LAWS6013 Public International Law

1- Is it possible to eliminate War? Or is war an inevitable feature of the international system? In your answer examine the various theories studied.

2- What are the obstacles decreasing the likelihood of sustained international cooperation? Is long-term international cooperation possible? In your answer draw on the major theories of international relations and the various issue areas that states confront the need for collective action.

1.War is a term which has many definitions, and a term which is marked with chaos and has preposterous consequences. The question regarding the possibility of eliminating war or war being an inevitable feature of the international system is a constant source of debate, particularly between the different scholars supporting contrasting international theories. The two key contrasting theories in this regard are that of liberalism and realism (Tudovic, 2015). This is furthered by the developed of neo-liberalism and neo-realism. Followed by this is the theory of constructivism which provides another aspect to this debate. This discussion is focused on this very debate and would show that war is an inevitable aspect and would always be present in the international system.

Liberalism is the very first international relations theory where an attempt was made to give a solution to the permanence of the war in the world. The Classic Liberalism makes the promise where the democratic peace theory applies. In other words, the democracies do not fight in any manner, with each other. This results in the democracies of the world living without any war. The merits of this theory, even in troubled circumstances were highlighted by Immanuel Kant, where he deemed the peace treaties as truces, and where the ultimate goal was to build up perpetual peace (Beddow, 2017). However, this theory has been criticized by the scholars supporting realism. Merkel stated that this theory only referred to the consolidate democracies as such democratic institutions carried on their way in the manner as has been described in this theory. And he believed that this opened up another debate on the need of distinguishing between a consolidated and an unconsolidated democracy (Hawkins, 2017).

The liberal theorists are of the view that global politics is based on the concept of cooperation and harmony which means that war and conflict are not inevitable, but occur only for particular reasons. The core of liberalism is stemmed in the belief of reasoning and progress as a possibility. The individuals are deemed as moral creatures in this viewpoint, who are not just power seekers, making the liberals, believed that global politics could conform to the ethical theories instead of being passed on the political ones (Turner, 2013). The liberals also present the three manners in which any war can be contained. The first manner is by allowing free trade which assists in the establishment of economic interdependence amongst different states, which makes war as an unimaginable notion. This is because of the established global understanding between the trading partners. Another aspect is that international institutions can be created in order to make certain that the international rule of law is present, which would help in the replacement of unstable balance of power politics in a system where there is collective security. Lastly, the democratic governments could also reduce the propensity of war as the democratic states often use the techniques of negotiations and compromise to resolve a particular matter (Williams, 2013).

Despite this standing, one cannot deny that war and conflict could still take place, as they are associated with factors like imperial structures, authoritarian rule and the rise of economic nationalism, among the other things. Thus, a contrasting view presented by the realist theorists proves to be of assistance. The view purported by the realist theorists is that war is a constant feature of the international politics (Moffat, 2017). This is because the people are ethical flawed and narrowly selfish, and have the intention of attaining an advantage for themselves and in doing so, no regard is given to the needs of others. There is a lust for power in addition to the desire of dominating others and these features are ineradicable from the human nature. This means that the international politic comes down to the struggle of war, where there is a war against everyone. The key goal of each state is promotion of national interest where they try to attain relative gain in the international scenario. Thus, international politics is inevitably a kind of politics of power, where the war is used as the state policy’s instrument. The propensity is further strengthened through the anarchical nature of global system where without a powerful standing over the sovereign states, the states are forced to rely on self help for attaining security, owing to hostility, mutual fear and suspicion (Pashakhanlou, 2017). The anarchical system’s dynamics make the stability in long run, along with the cooperation at an international level, a difficult and almost impossible task to achieve. And even when there are temporary periods of stability and peace, these are only carried to maintain the balance of power, which inevitably is hampered by one or other international incident (Elman & Jensen, 2014).  

Apart from these classic theories, there have been other theories which have contributed to the debate of war being inevitable or not. The classic theory of liberalism transitioned to the concept of neo-liberalism, which came into being in the 1970s. As per this theory, the states are the main actors in the global politics. This theory purports that the states continue to exist even in anarchy but they behave in a rational manner. This theory still covers the basics of liberalism, where the states are deemed to be interested in their own welfare and they cooperate with others, only to improve their gains (Blakeley, 2009). Yet, at the same time, they fear the sucker’s payoff and cheating. In terms of sucker’s payoff, as per this theory, the states fear that in order to benefit them, another state can cheat them. And still, the focus remains on cooperating with each other owing to the tragedy of commons. This theory states that for minimizing the loss, there is a need to collaborate with others. So, for avoiding a situation of war, the neoliberal institutions lower their costs of negotiating, they facilitate issue linkages in order to increase the negotiation frameworks and also increase the international interactions between the states (Solingen, 2014).

