UNIT 4 THEORIES OF WAR

Structure
4.1 Introduction
4.2 What is War?
4.3 Theories of Causes of War
4.3.1 System-level Analysts
4.3.2 State-level Analysis
4.3.3 ~ndiv'idual-levelAnalysis
4.4 Idealist View of War
4.5 Realist View of War
4.6 Marxist Approach to War
4.7 The Just War
4.8 Changing Nature of War
4.9 Summary
4.10 Exercises

4.1 INTRODUCTION
War, like diplomacy, propaganda, etc., is an instrument of national policy. It has been used
by states to achieve their national goals and aspirations and fulfil their national interests.
Questions of war and peace are central to the understanding of international relations; these
are questions that involve the problem of survival.

Today the term 'war' is used in many different ways. We speak of cold war, hot war,
limited war, total war, conventional and unconventional war, civil war, guerrilla war, preventive
war, and so on. Wars have also been labelled as imperialist wars or wars of national
liberation depending on the perceptions of the users. A variety of statistical studies will tell
you about the repeated recurrence of war in the world over the past several centuries. In
the twentieth century, despite the horrors of the two world wars and the nuclear holocaust,
the incidence of war has not diminished. Although there has been peace between the great 4
powers in the last half of the 20thcentury. the number of regional or civil armed conflicts
has continued to grow, reaching a peak of 68 in the year 2000. A majority of these were
d
low-intensity and intrastate, and mostly confined to the developing part of the world. In
1968, historians Will and Ariel Durant calculated that there had been only 268 years free 1

of war in the previous 3,421 years. It is most likely, that they undercounted the wars.
Certainly there has been no year without war since.

This unit examines two aspects of war: what is war and what are the causes of war by
examining the different theories or conceptions of war. The next two units of this course
will look at the various types of wars and understand why they are classified in the way
that they are.
4.2 WHAT IS WAR?
Today the spectrum of war has expanded from the traditional military dimension to areas
like political and economic warfare, psychological warfare, etc. But the traditional definitions
of war still use the narrow point of reference. Hoffman Niclerson in the Encyclopaedia
Britannica states that 'war is the use of organised force between two human groups
pursuing contradictory policies, each group seeking to impose its policies upon the other'.
Yet another scholar, Malinowski defines war as an 'armed conflict between two independent
political units, by means of organised military force, in pursuit of a tribal or national policy'.

A mention must be made of Karl von Clausewitz's argument that war 'is only a part of
political intercourse, therefore by no means an independent thing in itself.. .war is nothing
but a continuation of political intercourse with an admixture of other means'. This definition
helps in understanding the broader setting in which war is located.

Quincy Wright accepts that war is waged on the diplomatic, economic, and propaganda
fronts as well as on the military front and that the art of war coordinates all these elements
to the purpose of victory. Yet he argues that in the narrower sense the art js confined to
the military aspect. This embraces the organisation, discipline, and the maintenance of
morale of the armed forces; the invention, development and procurement of weapons; the
provision of transport and movement of forces; strategy of campaigns and tactics of battles
etc. The larger problems of military policy, such as, determination of national policy, national
public opinion, economy; diplomacy, etc., lie in the realm of international politics.

4.3 THEORIES OF CAUSES OF WAR

There has been a lot of study devoted to analysing the causes of war, but no consensus
has emerged on the matter. Some of the confusion lies in the inability to distinguish between
immediate and long-term causes or underlying causes. In some cases the analysis is cast
in ideological terms and then only a single cause is focussed upon. Some causes are
immediate and some are basic; some refer to specific events and acts committed by
countries while others may look at various forces and underlying trends. Each of this cause
needs to be explored and there can be no one final answer to the question what is the
cause of war.

Generally the causes of war are classified under political, economic, social and psychological
causes. Quincy Wright points out that causes of war can be looked at from different angles.
War has politico-technological,juro-ideological, socio-religious and psycho-economic causes.
For Marxists, the roots of war are located in capitalism and imperialism. They also distinguish
between certain kinds of wars like imperialist wars, revolutionary wars, and wars of
national liberation. Others look for psychological causes and stress on the feeling of insecurity
that nations feel. The causes of war are related to war as an instrument of national policy
since wars are fought for the safeguard of national objectives, goals and aspirations. This
may relate to territory, to identity, or to the very survival of the nation-state.

