Although many people assume the motivations for war are determined by a territorial protection, a number of scholars have added other motivations for understanding why war occurs, among these historians one is a conspicuous example his name is Howard Zinn. Zinn has exposed that many countries go to war in order to bring economic prosperity to their region this need for gain in turn causes many of the upper class of that region to acquire fantastic levels of wealth, many of these powerful figures have denied these claims, Zinn,in reaction to these claims uses paradigm example, WW1, as a means for discrediting the upper class who incessantly deny profits during war.
Although many people assume the motivations for war are determined by a territorial protection, a number of scholars have added other motivations for understanding why war occurs, among these historians one is a conspicuous example his name is Howard Zinn. Zinn has exposed that many countries go to war in order to bring economic prosperity to their region this need for gain in turn causes many of the upper class of that...
Firstly, war is initiated by country having more power and wanting to expand their territory or to gain more resources. For example, in the essay The Ecstasy of War (1997) by Barbara Ehrenreich, she stated “that wars are designed, at least ostensibly, to secure necessaries like land or oil” (Ehrenreich 43). Therefore, countries wanting to have more land or important resources will initiate a war if the other country is not in accordance in willing to
Many, including the Catholic Church, judge the justifications of a war based on several factors given in the “just war theory,” which is used to evaluate the war based on its causes and means. The first required factor is a just cause, meaning that a nation’s decision to begin a war must be due to “substantial aggression” brought about by the opposition which cannot be resolved through non-violent solutions without excessive cost whereas armed conflict is not hopeless or excessively costly (“Just War Theory”1). In most cases, wars are started for a reason; however, many of these reasons are for the benefit of the governments who start the wars. The just war theory is widely accepted as a way to determine the moral standing of the reasons. This part of the theory is to ensure that the objective of a war is a reasonable and moral one. It prevents the needless bloodshed and loss of human lives over petty disputes while still protecting the rights and lives of the innocent by acknowledging the necessity of war in dire situations.
War models are essential in demonstrating correlations between theory-associated variables and the risk of war. The econometric model built by Collier and Hoeffler, for instance, provides a fair war measurement by demonstrating opportunity as a source of conflict. It includes predominant variables such as Primary commodity exports, GDP per capita, GDP per growth and population. In most cases, low GDP per capita and slow growth rate increase the risk of war because they provided a low opportunity cost for rebellion. This corresponds to the phenomenon in which many countries that underwent civil war over the period 1960-1999 were poor developing countries such as Congo, Sudan and Zimbabwe. Yugoslavia likewise underwent an economic breakdown in 1989, shortly before the outbreak of wars in 1992. A poor overall economy generates social tensions, leading to war. Meanwhile, a high dependency on Pr...
First, in the long run the negative effects of a military international intervention, even if against oppressive governments, could actually outweigh the positive ones. Moreover, coercive policy could, in fact, aggravate a conflict by providing grounds for long lasting hostility, aggression, or ev...
Hobbes, as one of the early political philosophers, believes human has the nature to acquire “power after power” and has three fundamental interests which are safety, “conjugal affections”, and riches for commodious lives. (Hobbes, p108, p191) From this basis, Hobbes deducts that in a state of nature, human tends to fight against each other (state of war) to secure more resources (Hobbes,
War is the technique by which one individuals may ascend to flourishing while another starves to death alongside their kids. Covetousness and hardship are both the reasons and the impacts of war. Those agreeable, glad, and careless people living in extravagance as often as possible portray the neediness struggle nexus while delaying to apply a syllogism to the circumstance: on the off chance that the reality of the matter is that covetousness causes destitution and destitution leads to conflict, then voracity reasons struggle. Their clarifications of savagery consistently fall one sensible step short of lighting up their own part in sustaining war and
Human nature will always corrupt the mind of modern man and send him down the destructive path of war. Due to this, the chronology of war is a constant stream of events that have dated back to the creation of civilization. The inevitability of it is based off something within the mind, that we call human nature. This phoneme pulls the attentions of man towards the path of greatest gain in the quickest amount of time. A part of this is due to mans greed to obtain as much power as possible. Power doesn’t hold one meaning however, it can be broken down into many aspects of appeal for man, creating even more of attraction. Whether the individual in control is seeking power through wealth, through control, or dominance their means of obtaining it includes war or destruction.