A constructivist approach offers further insights to this debate. This approach provides that anarchy is summed up on the claim that ‘anarchy is what states make of it’. This means that the individuals act towards objects which include the other actors, where the particular object means something for them. Thus, anarchy is dependent upon the meaning which a particular state attaches to the term anarchy, and the same can result in different meaning of anarchy by different states (Dornan, 2011). This theory provides that the behaviour of the state is shaped by its social norms, its ethical beliefs and identities. The practices and the ideas of the individuals shape and force the view towards any aspect. So, a particular state may define war as a necessity and another can define as an act of sin. A key aspect of this theory lies in the objective reality of the world lying in the eyes of the beholder (Beck, 2011).

On the basis of the different ethical theories elucidated above, one the key goal of this discussion has been attained. It has been established, that despite the international theory applied, war is something which is inevitable. Some may deem it as a necessity and the others may deem it as a seldom occurrence, but no theory can deny the presence of war in the international context. This is particularly true in the present day global context, which is filled with chaos and uncertainty, thus strengthening the approach presented by the neo-liberals. At any such instance where one state construes the other as a threat, a war can break out, and no amount of negotiations can stop this inevitable occurrence.

2.Peace is something which nearly every nation strives for. But in the globalized world, where there are nearly no boundaries, the actions undertaken by one state have a huge impact over the other states, and it creates ripple effect in the international peace. In order to uphold this peace, there is a need for international cooperation of the states, which is sustained over a long period of time. However, this is easier said than done and there are a range of obstacles which hinder the likelihood of sustained international cooperation (Lemieux, 2013). In the following parts, these very obstacles have been highlighted, particularly in the context of the need for collective action by the states.

Since the Cold War ended, there have been a number of arguments amongst the nations where it has been shown that there is a possibility of attaining international cooperation. The nations cooperate on voluntary basis and the same can be abandoned at they will (Cooper, 2016). The international cooperation has been institutionalized through global governance and the best case scenario shows the nations trying to solve the global problems through accountability and the agreement enforcement of the states. When it comes to cooperation, Keohane assumed a conflictive policy situation to be the beginning of a cooperative agreement. In order to line up the preferences of the states, the policy adjustments are then made through negotiations. Upon the policies being compatible for all the parties, the cooperation is attained. However, this definition by Keohane highlights a key obstacle, the need for the preferences of each of the states being attained, which is not an easy take to achieve (Lengfelder, 2017).

A major obstacle to international cooperation, which is a constant one, is the society itself. There is distrust, competition and a constant angst between the states, for losing out in comparison to the other state, which limits cooperation. This can be strengthened through the sucker’s payoff concept provided under neo-liberalism (Lieberman & Fry, 2015). The states continuously try to overcome their disadvantage by increasing transparency in the information distribution and by creating the surroundings where there is more certainty and thus, cooperation is facilitated by the states. Though, this requires the state to lose their sovereignty to a certain extent, which often becomes the source of defiance, leading in cooperation not being attained. The nations which are focused over the international cooperation have grown to learn and to tolerate some or other kind of intervention in the domestic politics for instance, the European Union. And gradually, the states are learning that international cooperation is rewarded by security, benefits, stability and transparency, which would be hard to obtain in the global context (Lengfelder, 2017).

In the international relations theory, realism has been a dominant force since the Second World War. The realist assumption is that anarchy helps in fostering conflict and competition amongst the states and shows their willingness to cooperate (Cox, 2016). Anarchy is not deemed as chaos and instead is deemed as the ordering structure whereby the participants seize and defend their resources. The cooperation is thus precluded owing to the non-existent centralized institutional authority. As the states are sovereign, they simply cannot cede the ultimate control to any supranational sovereign and as a result of this, a guarantee to adherence of their promises cannot be made. Though, through liberalism, realism was challenged. The emphasis in liberalism was made towards the effectiveness and significance of the institutions, which allowed cooperation amongst the states. However, by 1970s the tensions and conflicts were so evolved that the propositions of the realists was proved right and the liberal institutionalism was undermined. Though, this led to the birth of neo-liberalism which supports and accepts the presence of anarchy in the international context (Mir, 2014).

The assumption of realists is central to the theories of cooperation amongst the states. As there is a lack of central authority for enforcing the international agreements, there is a temptation with the states to exploit each other and also a fear of being exploited is raised. Realism sees the global politics in light of higher conflict than as is done in the neoliberal institutionalism. In the view of realists, the global politics is a constant struggle for dominance, survival and advantage. Neoliberals provide that there is no doubt a presence of conflict, but there is more to international politics. And so, by working towards mitigating the effects of anarchy, production of mutual gains and avoiding shared harm, the international cooperation can be attained. In the view of neoliberals, cheating impedes cooperation amid the prudent egoistic states. And that this barrier can be overcome with the help of international institutions. The states are no longer the rational, unitary and deciding actors. In the modern states, there is a presence of multiple channel access, which has led to the weakened grip of central decision-makers in the international policies (Mir, 2014).

