WAR STUDIES
Introduction:
War has been historically a recurring phenomenon, also during the liberal international order (the post-
Cold-War global system based on US hegemony).
Main features of the liberal international order:
• Economic liberalism: interdependence, free and unified trade system
• Political liberalism: democracy (3rd wave of democratization)
• Institutional liberalism: building of IOs (ex: WTO)
+ HRs
+ Distribution of power (Waltzian sense)
The globalization of this order came with the promise of peace and security idea that the defeat of the US
enemy would be the last war (the “End of History” – Fukuyama). This promise however was not maintained,
for it contrasted with the real situation of international politics and the consequent growing sense of
insecurity (30 years later, the picture is very different) perception of the reemergence of war as a central
element in international life.
War has never disappeared, even during the years of the promises of peace and security it was a central
ingredient of the LIO:
• LIO globalization has occurred at the same time of the emergence and spreading of new type of wars:
wars that blur the distinction between domestic and international, wars where the actorness is not
anymore solely that of sovereign states etc.
• Even traditional wars (involving great powers, and the hegemon of the LIO) were actually a very
frequent phenomenon here comes the paradox: liberalism is very much oriented towards
humanitarianism, multilateralism, economic integration and interdependence, therefore, towards peace;
however, wars have been frequently fought by liberal democracies.
Liberal democracies are in fact also champions of interstate/traditional wars; and the US in
particular (something that has often been overlooked): Gulf War (Kuwait), Iraq (imposition of no
fly-zone), Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia (new war), Afghanistan, Sudan, Kosovo, Libya, Syria-Iraq (vs
ISIS)…
War from a long-term perspective: Data from the “Correlates of War” (CoW) project systematic
accumulation of quantitative data about war from 1816 to 2007
The Causes of War
The topic of the causes of war is the link between IR and Strategic Studies.
IR studies are however concerned with the result of state interactions, their outcomes (war is one of these
potential outcomes); and not with the behavior of individual actors.
War has a central place in the IR literature also across different schools and approaches.
Examples:
• Liberal school marks the beginning of IR (born after WWI, as a concern for the future of int.al
politics); war not a necessary outcome, but still has a crucial role
• Constructivism war as the outcome of specific ways in which int.al politics is constructed
War has always existed within humankind
What are the Causes of War?
1
, 1- Wars may be the results of domestic dynamics need to promote stability, identification of an
external enemy that may project conflicts outside to create such a stability and cohesion (this does not
work only for states, but also for other actors).
2- At the international level we have the absence of a higher authority that can impose order
3- The ambition of groups and individuals that, in the context of int.al anarchy, can easily escalate in
violence and open conflict
These are the three images also found in Waltz’s “Man, State and War. A theoretical Analysis” (1959), who
tries to explain war from these three different perspectives:
War as a result of:
• Human nature/behavior
• Internal structure of states
• International anarchy
These are still very much influential philosophical images that shape the debate within int.al relations theory
regarding the causes of war.
First Image: HUMAN NATURE
Waltz makes reference to Baruch Spinoza, one of the first figure in the enlightenment, who identified a
tension in human nature between reason and passion: human beings are driven by reason, therefore as a basic
instinct they are driven towards self-preservation and should behave in a way that promotes and leads to
harmony; at the same time they are not fully rational, but are also driven by passion and this is what explains
violence (that compromises self-preservation).
Pessimistic vs Optimistic views:
According to Waltz, Spinoza is an optimist because he believes that, through education, human beings
can contain and moderate passion through reason.
Classical realism (ex: Morgenthau) instead is pessimistic and explains conflicts and war specifically by
focusing on the inherent element of human nature the ubiquity of evil in human nature
Second Image: INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF STATE
Waltz makes reference to Immanuel Kant, who believed that to avoid war, states should be republics
(republican govts do not go to war), because in this type of states, those who should fight war are also
involved in the government and have therefore no interest in waging war (would risk their lives in
battlefield).
