Warfare is a phenomenon that takes various shapes and has numerous causes, meaning that delineating these factors can allow individuals to identify its major facilitators. The sovereignty of states is one of the reasons why conflicts erupt between two forces with might and capabilities. Nevertheless, sovereignty alone does not explain why stronger countries sometimes wage war against smaller countries and seek to control their resources. Therefore, the theoretical concepts that attempt to explain why state conflicts escalate into massacres are critical in informing policy-makers of the indicators they should look for to mitigate crises. Different theories are applicable in varying scenarios that lead to war because of the complexity of associated issues and the players’ relationships. However, the laws of war are dependable and feasible in guiding states’ engagement in war crafts and policy formulation as they prioritize acknowledging the value of human life and preventing irreversible destruction.
The Essence of Theory When Discussing the Causes of War
Waging war is a serious and one of the most consequential decisions states make due to the potential losses and severity of reparations regardless of who emerges victorious. According to Cashman & Robinson (2021), war is an organized form of violence between groups for a particular purpose and according to a defined strategy. Thus, historians hold that war is not the result of social disasters and is the product of rational decision-making and well-crafted mechanisms to oversee state interests forcefully. The main feature of wars is their relationship to field forces. Field forces refer to the social, human, and economic factors that facilitate, trigger, aggravate, and inhibit wars (Maoz, 2020). For example, a shift in states’ powers, such as in the current global political landscape where China is exponentially gaining ground over the US as a superpower, is why nations wage war. However, there are instances in history when nations such as France, Germany, and Russia struggled to achieve supremacy but did not wage war against each other. Therefore, a theoretical perspective to evaluating wars can help scholars distinguish critical factors and understand their correlations.
A theory is a set of principles that attempts to explain unusual human phenomena by examining the relationships of their causative factors. Therefore, although theories make assumptions and do not reflect actual occurrences, they effectively identify the strength of correlations between various outcomes that lead to the issues under investigation (Mingst et al., 2018). That being said, defining and describing the complex attributes of war can facilitate reverse engineering by targeting its causative factors and informing scholars why participants resolve to arms to address grievances or pursue their ambitions. For example, realists believe that the anarchist nature of state governments is the principal factor of conflicts since countries do whatever is possible to secure their security and their occupants’ interests (Viotti & Kauppi, 2019). However, this notion only satisfies some reasons why wars erupt because, in instances such as the Second World War, various powerful nations allied against their foes for reasons not primarily associated with their gains. Nevertheless, the realist theoretical perspective of the role of state actors provides a framework to perceive the contributors of war and further investigate the issues underlying conflict.
The Effectiveness of Current Theories in Explaining and Helping Avoid War
International relations theories explain the role of state actors in the global community and how the system works. The most widely adopted principles to explain the components of wars are liberal and realist theoretical perspectives. However, no theory best explains why nations act as they do because different perspectives address different issues and offer varying explanations. Thus, these theories categorize factors in international relations into broad categories that accommodate various elements and offer rational judgments of the causative factors.
Realists suggest that states rely on themselves to ensure their citizens’ security and limit external influence because of the anarchist nature of the global order. Therefore, realism theories hold that the priority of all states is amassing as much power as possible and overseeing their interests using any means necessary, including coercion (Acharya & Buzan, 2019). Realists presume that states may seek to increase their powers and control over other nations by waging war against others or adopting initiatives to balance their powers with powerful countries. The Cold War between the US and Russia, which lasted for about 45 years, is an excellent example of how the power struggle can contribute to conflicts and create tension in the international system (Viotti & Kauppi, 2019). Similarly, realism theorists reasonably explain why superior states like the US and China hardly agree on foreign affairs and prefer doing as they wish. Moreover, realism makes sense out of why the established countries still spend considerable money on militarization and upgrading their equipment without any war plans. Thus, it is dependable in describing the issues that facilitate military action and war.
Liberalist theorists also base their arguments on state characteristics to explain the features of their foreign relations and why conflicts occur. However, unlike realists who only acknowledge state actors’ role, liberalists incorporate the role of individuals as decision-makers. Liberal theories suggest that humans are rational creatures, meaning they understand the rules governing nature and individual relations (Mingst et al., 2018). Therefore, people are responsible for creating a just society where everyone thrives. Liberalists proclaim that human beings are reasonable enough to compare the implications of using military force and its potential benefits. For example, World War II, the execution of innocent Jews in Germany, and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki facilitated the worst-ever humanitarian violations and atrocities (Maoz, 2020). As a result, liberalists champion the involvement of international non-governmental actors and establish international law to create stability between states in conflict. Additionally, they propose that economic power is far more beneficial and effective than military capacity. Thus, liberalists encourage trust, cooperation, and prosperity between non-state and governments to improve the lives of citizens.