War, in all its forms, is tragic. International law was created to establish some basis of rules to abide by—including war—and states have signed on to such a contract. The actions of states in this ever globalizing world are difficult to be controlled. The source of international law operates through the hands of the United Nations. The enforcement of the law occurs through reciprocity, collective action, and a display of international norms (Goldstein, p. 254). War in fact has been given a justification, though it is arguable whether or not the basis of the idea is correct. Wars can be just under certain conditions.
Every day we are surrounded by stories of war. In fact, we have become so accustomed to it, that we are now entertained by it. Video games, movies, and books filled with heroes who once dominated the battlefields. However it is constantly stated, “no good comes from war.” Even famous songs state “war... what is it good for… absolutely nothing.” But what if war was actually necessary? Throughout history, we see examples of the good things wars have brought. War has freed slaves, modernized medicine, brought down evil empires, and even brought countries together
Pilisuk, Marc. “[CN]Chapter 5: [CN] Networks of Power.” Who Benefits from Global Violence and War: Uncovering a Destructive System. With Jennifer Achord Rountree. Westport: Praeger Security International, an imprint of Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc., 2008. Print.
The art of war has been a vital aspect of state-making throughout history. Max Weber contends in his essay, Politics as a Vocation, that the State is a “human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory” (Weber, 77), a definition that political experts cite to this day. However, many scholars today believe that we have created a new type of warfare, one that questions the validity of the statehood of current international powers as well as Weber’s own precedent for identifying States.
Neo-realism and Liberalism both provide adequate theories in explaining the causes of war, yet Neo-realist ideals on the structural level and states being unitary actors in order to build security, conclude that Neo-realist states act on behalf of their own self interest. The lack of collaboration with other states and balance of power among them presents a reasonable explanation on the causes of war.
The idea that systems can generate conflict can become an odd view from the perception that war has been the result of expansionist via aggressive states. Within this essay I will explain the events within history that identify this via security dilemma and its result. I argue why should the efforts of one state to make itself secure cause other states to feel less than? States want to maximize their survival and power. All states strive to maximize their power relative to other states because only the most powerful states can guarantee their survival.
Almost every state on Earth desires peace, so why do countries go to war so often? Between World War I and World War II alone, there were an estimated 81 million casualties (Primary Megadeaths). Each state has different values and desires and many are willing to do whatever it takes to ensure those values remain in their state as well as spread to others. War results in a failure of states to successfully bargain with one another. The most common reason for wars to occur is territorial control. Of the 155 wars in the past three centuries, 83 of them dealt with territory (Holsti). Adding more territory will often add more wealth to the state. One way it can do that is by providing goods, resources, or industries that a state needs, such as oil or minerals. Iran and Iraq fought a war from 1980-1988 partially because Iraq sought to take control of Iran’s southern oil fields, according to World Politics. Military strategy can also play a role in why states seek new territories. Finally, states can be interested in territory for ethnic, cultural, or historical reasons. A prime ex...
The reason that the states seek self-interest is because the pessimistic view of human nature (Heywood 2011: 54). According to Morgenthau (1985), he claims that human beings lust for power (Jackson, Sorensen 2013: 66). Besides, Hobbes (1651) claims that humans are affected by many appetites, especially power (Heywood 2011: 55). As human beings are selfish and competing for power, conflicts can happen amongst them (Heywood 2011: 57). A state is composed of the selfish people, therefore, human egoism leads to many conflicts in international relations, ‘state egoism’ – different states may be opposed (Heywood 2011: 57). But Waltz argues that wars happened because of the anarchical system (Jackson, Sorensen 2013: 80).