It is convenient to discuss the theoretical approaches that seek to understand the causes
of war at the following levels of analysis: 1) System-level causes, 2) State-level causes, and
3) Individual-level causes.
4.3.1 System-level Analysis
System level analysis adopts a 'top down' approach to the study of world politics. The
central argument of this approach is that state and non-state actors operate in a global
social, cultural, economic, political, geographic, environment and that the features of the
system determine the behaviour of the actors. Four factors determine how a system functions:
structural characteristics of a system; power relationships of the members within the system;
economic realities that impinge upon the system and the norms and conventions that are
likely to 'govern' the behaviour of the actors.

The structural factors of a system refer to the organisation of authority witbin the system,
the actors and the level of interaction. The ~nternationalsystem does not have a vertical
system of authority. It may best be described as 'anarchic'; where anarchy implies a lack
of a centralised international authority and the existence of sovereign nation-states pursuing
their individual national interests. Traditionally, students of international relations have looked
at nation states as the central actors on the global scene. Today one has to recognise the
existence of non-state actors as having an important role to play in international relations.
Some NGOs such as the Amnesty International. or Green Peace have played an important
role in international relations. So have some multinational corporations (MNCs). Today
terrorist organisations would also be classified as non-state actors. Other prominent non-
state actors may include such inter-governmental and regional bodies like the WTO or
region4 economicltrade blocs hke the AFEc, European Union, etc. The level of interaction
between both, the state and non-state actors has increased over the years. The intensity
of this interaction is seen mainly in nonmilitary areas like human rights, economic relations
and social sectors.

The power relationship within the system refers to the distribution of power. We have
moved from the age of European domination in the pre world war era to US-Soviet
bipolarity of the cold war years. Today one talks of the age of American dominance in the
post Soviet era. These changing power relationships and the resultant changes in the
balance of power in the world have been a continuing reality of international relations.

The economic reality refers to the natural resources that a country has and the level of its
economic and industrial development. The North South divide in the world is based on
economic realities of a developed world in the North and a developing (or less developed)
world in the South. While it.is true that we live in an economically interdependent world,
the realities of the dominant developed world cannot be wished away. Conflicts are not
only over scarce resources, they are also over control of the available resources in the
world. The history of colonialism has been understood in terms of economic realities of
control; in modem times, oil, for example, has emerged as one of the key economic
instruments.

How importaiit are norms and conventions in zoverning the world order? This is a topic
that has been debated by many. The general presumption is that nations would not seek
to disturb the order in international relations unless there are some really compelling reasons.
The debates over the Iraq war (2003) focused on whether the US and Britain violated
international norms as represented in the United Nations when they went into war against
Iraq.

At the system level analysis therefore the following issues are focused on as causes of war:

i) The distribution of power: Relative power postures and power vacuums, the balance of
power politics alliance politics, etc are mentioned as possible causes of war.

ii) The anarchical nature of the system is also considered a cause of war. The insecurity that is
,race that
caused amongst nations due to a lack of a centralised authority may lead to an arm-
eventually may spill into a war. One may explain the need for pursuing nuclear weapons
policy by the developing world as a means to overcome this sense of insecurity.

i At the economic level, oil and natural gas, strategic minerals are looked as possible sources
of conflict in the modem world. The Iraq-Iran war, American action in Iraq is sometimes
looked at within the framework ofpolitics of oil.

iv) Samuel Huntington's thesis of Clash of Civilizations is yet another systemic perspective of
wars. The central argument made refers to the key causes of future wars to be ethno-
religious and therefore civilizationaland not state centric.

4.3.2 State-level Analysis

State-level analysis focuses on the nation-state and the internal process of the state as the
key determinant of world politics. This is a state-centric approach to international relations.
While the earlier system-level analysis believed that the state behaviour is a product of the
compulsions of the system, this approach believes that states have a far greater independence
in their decision-making.

