars are expensive and therefore generally unpopular
- incentive for democratic leaders to resolve conflicts without violence
- wars against autocratic govs easier to justify (we are going to improve their politics)
- audience costs: democratic leaders who make threats are more credible because harder for them to back down
KANTIAN TRIANGLE: we can’t explain democratic peace just by saying it is a democracy: democracy + international organization membership + economic interdependence
the capitalist peace
- capitalism is the force driving peace between democracies rather than democracy itself
- unwillingness of welathy states to go to war with one another
- democratic peace also driven by the prospect of wealthy states becoming demcoratic states
explanations for decline of (general) war
Democracy
Economic interdependence
Wealth
Demographic and social change
International organizations
Territorial integrity
Nuclear weapons
Technology
US hegemony
explanations for decline of (general) war
democracy
Democratic norms reduce prospect of conflict among other democratic states
Democratic accountability and transparency
Inability to justify repressive measures that would be needed to extract gains from conquered populations reduces appetite for conquest
economic interdependence
= idea that war is too expensive in a globalized economic system
(war no longer pays)
Disruptions in trade increase the costs of pursuing interstate conflicts
Ability to trade allows states to access resources without directly controlling them – and is generally cheaper than conquest/occupation
Trade strengthens domestic lobbies with interest in preserving peace with trading partners
Trade disputes typically settled through arbitration rather than force
More trade = likelihood of more trade disputes = less salience per trade dispute
wealth
Acquisition of land decreases in relative value as economies develop, reducing the incentive for states to pursue conquest
Increased dependence on international capital markets increases the costs of pursuing disruptive interstate conflicts
Rule of law-based economies promote openness and transparency, reducing internal and external conflict
demographic and social changes
Youth bulges increase the likelihood that states will be involved in interstate conflict
Older populations force states to increase funding for healthcare reducing the funding available for military aim
Greater social/economic empowerment of women reduces conflicts between states?
international organizations
Spread norms of peaceful international behavior among members
*not likely good explanation if you look at the nr of conflicts since UN
Raises diplomatic/image costs
Peacekeeping missions
Provide useful for the resolution of disputes (WTO/ICJ)
Territorial integrity norm
Increases costs of initiating new territorial disputes by threatening international sanctions
Discourages recognition of annexationist claims
Discourages secessionist movements
countries less likely to recognize that you took over territory
nuclear weapons
Prospect of nuclear retaliation reduces prospects of existential threats
Forces states to be more cautious
If war erupts, keeps wars limited/rely on proxies
technology
Similar to economic interdependence greater access to information and international contacts
Increases transparency and makes surprise attacks more difficult -> eco sanctions etc.
US hegemony (Long Peace)
= controversial explanation
Particularly the case with US treaty allies but also with key partners (e.g. Israel/Egypt)
US uses influence to discourage conflicts among its allies, reduce incentives for arms races/nuclear proliferation
the decline of war - 24 February 2022 (… not to mention various other developments)?
Ukraine war forces scholars to revisit ideas that the world is becoming more peaceful
Azar Gat thesis: distinction between ‘zone of war’ and ‘zone of peace’
if you fall below certain level of income you are more likely to enter into war
helps see why you have war in certain countries and not in others
- ‘Zone of peace’ characterized by absence of interstate wars, civil wars and the security dilemma (e.g. US-Canada, Netherlands-Germany, South Korea-Japan)
- ‘Zone of peace’ consists of roughly 40 countries whose GDP per capita is higher than $20k
- ‘Zone of war’ includes developing/undeveloped countries whose GDP per capita is much lower
- ‘Zone of war’: inter and intra state war looms as a constant threat
1912 Conference of Peace Scholars
- excellent reasons in 1912 to suppose war was declining
- strong belief that war was too expensive + economic interdependence
what happens in 1914?
have we become more or less lethal?
- Peloponnesian War: Athens loses between 1/4 and 1/3 its population (more than Germany in two world wars combined)
- Second Punic War: Rome loses 50,000 military age males out of a total of 200,000
- Thirty Years War: population loss in Germany between 1/5 and 1/3 (also higher than in two world wars combined)
Need to account for more precise weapons, more physical protection, better medicine, changing norms, etc.
- there is just more people to kill now -> despite great technology we aren’t killing as many (relatively)
- medicine: battle wounds more likely to heal
- Russian army today: haven’t experienced anything like this in terms of casualties since WW2
- wars in the middle east and south asia nrs of casualties actually kind of small (exception Iraq-Iran)
are wars more expensive?
is that one reason it is said we fight less war?
wars remain enormously expensive
but remember the Phoenix Factor:
- states as Germany after WW1 that bear brunt of costs/reparations able to bounce back
- Vietnam enormously costly to US econ and eco concerns lead to pressures to end war but did not fundementally undermine US econ or US ability to project power
- Iraq/Afghan wars also enormously costly but US econ still seems quite strong?
