Examining State-Level and Dyadic Explanations for War in Global Politics

 
State + Dyadic Level
Explanations for War
 
IB Global Politics
UWC Costa Rica
What’s the point?
 
Some people are just
accident prone
 
Similarly, some state-
level explanations argue
that some types of states
may be more war-prone
than others
 
Factors such as nature of
economy, internal political
opposition, nature of
political system etc.
 
Dyadic Explanations
 
Dyadic explanations
refer to the interaction
of the characteristics
of two states
 
War within democratic
dyads is extremely
rare
 
Three factors
 
 
 
Economy
 
Internal opposition
 
Nature of political
system
 
Type of Economy: A Marxist
Explanation
 
Argues capitalist states
are more war-prone.
Why?
 
Capitalist economies
experience
overproduction, surplus
capital, wealth inequality
etc.
 
Seek to address these
through imperialism –
new markets, cheap
labour, access to raw
materials
 
Marxist explanation
 
Imperialism, by its nature,
involves military conflict
 
I
n
 
a
 
w
o
r
l
d
 
o
f
 
m
a
n
y
 
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
i
s
t
c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
 
i
m
p
e
r
i
a
l
i
s
m
 
m
e
a
n
s
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
 
c
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
o
n
 
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
r
i
v
a
l
 
s
t
a
t
e
s
.
 
E
a
c
h
 
s
t
a
t
e
 
s
t
r
i
v
e
s
t
o
 
g
a
i
n
 
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
 
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
 
o
v
e
r
m
a
r
k
e
t
s
,
 
r
a
w
 
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
,
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
 
o
f
 
c
h
e
a
p
 
l
a
b
o
r
,
 
n
a
v
a
l
b
a
s
e
s
,
 
a
n
d
 
i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
.
 
A
t
 
s
o
m
e
 
p
o
i
n
t
,
t
h
e
s
e
 
c
a
n
 
b
e
 
g
a
i
n
e
d
 
o
n
l
y
 
a
t
t
h
e
 
e
x
p
e
n
s
e
 
o
f
 
o
t
h
e
r
 
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
i
s
t
s
t
a
t
e
s
.
 
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
 
c
o
n
f
l
i
c
t
e
v
e
n
t
u
a
l
l
y
 
l
e
a
d
s
 
t
o
 
m
i
l
i
t
a
r
y
c
o
n
f
l
i
c
t
 
Criticism of the Marxist view
 
One group of arguments
focuses on the Marxist
assumptions for why
capitalist states must
engage in imperialism,
pointing out, for example,
that not all capitalist states
were experiencing
economic problems at
home when they engaged
in imperialism and that they
often did not secure the
benefits of imperialism.
 
Another group of criticisms
focuses on the historical
record, pointing out that not
all capitalist states have
engaged in imperialism, that
not all conflicts between
capitalist states ended in
war, that war has been
around longer than
capitalist economic
systems, that wars between
capitalist states were not
necessarily fought for
economic reasons, and that
states with socialist or
centrally planned
economies have often been
engaged in conflict, even
with each other
 
But
 
But
…does not rule out possibility that
economic coditions/force provide
explanation for war
 
 
Conquering others’
resources in order to
address economic
problems may be a major
motivation for some
states to initiate wars.
 
Evidence that good
economic conditions may
be related to war because
that is when states can
afford military adventures.
 
War may benefit certain economic
interest groups in a society
 
Weapons manufacturers
make increased profits
from war
 
Concept of military
industrial complex
focuses on the
relationship among the
military, the bureaucracy,
and the defense industry
as a coalition of economic
and political interests that
benefit from international
conflict
 
Types of Political Systems
 
In addition to the systemic-
level characteristic of
interdependence, liberal
explanations of international
conflict include the type of
political system that states
have.
 
