CAUSES OF WAR

• pre-19th c had delirious society were people cmpeted against others. people realised they needed to master the art of war or not survive. 
• 1603-1713- emergence of balance of power as the basis of european politics. signalled the end of universal monarchy

• ENLIGHTENMENT- "the spirit of monarchy is war and the enlargement of dominion. peace and moderation are the spirit of a republiic"
• philosophers and physiocrats condemn the idea of gov't, monarchs and ministers as principle cause of war. it is instead the result of schemes of statesmen. it is to protect power and priviledges, not for profit. 
• FRENCH REVOLUTION- was for liberty, conquest and revolution. 1791-1815. 
• Blanning- "human nature as a cause of war"  hostility does not equal war. 
• the people were angry, and felt invulnerable and brazen for war
• AJP Taylor "ideology as a cause of war", balance of power, republicanism
• Clausewitz, became a nation in arms, eg. conscription when people become participants in war

the state of the union was central to war. Lincoln recognised slaves as a "peculiar and powerful interest" as the cause of war. his win in the 1860 election was pivotal

• 1890/1900- Rhodes nationalist tradition"system to blame with ideological focus. both sides blameless"
• 1920/30 charles beard ecomonic tradition "conflict between agrarian and urbanist north"
• 1940/50 avery graven revisionist tradition "both sides extremist, war avoidable but there was political exploitation"
• 1950/60 toner and gnovese "conflict of ideologies with moral issue of slaves as fundamental"
• mcpherson "south threatened by north"
• SOUTH- believed slavery was crucial to life bc of money it gave via cotton trade. 
• 1787 3/5 compromise. 1820 missouri compromise 1845 mexican cession

• ISSUES- proximity issues, north' election win, territory, identity thesis
• SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT: slave rights, inevitability, progesssive narrative, econmoy v agragrian, revisionist

power distribution-= individual, state/group, system. THEORY= tool to help make sense of things, make explicit judgements, and evaluate theories.

realists assume there is a rational actor. Herbert Simon procedural rationality= reasoned choice which is rationally evaluated. substantive ratonality= choosing the right option with other actors. 

Waltz foreign policy doesnt equal int'l outcomes. foreign policy-- strucutre of int'l system-- int'l outcomes.  

REALISM- nations are important as actors. domestic politics are safe, int'l is anarchic. IR is struggle for peace and power.int'l politics is relatively unchanging over time. 

anarchy= uncertainty, security dilemma, self-help, 

Morgenthau 1985 "all history shows that nations are continuously preparing for, or actively involved in, or recovering from organised violence in war".  MODERATING FACTORS- 1) balance of power 2) influence of int'l war

neorealism- 3rd level. intl system imposes constraints on states. purely systematic. explains patterns in int'l arena and politics. 

• liberalism- peace, soft power. freedom of individual, moral freedom (ethical subjects). equal liberty, enlightenment basis.

Doyle "liberalism = family portrait of principles and institutions."  -- individual freedom, political participation, equal opp, private property.

• liberalism and IR theory-- human rationality, world politics, liberal societies, liberals and domestic politics systems

WAR- absence of int'l gov't doesnt only lead to war, but nature of states affects likeliness of war. politics isn't 0 sum game, liberal states can engage to counter nonliberal states. 

• John Locke, Treatise on Gov't, Thomas Paine, Jeremy Bentham. Causes= colonial rivalry, arms, restrictive trade, military alliances, secret diplomacy. 
• UTILITARIANISM-- what's best for majortiy is best for all in society. 

Kant-(peacetheory) liberal republicanism; enlarge base of int'l politics an interact to create peace. with collective securit, int'l hospitality = perpetual peace. human nature= goodness and evil in unknown proportions. 

Woodrow Wilson 1919 League of Nations acts as a major sign of the route liberalism takes in the world. Liberalism used to start war (promoting peace and protecting others) EU, UN, NATO

TRIANGLE OF PEACE-- 1, democracy reduces military conflict. 2, economic interependence, 3, int'l institutions. 

liberals reject nature as a reasoning for war. believe in peace being attainable. 