Although realist and liberal international relations perspectives offer rational explanations for the causes of war and state behaviors, they fail to observe citizens as critical agents of change and foreign policy. These principles dominantly focus on states and actors who compete for power, thus resulting in unequal power distribution (Acharya & Buzan, 2019). However, constructivist views perceive the social order as a product of individuals’ making. Unlike liberal and realist theorists, constructivists interpret the world based on social constructions. As a result, constructivists explain that individuals’ ability to act according to their beliefs, ideas, and social structures plays a major role in determining the quality of state relations. Alexander Wendt provided an exemplary example of this notion by suggesting that five North Korean nuclear bombs are more threatening to the US than 500 British nuclear weapons (Cashman & Robinson, 2021). Thus, considering this perspective, social structures play a major role in describing and defining state relationships with respect to their identities. However, constructivists propose that social structures and state identities change according to their interactions. Hence, they consider various issues that can lead to war depending on the actors involved and their social interactions.
The Limits and Possibilities of the “Laws of War” as Policy
The laws of war are internationally recognized principles that dictate how states should approach matters of military conflicts and confrontation while focusing on minimal destruction and the value of civil rights. The laws of war are broadly categorized into those that inform governments whether they are justified to go to war and a set that describes how countries should act in the field during the conflict (Mingst et al., 2018). Particularly, the laws of war are beneficial because they justify engaging in armed conflict as a last resort (Solis, 2021). Additionally, the laws of war focus on alleviating humanitarian crises by protecting the lives of innocent civilians, doctors, and personnel, such as journalists who do not directly participate in the conflicts. Therefore, these regulations maintain order, justice, and discipline in military engagement.
However, the laws of war are limited in that they cannot protect all individuals at risk of the hazards of armed conflict or facilitate their comfort, as these regulations only seek to limit harm and regulate force. In other words, it is impossible to assure all people are not involved in a war of safety because of issues such as defiance of the order by governments or the military and the indiscriminate nature of wars (Viotti & Kauppi, 2019). Some nations adopt the element of surprise when attacking their adversaries, which increases the chances of civilian casualties. Additionally, the laws’ focus on preventing the loss of innocent lives allows them to neglect other critical issues, such as the aggravated suffering of victims due to limited access to basic needs and resources (Solis, 2021). For example, many innocent civilians have lost their lives due to military action by Russia in Ukraine, while others have died due to starvation and deplorable living standards. Therefore, although these laws play a principal role in regulating conflicts, they are limited in achieving their goals of ensuring safety for civilians.
War and unjustified violence against innocent individuals is against several religious doctrines, including Christian principles. However, there are some instances when war is inevitable and a pathway to the greater good. The Bible warns individuals that God dislikes hands that shed the blood of innocent individuals. However, Ecclesiastes 3:8 suggests that there is time for love, hate, peace, and war (English Standard Version Bible, 2001). Some philosophers propose that war between states and nations is unavoidable because of the anarchist nature of global systems and the shifting dynamics of national interests. However, states engage in different types of wars depending on the underlying issues and how far they are willing to go to achieve their ambitions. Therefore, countries can resolve conflicts between them by openly addressing their concerns using international relations theories to guide their decision-making and acknowledging the destructive implications of war since this will encourage them to adopt better solutions.
Realist, liberal, and constructivist theories attempt to explain the causes and outcomes of state actions and relationships. However, they do not comprehensively describe why war occurs because they perceive the global order from different angles. Nevertheless, they are essential in guiding policy making because they can forecast potential outcomes based on hypothesis and allow altering strategies. Since war is unprecedented and sometimes impossible to ignore, legal instruments such as the laws of war serve a principal purpose since they protect the lives of innocent individuals and limit unnecessary destruction. Nevertheless, they cannot assure individuals’ safety, thus eroding their essence and effectiveness. Regardless, these laws are critical to ensure that nations do not wage war against each other for avoidable reasons because they dictate the situations that justify war. Hence, they are vital for the sustainability of human development.
References
Acharya, A., & Buzan, B. (2019). The making of global international relations. Cambridge University Press.
Cashman, G., & Robinson, L. C. (2021). An introduction to the causes of war: Patterns of interstate conflict from World War I to Iraq. Rowman & Littlefield.
English Standard Version Bible. (2001). ESV Online. Web.
Mingst, K. A., McKibben, H. E., & Arreguin-Toft, I. M. (2018). Essentials of international relations. WW Norton & Company.
Maoz, Z. (2020). Paradoxes of war: On the art of national self-entrapment. Routledge.
Solis, G. D. (2021). The law of armed conflict: international humanitarian law in war. Cambridge University Press.
Viotti, P. R., & Kauppi, M. V. (2019). International relations theory. Rowman & Littlefield.