Republics resolve conflicts with IL, not because they are forced to do so from the outside but because of
their domestic structure.
Very common logic deeply rooted in western political thought of: Good government as a source of peace
VS bad government as a source of war.
2 different perspectives:
Non-interventionist for peace to prevail we just have to wait the course of history to adjust itself; it will
reach a point in which all humanity will have a good government.
VS
Interventionists if peace is rooted in good government, we should actively export democracy; since as
the world becomes more democratic it also becomes more peaceful.
From this perspective the initial resort to force is justified by the final goal of promoting good government.
Third Image: INTERNATIONAL ANARCHY
2
,Waltz makes reference to Jean–Jacques Rousseau who presented his ideas in “The Social Contract” where
he presented an explanation of political behavior, in which the environment has a crucial role this is true
for individuals and states as well.
States may be forced to resort to war by the environment, independently from their domestic structure in a
threatening environment you may resort to force (offensive war), also just for defensive reasons; you can
never be sure of the intentions of others anarchy as a constraining factor.
These 3 images contribute to persisting differences in the way how war is explained and how different
theories look at how wars should be avoided (policy indication):
1) First image approaches:
Role of political leaders: deviations from the rational actor model and the psychological approach.
Assumption that all policy decisions are not entirely rational; there are deviations explained by
psychological approaches. Humans driven by something non rational, decisions based on:
- Perceptions what one perceives may not be entirely correspondent to reality
- Cognition a process by which information is selected and processes. In our costs-benefits
analysis we may exclude pieces of information that are instead relevant selection bias, that may
reinforce misperceptions
- Personality entirely subjective element in the way in which decisions are made, which can
significantly deviate from rational conclusions.
2) Second image approaches
- Theories of insecurity most famous one by Harold Lasswell, who was very much focused on
nationalism and proposed the link between collective insecurity and violence. The perception of
insecurity within a domestic community may lead to war with other states that may be used to
neutralize domestic conflicts.
2 types of insecurity:
a) Insecurity of the masses vis a vis rapid transformation: projection of internal insecurity
towards an external enemy
b) Insecurity of the elites vis a vis the population: they may be tempted to identify an external
enemy to unify the domestic political context
- Theories of imperialism: 2 different interpretations:
Lenin imperialism as the final stage (a consequence) of the developing of
monopolistic/financial capitalism (it’s capitalist countries that are imperialist). The domestic
economic system explains imperialism.
Schumpeter imperialist wars of conquest are not a result of an advanced economic mode of
production, but of the persistence of some traditional social classes (ex: aristocracies) with
particular values of prestige and honor that lead them to expansionism and conquest.
- Democratic Peace Theory democracies do not go to war with each other
Institutional side those that should fight are also involved in government
Normative side democracies are more inclined to solve conflicts, both domestically and
internationally, in a peaceful way.
3) Third image approaches
- Security dilemma even if you have defensive aims, the environment might lead you to conduct
an offensive behavior. You can never be sure about other’s intentions, nor rely on a higher authority
you will have to resort to “self-help”.
It is a problem of the perception of others’ intentions, in an anarchic system
- War in the balance of power theories
War occurs when power becomes more concentrated; when there is one rising power, the other
states create a coalition to rebalance the power against the rising one.
- War in the theories of hegemony
3
, War occurs when there is a diffusion of power, when the hegemon declines and is no more able to
create order new rising hegemons are born (potential power transition).
War occurs as a clash between the previous hegemon and the challenging powers (potential new
hegemons) Thucydides’ trap: his idea was that the conflict between Athens and Sparta was the
result of the decline of one of the two powers in opposition to the rise of the other. This
contraposition was compared to the situation between the US and China in the contemporary period
and popularized by American political scientist Graham T. Allison
The Ukrainian War Case
Event with major implications for the discipline of IR theory it was considered as a major failure of IR
theories, since most of them were not able to predict this war (they were not convinced that the world would
have actually started) the war was a shock both to the public opinion and to many political scientists and
IR scholars.
o This failure of IR theories reflects a situation similar to the collapse of the Soviet Union (no one
predicted it, huge failure most of the blame on realist paradigm)
The causes of war: a highly contentious issue in the public debate very different interpretation and ideas
emerged since the break out of the war
- Rule of opposing narratives in attributing causes & responsibilities, legitimizing the war effort and
identifying possible solutions (different course of actions that should be implemented).