Doyle 1986- liberal states create separate peace and discovered liberal war reasonings

Levy 1989- democratic peace theory= empirical law in IR

*war based on real events and  power= realism  *war on cultural territory issues= constructivist

REALISM- struggle for power. german unity (1870) causes a change in balance of power in europe. germany gaine power (pol. and econ.). security dilemma created in the threat of germany cause secret alliances to grow. germany becomes defensive because of encirclement from opps. alliances caused a 2-sided sense in europe= war. soon became unbalanced bipolarity.  1913 schlieffen plan shows the preemptive turn towards war prep. stops any diplomacy work

LIBERALISM- lack of int'l insitutions and public governance, secret diplomacy causes war (Bismarck, Kaiser Wilhelm). undemocratic countries worsen situation. this pushes domestic politics into war. entrenchment= false perception as a problem. Iron Reich (Kaiser) means there's a militarisation in control, and overrides any diplomacy or peace. 

CONSTRUCTIVISM- problem caused by 'bad' nationalism. industrialism, conscription and arms race construct a sense of war and readiness for it, leading to war itself. darwinism used as nationalist propaganda. teutonic heritage over slav states. (germany v russia). states battle for influence and power. anarchy is a concept constructed by states, thus they create war. previous interactions instruct actions that cause war. 

NASH EQUILIBRIUM

no participant can gain by a unilateral change of strategy if the strategies of the others remain unchanged.

means war becomes the best option in a self-help situation.

cold war = threat of total destruction. iron curtain = no direct fighting between both sides, only proxy wars. systematic battle with *arms, *deterrence, *diplomatic, *crises,

USSR as a confrontational power. were insecure and looking to expand power with communism. US expected to contain USSR and promote democracy.

• Kennan's long telegram supports realism and the 'why' of how the war came to be. Constructivism is supported from the USSR's chaotic worldview and ideological focus. Liberalism is shown to have failed in IR and the LoN in 1919. Importance lies in the power dynamic between the two of them.  
• traditional view- russian aggression. offensive realism focused on maximising power (susan martin). stalin "as far as his arms can reach"
• revisionist view- western anti-bolshevism. russia fears encirclement and invasion. russia is a conventional power against US nuclear superiority in new-age world. 
• realist interpretation- german defeat left a power vacuum. security dilemma as whoever controlled germany controlled all of europe. balance of power divided germany v divided europe. 
• idea of 'the long peace'

constructivism- cold war perceptions create enemies and not rivals. ideological battle forms marxist/leninist vs liberal capitalism. western europe betrays russia. 0 sum game

liberalism- insitutions and interdependence and diplomacy maintain there being no active warfare. the UN created as a means of keeping the peace. roosevelt view of 4 policemen and the UN security council. 

COLD WAR STABILITY because of; NATO, european integration and stability of western europe. the atomic bomb and the balance of terror is key to making there be no peace, but explains why cold war occurred. european peace in terms of cold war, but a 'hot' war elsewhere in asia, africa, latin america

nuclear= destructive power, with no defense against it, high in cost. clear cost as a deterrent. seen at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 

feminist theory- critiques language of war which obscures BUT acronyms do not hide the reality. nuclear weapons are made to be an effective deterrent. 

• cold war- both sides in action, but unprepared to act. offense move rapidly to take territory. defense ward off aggressors and protect territory. deterrence dissuades attacker form attacking with threat and power. Brodie "chief purpose of war was to win. now it is to avert them. nuclear makes clear dterrent strategy possible"
• pure deterrent strategy= no defense, only threat of punishment to dissuade (nuclear revolution). creates impossibility of defense. ------>more costs than benefits and more harm (possible)
• counter= probability of retaliation and damage done= expected gains from attack.  PM Baldwim 1930s = "the only defense is offense"
• rational actor model- states think about the cost and benefits of war. it is easy to calculate costs and benefits of war with nuclear weapons reduce the burden of rationality.

