The other assumption is that politics are driven by aspects of human behavior – numerous motivations such as the drive for power, will to dominate, self-interest and ambition (Lisinski). One of the much-disputed problems of international relations is explaining the occurrence of war. Defining war is easy – it is a military conflict between two or more parties. However, difficulties come about when we question why wars break out. A realist would posit that war is linked with human behavior, so wars are naturally occurring phenomena, and also that the system of anarchy resulting from the absence of a higher power leads to a state of war (Lisinkski).
This keeps bargaining tight and encourages a fairer deal. 3. Bandwagoning is the strategy of a state joining a superior (usually offensive) side that is in a conflict to collect the “easy money” at an expected victory. Bandwagoning is an important concept because it undermines the notion of balance of power; alliances are not always formed to equalize powers on two sides. Bandwagoning is closely related with “free ride”, a term for when a state will assume the other will incur most of the cost in achieving a common goal.
This is important when analyzing his theory on misperception because it begs the question, how crucial is misperception in the way in which war occurs? Similar to Gilpin, Jervis perceives the world to be anarchic, so for example, in an effort to further establish state defense, another state might perceive this as offensive and take an aggressive stance. However, while it is important to acknowledge the factor that misperception plays in the realm of international relations, in most cases if one were to isolate the misperceptions of one’s intentions, rarely will it instigate war. It can be argued that that cause of war isn’t misperception, but rather
Although this idea may seem trivial and straightforward, it’s a main ideal of classical realism that has significant weaknesses in the current international system. The main priority in the current growing of interdependence of states is to maintain a peaceful international system. If states are motivated strictly by self-interest and pursue agreements solely based on selfish reasons, it could lead to a global catastrophe. A major point that classical realist claim is that history is cyclical. Their reasoning for making this claim is that states become too caught up in their self -interest and power that eventually they destabilize themselves when constrained to law and custom.
Since the end of the Cold War, new international challenges have arisen. States face threats to their security and well being, such as terrorism and intrastate conflict. While international conflict once consisted of major global wars that pitted the world’s most powerful nations against each other, now we see states attempting to resolve conflict before the situation escalates. War is costly in many ways and can leave a country in ruin and its people physically and psychologically wounded. States use different conflict management and resolution techniques to bring an end to deadly combat or prevent combat from occurring.
The human condition and its significance to International Relations have been in debate for centuries. Classical Realist thought has focused on the inherently aggressive and selfish nature of man and assumed that it is these qualities that ensure war and conflict are inevitable aspects of human society. Alternatively, neo-realism emphasises the system structure of international politics. R.J. McShea discusses the significance of the human nature tradition throughout the study of international relations. The endeavour to rid the world of the evil of war and the advancement of the conditions for peace have been developed from the assumption that the interaction of the states, and the way they ought to conduct relations among themselves, are dependent upon the nature of man.
· The theory is best when there is a moderate level of cohesion of population, and a moderate support of the government. · External conflict might also cost internal disorder · Internal conflict might also cause an enemy to attack a weak state · Russet: governments are now expected to control the economy. Presidents need to have their power to persuade congress, therefore are in constant need of public support. · The dangers: not only is war unpopular but defeat can lead to an increase in internal conflict. · Escalation is based on international factors more so than individual leaders who choose initiation of aggression?
From their regression analysis which showed an inverse relationship between inequality and conflict, they argue that, a high degree of inequality in a state is indicative of the existence of dominant elite who for the sake of their attachment to the status quo, and desire to protect it, would permit the government to temporarily tax them in other to raise funds to execute war. Knowing this fact would deter potential rebels in that, they [potential rebels] would figure out that the government would have greater capacity to quell any aggression from any quarter. Thus, inequality is not good for conflict (Cramer 2003). Applying the same framework in his later study, Collier (2000a) concluded that, greed not grievance is at the root of civil wars. According to him, “it is the feasibility of predation which determines the risk of conflict.
However, with money comes difficulties; and with difficulties such as inequality and financial crises, government regulation is inevitable and preferable. Government regulation of money should expand economic growth, as well as reduce the corruption caused by the growth of money. With inequality peaking and national debt continuing to rise, money appears to be a death trap. While it may exacerbate inequality and generate financial crises, money is a necessary medium of exchange. However, the question can be raised: Why not the barter system?
Nationalism is, essentially, a country’s patriotism. Capitalism is simply a system people to obtain money. Finally, modernization is a country’s progression in hopes of an advanced society, in terms of technology and beliefs. Thus, Imperialism includes nationalism, capitalism, and modernization -all are beneficial but could potentially lead to war. A country’s patriotism could motivate it to improve but may also develop arrogance and result in racism.