On the basis of the causes that you identify, you develop different solutions and ways to
conclude the war
- Different causes have major implications for existing theories approaches causes may confirm
or disconfirm one vs another theory.
- Matter of level of analysis very different ways of making sense of what is happening depending
on the image, the level of analysis you look at.
Different images applied to the Ukrainian war:
1) First image focus on the characteristics of the individual decision maker
• The war as Putin’s “Inevitable Invasion” (Gomza 2022)
• Centrality of Putin’s worldview and his formative experiences the worldviews (set of ideas
regarding how international politics works, or should work) that result from its formative
experiences led Putin to wage war.
2 experiences:
o His experience as KGB officer in the 1980s in Eastern Germany, where he witnessed the
collapse of Eastern German social state he watched the (failing) policies that regimes
employed in response to people’s mobilizations.
o His experience as a political leader in Russia at the time of political protests in Ukraine: the
Orange Revolution (2004) + Euromaidan protest (2014) consolidated in Putin the idea that
popular mobilization may be a major threat for political stability.
These experiences led him to decide for the war
+ His idea is that Ukraine is not an independent nation, but a part of Russia. It is a modern construct
that was the result of the 1920s USSR decision of establishing Ukraine as a socialist republic
separate from Russia this is an artificial construction, according to Putin, and Ukraine has never
been a separate nation from Russia.
+ Putin’s idea that democracy is not suitable in the Russian context. Developed with the Ukrainian
democratic protests of the 2000s: the Color Revolutions Putin believes that these protest were not
4
Introduction:
War has been historically a recurring phenomenon, also during the liberal international order (the post-
Cold-War global system based on US hegemony).
Main features of the liberal international order:
• Economic liberalism: interdependence, free and unified trade system
• Political liberalism: democracy (3rd wave of democratization)
• Institutional liberalism: building of IOs (ex: WTO)
+ HRs
+ Distribution of power (Waltzian sense)
The globalization of this order came with the promise of peace and security idea that the defeat of the US
enemy would be the last war (the “End of History” – Fukuyama). This promise however was not maintained,
for it contrasted with the real situation of international politics and the consequent growing sense of
insecurity (30 years later, the picture is very different) perception of the reemergence of war as a central
element in international life.
War has never disappeared, even during the years of the promises of peace and security it was a central
ingredient of the LIO:
• LIO globalization has occurred at the same time of the emergence and spreading of new type of wars:
wars that blur the distinction between domestic and international, wars where the actorness is not
anymore solely that of sovereign states etc.
• Even traditional wars (involving great powers, and the hegemon of the LIO) were actually a very
frequent phenomenon here comes the paradox: liberalism is very much oriented towards
humanitarianism, multilateralism, economic integration and interdependence, therefore, towards peace;
however, wars have been frequently fought by liberal democracies.
Liberal democracies are in fact also champions of interstate/traditional wars; and the US in
particular (something that has often been overlooked): Gulf War (Kuwait), Iraq (imposition of no
fly-zone), Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia (new war), Afghanistan, Sudan, Kosovo, Libya, Syria-Iraq (vs
ISIS)…
War from a long-term perspective: Data from the “Correlates of War” (CoW) project systematic
accumulation of quantitative data about war from 1816 to 2007
The Causes of War
The topic of the causes of war is the link between IR and Strategic Studies.
IR studies are however concerned with the result of state interactions, their outcomes (war is one of these
potential outcomes); and not with the behavior of individual actors.