• 1) increasing the cost of war. 2) reducing the uncertainty of outcome 3) absolute powers have no uncertainty about power balance. 
• BUT deterrence can fail. command and control can be lost. nuclear resolutions not universally accepted. there are other causes of the long peace. Lieber and Press "for deterrence, weapons must survive an enemies 1st strike"
• technological advancements remove the foundation of nuclear deterrence.  Cold War concealment undermined by US using remote sensing.
• crisis instability- leading states to respond hastily and aggressively. 2nd strike makes war worst case scenario.
• REALISM- nuclear weapons do not change anarchy, but change state's incentives. 
• vertical proliferation- 1 country stockpiling and increasing power. horizontal proliferation- 1 country leads others in nuclear arms. nuclear umbrella- smaller country follows a large one. 1st strike- ability to weaponise payload. 2nd strike- ability to retaliate from an attack. assured 2nd strike-  vertical proliferation= attack capabiltiy. mutually assured destruction- retaliation ensures bilateral destruction. 
• clausewitz says defense is "much greater than offense". nuclear reduces the threshold of rationality required. deterrence is primary as defense cant work here. 

*1979- the 2nd cold war. Reagan focused on mutually assured protection. strategic defense initiative- striking down missiles from the other side. *1985 gorbachev focused on economic recovery, and a new USSR. forced to liberalise- ultimately causes USSR breakdown

mutually assured destruction- makes war unable to achieve anything. so people are scared and maintain 'peace' . 

•  realism- self-help, anarchy, power. Waltz believes bipolarity is most stable system. the hegemonic transition makes it difficult to explain how cold war ended as russia seek concessions with US. 
• liberalism- diplomacy, int'l org'ns, interdependence, trade. post1970 states seek cooperation and diplomacy  to bridge their barriers. human rights gains major power by creating economic incentive.  technology kicks off globalisation. changes definition of a great power. trade and economy over military. interdependence helps with spreading democracy. 
• post Cold War= unipolar world with a hegemonic US and triumph of their ideals. Fukuyama?
• postmodernism= using power to protect promote peace. humanitarian intervention
• "Sinatra Doctrine"= USSR name for its policy of allowing neighboring warsaw pact states to determine their own internal affairs

Morgenthau; moderate competition creates bipolarity , which is a regulatory mechanism in war.

CASE STUDY- india v pakistan. india had no 1st air strike. 1) pakistan first strike. 2) would have been invaded 3) army fails in conventional war. 1991 treaty= strategic deterrence where they won't target facilities. mutual restraint and military equality. 

CASE STUDY- policies weakened their control over buffer zone, but reduced western agitation. eastern europe withdrawal caused their empire to collapse. this policy is "outside of realist paradigm" Lebow. realists cannot ignore domestic considerations in int'l system as states self-regulate. main determinance of nationalism is the realist thesis on power. 

WHY COLD WAR DIDN'T END IN CONFLICT- US careful, no unanimous support, soviet economic decline, no assured destruction, soviet dissolution. diplomacy. 

CAN REALISM EXPLAIN END OF COLD WAR- bipolarity becomes outdated, democratisation of states, globalisation and integration. 

just war is different from pacifism but both are based in religious beliefs. war can be mitigated, and is unavoidable in this theory.  7 systematic criteria from moral and religious ideology. 

basis- Jus Fetiale, St Augustine, Thomas Aquinas 13th c, (legitimate authority, just cause, right intention), Martin Luther, John Calvin. early leaders are catholic, and adapt just war tradition. 

JUST WAR- just authority, just intention, just authority, last resort, success possible, discrimination, proportionality

challenged by power politics, ideological competition, no common authority, moral relativism. 

• case study- Vietnam war. preeptive war, but based in power play. 
• case study- India v Pakistan. intervene on humanitarian basis. 
• case study-  gulf war 1990-91 
• case study- 1990 humanitarian intervention after Rwanda civil war. turn to preemptive intervention. 