There would be both structural and non-structural determinants to making of policy. The
structural would refer to the nature of government while the latter to the history and
political culture of the state. Authoritarian governments and democratic governments would
differ in the way policy is formulated. Similarly, policies in times of crisis and in times of
peace would also be different.

At the state-level analysis causes of war are located in the following situations:

i) Supremacy of national interest has been considered as a central driving force at this level.
National interest would operate at two levels: One is a war to ensure the survival of the
nation-state if attacked by the enemy. A second level is that of an expansionist national
interest where extending of fi-ontiersis considered a security related national interest. Israel
has seen both the situations. The 1948 war may be described as a war for survival while the
latter wars of 1967 and 1973 saw the expansion of territory for security reasons.

A linkage is sought to be established between domestic politics and foreign policy. It

is sometimes argued that nations go in for war to divert domestic attention elsewhere.

iii) There is yet another analysis that focuses on the linkage between the type of country
 and the likelihood of becoming aggressive. It has been argued that democratic societies
are less likely to opt for war than authoritarian ones,

4.3.3 Individual~levelAnalysis
The motto of UNESCO is 'Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men
that the defences of peace must be constructed'. lndividual level analysis focuses on human
nature and therefore the psychological factors that contribute to decision-malung. It also
focuses on the biological factors to understand the aggressive tendency of man. Whether
human beings are naturally aggressive is a question that is asked quite often. Biopolitics
examines the relationship between physical nature and political behaviour. Mention must be
made of the Feminist approaches to international relations that argue that the aggressive
human behaviour is essentially a male trait.

Yet another dimension of the individual level analysis is related to group behaviour. Why
do mobs turn violent? It is argued that individuals as individuals may not show aggressive
behaviour. But when they are part of a riotous mob they are likely to commit atrocities that
they in their individual capacities would have never committed.

Perhaps the most significant contribution to this level of analysis is done with reference to
leadership behaviour. A study of a John F. Kennedy during the Cuban Missile crisis, of La1
Bahadur Shastri during the 1965 Indo-Pak war, or Indira Gandhi in the context of
Bangladesh war are part of an attempt to understand leadership behaviour. Similarly, peace
initiatives such as that of Anwar Sadat towards Israel, the opening up of a dialogue with
China by President Richard Nixon, or the shuttle diplomacy of Henry Kissinger are all
examples of leadership behaviour.

Causes of war at the individual level analysis are located in the following:

i) Arational decision taken by the leader, a conscious decision to go for a war for the protection
of national interest is cited as one of the important reasons. The argument here is that even if
the situation is ripe for a war in the final analysis the decision is made by an individual leader.
As President Kennedy would have argued, 'the buck stops here'.

ii) The opposite of this is a theory that would question the rationality argument. A decision to go
for a war may be an entirely irrational decision of the leadership.

iii) Some biologists seek roots of war in human aggressive tendencies. Much of theonsing in this
realm is based on animal experimentation.There has been a lot of literature in this area since
the t i e of Darwin's writing on the subject.

iv) Psychologistslook to frustration, misperception and attitude change to understand stimuli

that leads to aggressive behaviour. Freud, for example, stresses his belief in human instinct
for violence or destruction,an instinct balanced by one for love or life.

4.4 IDEALIST VIEW OF WAR

Political idealism cane to dominate international relations during the interwar years. Political
 idealists believed in the inherent goodness of hulrlan beings and argued that human beings
generally sought welfare of others as well as themselves. The idealists believed that bad
structural and institutional arrangements 011 a world wide basis created bad human behaviour.
War, according to them was not inevitable, but was a product of the bad structural
arrangements.

The idealists therefore argued that war could be prevented through the creation of proper
international structures. These structures were cooperative international institutions; the
League of Nations had been one of the most important of them to be established after the
First World War. The principle of collective security was the operative methodology through
which it would be possible to avoid wars. The principle of collective security required joint
action and a commitment on part of all the participating states. Some idealist thinkers
argued in favour of the rule of international law as a means of avoiding wars. In this
scheme, nations would renounce war as an instrument of national policy. Still other idealist
thinkers looked at arms race as the source of conflicts. Consequently they favoured a
systematic dismantling of the arms race and supported the policy of disarmament.