War has a central place in the IR literature also across different schools and approaches.
Examples:
• Liberal school marks the beginning of IR (born after WWI, as a concern for the future of int.al
politics); war not a necessary outcome, but still has a crucial role
• Constructivism war as the outcome of specific ways in which int.al politics is constructed
War has always existed within humankind
What are the Causes of War?
1
, 1- Wars may be the results of domestic dynamics need to promote stability, identification of an
external enemy that may project conflicts outside to create such a stability and cohesion (this does not
work only for states, but also for other actors).
2- At the international level we have the absence of a higher authority that can impose order
3- The ambition of groups and individuals that, in the context of int.al anarchy, can easily escalate in
violence and open conflict
These are the three images also found in Waltz’s “Man, State and War. A theoretical Analysis” (1959), who
tries to explain war from these three different perspectives:
War as a result of:
• Human nature/behavior
• Internal structure of states
• International anarchy
These are still very much influential philosophical images that shape the debate within int.al relations theory
regarding the causes of war.
First Image: HUMAN NATURE
Waltz makes reference to Baruch Spinoza, one of the first figure in the enlightenment, who identified a
tension in human nature between reason and passion: human beings are driven by reason, therefore as a basic
instinct they are driven towards self-preservation and should behave in a way that promotes and leads to
harmony; at the same time they are not fully rational, but are also driven by passion and this is what explains
violence (that compromises self-preservation).
Pessimistic vs Optimistic views:
According to Waltz, Spinoza is an optimist because he believes that, through education, human beings
can contain and moderate passion through reason.
Classical realism (ex: Morgenthau) instead is pessimistic and explains conflicts and war specifically by
focusing on the inherent element of human nature the ubiquity of evil in human nature
Second Image: INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF STATE
Waltz makes reference to Immanuel Kant, who believed that to avoid war, states should be republics
(republican govts do not go to war), because in this type of states, those who should fight war are also
involved in the government and have therefore no interest in waging war (would risk their lives in
battlefield).
Republics resolve conflicts with IL, not because they are forced to do so from the outside but because of
their domestic structure.
Very common logic deeply rooted in western political thought of: Good government as a source of peace
VS bad government as a source of war.
2 different perspectives:
Non-interventionist for peace to prevail we just have to wait the course of history to adjust itself; it will
reach a point in which all humanity will have a good government.
VS
Interventionists if peace is rooted in good government, we should actively export democracy; since as
the world becomes more democratic it also becomes more peaceful.
From this perspective the initial resort to force is justified by the final goal of promoting good government.
Third Image: INTERNATIONAL ANARCHY
2
,Waltz makes reference to Jean–Jacques Rousseau who presented his ideas in “The Social Contract” where
he presented an explanation of political behavior, in which the environment has a crucial role this is true
for individuals and states as well.
States may be forced to resort to war by the environment, independently from their domestic structure in a
threatening environment you may resort to force (offensive war), also just for defensive reasons; you can
never be sure of the intentions of others anarchy as a constraining factor.
These 3 images contribute to persisting differences in the way how war is explained and how different
theories look at how wars should be avoided (policy indication):
1) First image approaches:
Role of political leaders: deviations from the rational actor model and the psychological approach.
Assumption that all policy decisions are not entirely rational; there are deviations explained by
psychological approaches. Humans driven by something non rational, decisions based on:
- Perceptions what one perceives may not be entirely correspondent to reality
- Cognition a process by which information is selected and processes. In our costs-benefits
analysis we may exclude pieces of information that are instead relevant selection bias, that may
reinforce misperceptions
- Personality entirely subjective element in the way in which decisions are made, which can
significantly deviate from rational conclusions.
2) Second image approaches
- Theories of insecurity most famous one by Harold Lasswell, who was very much focused on
nationalism and proposed the link between collective insecurity and violence. The perception of
insecurity within a domestic community may lead to war with other states that may be used to
neutralize domestic conflicts.