• UN 2005 create just war based ideals and apply it to their rules Article 5

sex is biological. gender is a social construct. agency- the capacity to exert power.  women are central as victims and peripheral as agents in war. 

• Sylvester- politics of injury; aims to injure people and or their social surroundings
• Parashar- deeply gendered in imagined, strategised, performed and also in its impact. 
• Cockburn- gender in war as a relationship of power, assymetry, inequality and domination. women do 1) causal contingents 2) shaping gender relations of society 
• sociology-- relational systematic and continuing A patriarchal order. 
• war= one phase of a continuum.
• gender hierarchy prioritses war in men's POV, in roles and leadership. 
• women as soldiers-- syria against IS. soviets in WWII 800K. WWII over 1.1m women total
• Geneld- feminisation of state-owned military. views exposing women to war as "criminal". sees decline in military as bc of women. 
• Elshtain- change in citizenship/military relationship on sociopolitical arena. 
• women combatants- tamil tigers, pkk, eritrea. women as peaceful- plaza de mayo, peaceful tomorrow

• SHAPING GENDER ROLES- rwanda became equal in gender after 90s genocide meant men were largely killed off
• SEXUAL VIOLENCE- undermines enemy communities as men cant protect 'their' women
• boosts combatant morale as a 'reward' for troops. reinforces masculkinity by othering enemy
• absence of social constraints leads to sexual violence in conflicts. 
• refugees and asylum seekers are 80% women and children. ---suffer by widowhood= female-led families
• CASE STUDY- WAR ON TERROR "saving brown women from brown men" Spivak
• Bush "central goal of terrorists is brutal oppression of women and not only women of afghanistan"
• counter-- 2003 photo leak of US troops abuse and humiliation

cyber war= newly mutate form of war. anyone can be victim or perpetrator. cyber threats and vulnerability = protecting computer systems against damage. 

hyperconnectivity can act as a vulnerablity. cyberwar hasn't been evidenced as of yet. (basic cyber threat typology). 

ATTRIBUTION PROBLEM - how to know who is guilty? makes retaliation difficult. 

why war?- involves state actors, using cyber as a political tool.increased involvement and use of cyber focus by states. perception of coercive utility, bloodless capabiltiy. can coerce other states to will. miscalculation possible. 

• CASE STUDY - ESTONIA 2007- lasted 22 days after DDOS attack on people and gov't after they denounced russia by moving war memorial. they tested nato's article 5, but nato didn't help. so do cyber attacks have threshold for retaliation. 
• CASE STUDY- STUXNET 2010- iran's nuclear power plant was attacked with a computer worm which destrotyed centrifuges. US/Israel work to limit Iran's nuclear capabiltiies. 3 killed. didn't lead to war despite clear attacker identified.

• cyber- not a cause of war? uncertainty over attribution, thresholds, int'l law, nature of response; indomain, crossdomain, capabilities, state strategy; norms, de-escalation.
• cyber benefits from widespread wireless comms. war in 5th dimension. largely has no fatalities, muddied by ambiguity and deniability. 
• *pessimistic view- defense systems are susceptible from both state and nonstate actors *optimistic view- attacks are overstated.
• social norms problem- can't apply traditional social norms on war here
• attribution problem, code of silence problem, geography (borderless cyberspace) problem, offensive incentive (defense must be successful always, attacks only one) problem