4.5 REALIST VIEW OF WAR

The failure of the League of Nations and the slow but inevitable march towards yet another
world war brought about a critique of the idealist approach. While the Idealist approach
had focussed on the role of international law, intemational organisation, interdependence
and cooperation as the key features of international relations, the Realists focussed on
power politics, security dilemmas of the nations, aggression, conflict and war.

Hans Morgentllau's six principles of realism present the most clear articulation of the realist
position. These well-known principles, briefly are:

politics is rooted in a permanent and unchanging human nature which is basically self-centred,
self-regarding and self-interested.

The essence of politics is the struggle for power. Similarly,international politics is characterised
by the struggle for national power between states.

While the forms arid nature of state power are not tixed but vary in time, place and context,
the concept of interest remains consistent.
I

'l
'While individuals are influenced by moral and ethical implications,states are not moral agents,
since their action has to be judged by the criterion of national survival.

Though states will endeavour to cover their behaviour in ethical terms, it is designed to
confer advantage and legitimacy and to further the national interests of the state.

standards of thought and criteria for analysis of state behaviour.

,
Morgenthau argues that the concept of national interest presupposes neither a naturally
harmonious world nor the inevitability of war. If all nations pursued their national interest,
the system would be relatively stable with the 'balance of power' mechanism keeping
potential problems in check. The realists advocate the maintenance of capable military
force and emphasise on nationalism. Realism asserts the primacy of the nation-state and
argues that national security was the most important international issue.

The difference between realism and neo-realism was that neo-realism argues that states are
power seeking and security conscious but not because of human nature in itself but because
the structure of international system compels them to be so. Thus, while state leaders and
their subjective valuations of international relations are at the centre of attention in realist
theory, the neo-realism focuses on the structure of the system, in particular the.relative
distribution of power. Actors are less important because structures &mpel them to act in
certain ways.

4.6 MARXIST APPROACH TO WAR

Marxist framework for study does not consider states as autonomous units. Ruling class
interests drive the state and capitalist states are primarily driven by interests of their
bourgeoisies. This implies that conflict between states must be seen in the economic context
of competition between capitalist classes of different states. Marxists consider class conflict
more fundamental than conflict between states, per se as the real cause of war.

The Marxist analysis argues that politics is determined by vital interests of different classes
evolved by the kio-economic system oflhe expl& state. It is this system that gives rise
to wars. The First and Second World wars were a fesult of social antagonisms inherent
in capitalism and contradictions between the bourgeois states that led to the division of the
capitalist world into hostile coalitions. After the world wars the main contradiction was
between the two opposing social systems: capitalism and socialism. These were basically
class contradictions. Thus, from the Maxis! perspective, class contradictions leave a mark
on all international events.

The expansionist nature of capitalism is another feature that the Marxist focus on. Such
expansion had taken the form of imperialism and colonialism during the earlier century.
Today, in the postcolonial age it has taken fiom of economic globalisation led by transnational
corporations.

4.7 THE JUST WAR

When is a war justified? Under what circumstances do legal, ethical and moral principles
justify aggression? Michael Walzer presents the theory of aggression in the form of six
propositions:

a) There exists an internationalsociety of independentstates. These states are sovereignentities.

These states and not private citizens are members of this international society of nations.

b) This international society has a law that estabishesthe rights of its members -above all rights
of territorial integrity and political sovereignty.

c) Any use of force or imminent threat of force by one state against the political sovereignty or
 territorialintegrity of another constitutesaggression and is a criminal act. The focus here is on
boundary crpssings: invasions and physibal assaults (in modem times this would also include
low-intensity conflict situations, like insurrectionsand dissent movements turning jnto localised
conflicts). i

d) Aggression justifies two kinds of violent response: a war of self-defence by the victim and a
war of law enforcementby the victim and any other member of the international society.The
presumption here is that the retaliation against the aggressor may or may not come from the
aggrieved party; it may come from any other state that feels compelled to return to the
stability of the internationalsociety.

e) Nothing but aggression can justify a war. The central purpose of the theory is to limit the
occasion for a war. There must have been a wrong committed and a wrong receivedby the
recipient to justify use of force. .
i
f) Once the aggressor state has been militarily repulsed, it can also be punished. The conception
of just war asan act of punishment is old, but the proceduresand forms of punishment have
never been established in customary or positive international law. The purpssesof such a
punishment has also not been speltout - whether it is for retribution,deterrence against any
other state or reform of the original aggressor.