2 types of insecurity:
a) Insecurity of the masses vis a vis rapid transformation: projection of internal insecurity
towards an external enemy
b) Insecurity of the elites vis a vis the population: they may be tempted to identify an external
enemy to unify the domestic political context
- Theories of imperialism: 2 different interpretations:
Lenin imperialism as the final stage (a consequence) of the developing of
monopolistic/financial capitalism (it’s capitalist countries that are imperialist). The domestic
economic system explains imperialism.
Schumpeter imperialist wars of conquest are not a result of an advanced economic mode of
production, but of the persistence of some traditional social classes (ex: aristocracies) with
particular values of prestige and honor that lead them to expansionism and conquest.
- Democratic Peace Theory democracies do not go to war with each other
Institutional side those that should fight are also involved in government
Normative side democracies are more inclined to solve conflicts, both domestically and
internationally, in a peaceful way.
3) Third image approaches
- Security dilemma even if you have defensive aims, the environment might lead you to conduct
an offensive behavior. You can never be sure about other’s intentions, nor rely on a higher authority
you will have to resort to “self-help”.
It is a problem of the perception of others’ intentions, in an anarchic system
- War in the balance of power theories
War occurs when power becomes more concentrated; when there is one rising power, the other
states create a coalition to rebalance the power against the rising one.
- War in the theories of hegemony
3
, War occurs when there is a diffusion of power, when the hegemon declines and is no more able to
create order new rising hegemons are born (potential power transition).
War occurs as a clash between the previous hegemon and the challenging powers (potential new
hegemons) Thucydides’ trap: his idea was that the conflict between Athens and Sparta was the
result of the decline of one of the two powers in opposition to the rise of the other. This
contraposition was compared to the situation between the US and China in the contemporary period
and popularized by American political scientist Graham T. Allison
The Ukrainian War Case
Event with major implications for the discipline of IR theory it was considered as a major failure of IR
theories, since most of them were not able to predict this war (they were not convinced that the world would
have actually started) the war was a shock both to the public opinion and to many political scientists and
IR scholars.
o This failure of IR theories reflects a situation similar to the collapse of the Soviet Union (no one
predicted it, huge failure most of the blame on realist paradigm)
The causes of war: a highly contentious issue in the public debate very different interpretation and ideas
emerged since the break out of the war
- Rule of opposing narratives in attributing causes & responsibilities, legitimizing the war effort and
identifying possible solutions (different course of actions that should be implemented).
On the basis of the causes that you identify, you develop different solutions and ways to
conclude the war
- Different causes have major implications for existing theories approaches causes may confirm
or disconfirm one vs another theory.
- Matter of level of analysis very different ways of making sense of what is happening depending
on the image, the level of analysis you look at.
Different images applied to the Ukrainian war:
1) First image focus on the characteristics of the individual decision maker
• The war as Putin’s “Inevitable Invasion” (Gomza 2022)
• Centrality of Putin’s worldview and his formative experiences the worldviews (set of ideas
regarding how international politics works, or should work) that result from its formative
experiences led Putin to wage war.
2 experiences:
o His experience as KGB officer in the 1980s in Eastern Germany, where he witnessed the
collapse of Eastern German social state he watched the (failing) policies that regimes
employed in response to people’s mobilizations.
o His experience as a political leader in Russia at the time of political protests in Ukraine: the
Orange Revolution (2004) + Euromaidan protest (2014) consolidated in Putin the idea that
popular mobilization may be a major threat for political stability.
These experiences led him to decide for the war
+ His idea is that Ukraine is not an independent nation, but a part of Russia. It is a modern construct
that was the result of the 1920s USSR decision of establishing Ukraine as a socialist republic
separate from Russia this is an artificial construction, according to Putin, and Ukraine has never
been a separate nation from Russia.
+ Putin’s idea that democracy is not suitable in the Russian context. Developed with the Ukrainian
democratic protests of the 2000s: the Color Revolutions Putin believes that these protest were not
4