• Walker Connor "nation formation is a process not an occurence or event. a nation is a community with a shared common identity and culture. a nation possesses territory not just association"     Hutchinson "nationalist wars are fought in the name of identity, territorial integrity and political autonomy" most states emerge from war (become nation-states). war and violence used to cement solidarity by nationalists. 
• nationstate is a key political actor. there are spaces and borders that define a nation and a state. 1800= 500 territories. 1900= 200 states. case study- germany. turn to aggressive nationalism after napoleon defeat. Schmitt says this was key in starting WWI. 
• CIVIC NATIONALISM- defence of french republic in revolutionary wars. ETHNO NATIONALISM- 1807, fichte to the new german nation after destruction of prussia. nationalist ideologies mobilise the population. 
• hitler= resurgent nationalism with goal of lebensraum for all germans. 
• nationalism and empire= belief europeans are only nationalists. questions arise with 1904 russo-japanese war of 'who deserves self-determination'
• post cold war= argued nationalism would be replaced with proletarian internationalism
• USSR collapse= 20 new states created = conflicts. yugoslavia, slovenia after war, croatia and bosnia

• terrorism is  a difficult term as it can be weaponised.  eg russia v anti-state actors. agreed concepts- political act, involves violence to communicate
• 20th c= politically motivated action involving threat of life and use of force/violence. publicity is key to their campaigns. (russia 1917)
• Schmid- political terrorism = anxiety inspiring method with repeated violent action. 
• STATE TERRORISM- ww2, Blitz, stalingrad
• modern phenomenon of late 19th and early 20th c. found with contested definitions of democracy and political authority. Burleigh (2009) "terrorism -= contest for power" but used as a weapon for those without power
• goals- contesting the state or gov't over politics, its existence, injustice. modern state formation
• FANATIC AND INSTRUMENTAL QUALITY- violence as a last resort from reluctant revolutionaries. BUT there is a measure of fanaticism and rage with rationality.
• modernity is embedded, as well as human condition
• emergence- anarchists and radical socialists trying to realise goals. rejecting top-down governance in 'golden age of assassination'
• 1st wave decline- after links with nationalist and anticolonial ideals. UK- IRELAND 1919, EGYPT 1924, 1930S ISRAEL/PALESTINE

• 3RD WAVE- 1960's student movements. germanty- RAF, italy- brigate rosse.
• guerilla/insurgent terrorism- guerillas represent a group they w3ant to protect. target combatants.  claiming a role for the people means they are unconventional in this sense. 
• terrorist- indirect and self-appointed representatives of group, targeting wider group. 
• revolutionary Islam- want to restore glory and power of islam. west= the enemy to muslim world
• prosaic means- doesn't require sophistication or detail- IS, Al Qaeda, IRA, 
• postmodern terrorism= substate violence with guerilla warfare.
• WAR MODEL-  counterterrorism; terrorism is an act of war. seeks terrorists wherever they are. host nations= hostile to victim. creates long arduous war. military focus over legal focus. high cost of life and money. 
• CRIMINAL JUSTICE MODEL- avoids legitimisation as declaring war gives terrorists int'l arena. terrorists are criminals, but they have rights. 
• groups end= death of leader (IRA), loss of support(RIRA), move into politics (shining path), achieve aims (ANC)

• Kenneth Waltz   "within man, within the system, the structure of the separate states, within the state system"
• Thucydides  fear, honour and interest are fundamental human motivations. "“the growth  of  the  power  of  Athens,  and  the  alarm  which  this  inspired  in  Sparta,  made  war  inevitable.”  alliances, individuals, hegemonic transition(Sparta- hegemon challenged by Athens), regime type (sparta= land oligarchy, athens= sea democracy)
• von Clausewitz    instinctive bias and predation. " “War  is  a  serious means for a serious object. . . . Each side striving by physical force to compel the other to submit to his will.”  Violence is, thus, a means to a political end"
• J Blainey   main concern is power- measuring distribution of power and gaining int'l peace. war starts with states diagreeing and ends when they agree. they choose war thinking they'll win
• AJP Taylor    "a general cause and particular causes. WW2 had causes and specific events"
• A Gat    "war  is  a  biological  and  social  reaction  to  material  scarcity. it is the natural state "
• B Tuchman    war as folly that is counterproductive.  War happens “from the compelling lure of dominion, from pretensions of grandeur,   from   greed.”    It   is   the   product   of   tyranny,   excessive   ambition,   incompetence  or  decadence.