4.8 CHANGING NATURE OF WAR ' '

Two factors have contributed to changes in the approaches to understanding of war: role
of nationalism and the revolutions in technology. The former addresses the theoretical
concerns about war while the latter addresses -the tools used for war. The changes in
technology, have had an immediate impact on the strategy and tactics of war and as such
are not a matter of discussion in this chapter.
/
The right to self-determination based oiethnic nationalism had bekn the source of continuous
conflict across Europe inlhe 191hcentury. The inter-war years saw the concept of self-
'determination being used with the exdicit recognition given to it by Woodrow Wilson's 14
Points. This concept has secured a renewed legitimacy in the post-Soviet world with new
states emerging on this very-theoretical construct. The process of disintegration of the
Soviet state and the granting of legitimacy to the new states was done on the basis of the
principle of ethnic nationalism and right to self-detedation. This construct was alsb used
both for legitimising the disintegr&ion of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia and the integratih
of Germany. A variety of secessionist movements across the world use this as a theoretical
foundation for describing their struggle as national Iiberation.

The concept of nationalism cuts across the system, state and individual level analysis of
war. It has been a force to reckon with and is likely to dominate the approaches' to
understanding war in the years to come.

At another level, a war to overthrow an unjust social and economic order is also justified.
In this case aggr&sion is not limited to a direct military attack but with internal matters also.
This right is legitimate only if it seeks to remedy injustice. Injustice is defined mostly in
terms of violation of human rights. Just Cause theories are based on the need to remedy
injustice. They have a strong connection with right to resist tyranny. There is a strong
internal connection between right to resist tyranny and self-determination. The right to self-
determination is provided for in the framework of human rights. The basis for the exercise
of this right is as follows: (a) A group is victimised, systemic discrimination or exploitation
takes place, (b) Temtory is illegally occupied, (c) There exists a valid claim to the territory,
(d) Culture of the community is threatened, (e) Constitutional remedies do not exist.

Some of the approaches mentioned above may be useful in explaining the underlying
causes of conflict; other may explain the crisis behaviour. These theoretical approaches
provide some understanding of the nature of war.

4.9 SUMMARY
War is conflict between relatively large groups of people, which involves physical force
inflicted by the use of weapons. Starting out with the basic premise that war is an instrument
of national policy, we observed that while war is waged on the diplomatic, economic,
propaganda fronts, the traditional military aspect of war has continued to dominate the
discourse in peace and conflict studies. In this unit, we have examined the causes of war
at system, state and indivjdual levels of analysis. At the systems level, the focus of analysis
is on the global social, cultural, economic, political, geographic, environment within which
the state and non-state actors operate. State-level analysis, on the other hand, focuses on
the nation-state and the internal process of the state. The individual level analysis focuses
on human nature and therefore the psychological and biological factors that contribute to
decision-making. Cutting across these different levels of analysis is nqtionalism, which
remains a powerful force to reckon with. Ethnic nationalism and right of self-determination
that became prominent in the early 20thcentury remain powerful forces and have secured
renewed legitimacy in the post Cold war period, both because of the collapse of the Soviet
Union as well as because of economic integration of the globe. The idealist, realist and
Marxist approaches to war examined in this unit are useful in explaining the underlying .
causes of war or explaining the crisis behaviour of states.

4.1 0 EXERCISES
1) Definewar.

2) What are the system level theories about the causes of war?
3) What are the state level theories about the causes of war?

4) What are the individual level theories about the causes of war?
5 ) How do Idealists view war?
6) How do realists view war?
7) What is the Marxist approach to war?
8) Describe the importance of nationalism.