So, the states are no longer focused on the overcoming the obstacles of security and power. Even with the presence of nuclear weapons and the weapons of mass destruction, the war has been made a costly affair and there would thus be hesitation amongst the states for these instruments to be used against them as these hold exceptional destructive power. Instead of this, there is an increase in the economic relations amongst the states which has allowed them to be more interdependent, which helps in achieving the national goals of price stability, growth and full employment. This has led to the democracies becoming welfare states where the focus is on economic growth, social security, instead of prestige and power, which helps in attaining international cooperation (Mir, 2014).

To further overcome the obstacles of power and security, the states opt for agreements and treaties. A leading one in this regard is the United Nations Charter, which provides that where any of the member states continue to disrupt peace, the Security Council would be taking actions against such state, through land, sea and air forces, in the means which are required for restoring or maintaining international security and peace (United Nations, 2017). This cooperation is applied to the democratic nations in the global state which favours negotiations over the demonstrations of hard power through war. Even though the capacity of war is still present, but a capacity does not necessarily translate into certainty. The stalemate of cyber-warfare and nuclear weapons between USA and China shows that both the nations are awaiting the move off other. And yet, none of these are moving towards a war, owing to the international cooperation where collective actions have been taken to ensure peace (Mazanec & Thayer, 2014). And in a step towards this, an example of ISIS can be highlighted, where the world has taken a united stance to eradicate the Islamic radicals, in order to continue with the world peace and cooperation amongst the states (Payne, 2014).

Thus, it can be summarized from the above discussion that there are two key obstacles which are faced by the nations when it comes to the likelihood of sustained international cooperation. These two are power and security, and are coupled with factors like a possible threat, a fear, and self-centred objectives of the state. However, through the theories discussed above, particularly the neo-liberalism, it becomes clear that the states are moving towards long term sustained cooperation, in order to continue their growth, instead of opting for war, which is a costly affair. And in order to ensure this long lasting cooperation, collective actions are taken by the states, a leading example of which is the UN Charter, which is focused on ensuring peace amongst the different nations. Thus, there is a possibility of long lasting international cooperation, through collective actions.

Beck, T.K. (2011). The Eye of the Beholder: Violence as a Social Process. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 5(2), 345-356.

Beddow, A. (2017). Immanuel Kant and the Myth of Perpetual Peace. Retrieved from: https://nationalinterest.org/feature/immanuel-kant-the-myth-perpetual-peace-22087

Blakeley, R. (2009). State Terrorism and Neoliberalism: The North in the South. Oxon: Routledge.

Cooper, A. F. (Ed.). (2016). Niche diplomacy: Middle powers after the Cold War. New York: Springer.

Cox, R. W. (Ed.). (2016). The new realism: Perspectives on multilateralism and world order. New York: Springer.

Dornan, M. (2011). Realist and Constructivist Approaches to Anarchy. Retrieved from: https://www.e-ir.info/2011/08/29/realist-and-constructivist-approaches-to-anarchy/

Elman, C., & Jensen, M. (Eds.). (2014). The realism reader. Oxon: Routledge.

Hawkins, R. (2017). Is War an Inescapable fact of International Politics?. Retrieved from: https://www.academia.edu/5092833/Is_War_an_Inescapable_fact_of_International_Politics

Lemieux, F. (Ed.). (2013). International Police Cooperation: Emerging issues, theory and practice. Oxon: Routledge.

Lengfelder, C. (2017). International cooperation as a stepping-stone to a world government. Retrieved from: https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/brookings-audit/international-cooperation-stepping-stone-world-government

Lieberman, H., & Fry, C. (2015). Understanding the Limits of Competitive Processes. Submitted to LIMITS2015.

Mazanec, B.M., & Thayer, B. (2014). Deterring Cyber Warfare: Bolstering Strategic Stability in Cyberspace. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Mir, S.A. (2014). Realism, anarchy and cooperation. International Journal of Interdisciplinary and Multidisciplinary Studies, 1(8), 164-167.

Moffat, F. (2017). Is war and conflict an inevitable feature of global politics?. Retrieved from: https://getrevising.co.uk/grids/is-war-and-conflict-an-inevitable-feature-of

Pashakhanlou, A. H. (2017). Fear in Realism and Beyond. In Realism and Fear in International Relations. New York: Springer International Publishing.

Payne, S. (2014). United against Isis: Which countries are doing what?. Retrieved from: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/united-against-isis-who-s-doing-what-9756460.html

Solingen, E. (2014).  Comparative Regionalism: Economics and Security. Oxon: Routledge.

Tudovic, J. (2015). Are wars inevitable?. Retrieved from: https://www.iapss.org/wp/2015/01/21/are-wars-inevitable/

Turner, F. (2013). The democratic surround: Multimedia and American liberalism from World War II to the psychedelic sixties. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

United Nations. (2017). Chapter VII. Retrieved from: https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-vii/index.html

Williams, A. (2013). Liberalism and War: The Victors and the Vanquished. Oxon: Routledge.