Specifically, liberalism expects
states with democratic systems
to be less war prone than
nondemocratic states because
of the constraints that are built
in to democratic structures and
the cultural values of peaceful
resolution of conflicts that are
related to democratic
processes
 
Internal Opposition
 
Supposedly,
democracies are
constrained from
choosing war
because of an
opposition that views
war as counter to
cultural norms
 
Leaders of
democratic states are
accountable through
the ballot box
 
Democratic Dyads
 
Democratic states are just as likely as non-
democratic states to go to war
 
Evidence suggests that democratic states are
much less likely to become involved in war against
each other
 
Known as the democratic peace proposition –
democratic states will not go to war against each
other
 
Democratic dyads are conflict free
 
Global Democracy Index Map
 
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/49z
4s2/democracy_index_map_for_2014_2754x139
7/?st=ixrxj5ya&sh=5041bc2c
 
A disclaimer
 
The validity of this proposition is heavily
dependent on the definitions of democracy
and war used
 
It is easy to discredit the idea by adopting
very broad definitions
 
Equally easy to make the proposition
invulnerable to contrary evidence, (and
empirically meaningless) by adopting a
definition of democracy that is so strict as to
eliminate virtually every state that has ever
existed
 
But
 
But
 
i
f
 
d
e
m
o
c
r
a
c
y
 
i
s
 
d
e
f
i
n
e
d
 
a
s
 
a
 
t
y
p
e
 
o
f
 
p
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l
s
y
s
t
e
m
 
i
n
 
w
h
i
c
h
 
t
h
e
 
i
d
e
n
t
i
t
i
e
s
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
l
e
a
d
e
r
s
 
o
f
t
h
e
 
e
x
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
 
b
r
a
n
c
h
 
a
n
d
 
t
h
e
 
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
 
l
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
u
r
e
 
a
r
e
 
s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
 
i
n
 
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
v
o
l
v
i
n
g
 
a
t
 
l
e
a
s
t
 
t
w
o
 
i
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
 
p
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l
p
a
r
t
i
e
s
,
 
i
n
 
w
h
i
c
h
 
a
t
 
l
e
a
s
t
 
h
a
l
f
 
t
h
e
 
a
d
u
l
t
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
 
i
s
 
e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
 
t
o
 
v
o
t
e
,
 
a
n
d
 
i
n
 
w
h
i
c
h
 
t
h
e
p
o
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
 
t
h
a
t
 
t
h
e
 
g
o
v
e
r
n
i
n
g
 
p
a
r
t
y
 
w
i
l
l
 
l
o
s
e
 
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
 
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
 
b
y
 
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
 
p
r
e
c
e
d
e
n
t
,
 
t
h
e
n
 
.
.
 
.
 
n
o
n
e
 
o
f
 
t
h
o
s
e
 
[
c
o
n
t
r
o
v
e
r
s
i
a
l
]
 
c
a
s
e
s
 
i
s
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
l
y
 
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
z
e
d
 
a
s
 
a
n
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
 
w
a
r
 
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
 
d
e
m
o
c
r
a
t
i
c
s
t
a
t
e
s
Slide Note
Embed
Share

Understanding the reasons why certain states are more war-prone than others involves exploring factors such as economy, internal opposition, and political systems. Marxist explanations argue that capitalist economies are more prone to war due to issues like overproduction, wealth inequality, and imperialism. Criticism of this view points out that not all capitalist states engage in imperialism, and war has historical roots predating capitalist systems.


Uploaded on Jul 30, 2024 | 0 Views


Download Presentation

Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. State + Dyadic Level Explanations for War IB Global Politics UWC Costa Rica

  2. Whats the point? Some people are just accident prone Similarly, some state- level explanations argue that some types of states may be more war-prone than others Factors such as nature of economy, internal political opposition, nature of political system etc.

  3. Dyadic Explanations Dyadic explanations refer to the interaction of the characteristics of two states War within democratic dyads is extremely rare

  4. Three factors Economy Internal opposition Nature of political system

  5. Type of Economy: A Marxist Explanation Argues capitalist states are more war-prone. Why? Capitalist economies experience overproduction, surplus capital, wealth inequality etc. Seek to address these through imperialism new markets, cheap labour, access to raw materials

  6. Marxist explanation Imperialism, by its nature, involves military conflict In a world of many capitalist countries imperialism means economic competition between rival states. Each state strives to gain exclusive control over markets, raw materials, sources of cheap labor, naval bases, and investment opportunities. At some point, these can be gained only at the expense of other capitalist states. Economic conflict eventually leads to military conflict

  7. Criticism of the Marxist view One group of arguments focuses on the Marxist assumptions for why capitalist states must engage in imperialism, pointing out, for example, that not all capitalist states were experiencing economic problems at home when they engaged in imperialism and that they often did not secure the benefits of imperialism. Another group of criticisms focuses on the historical record, pointing out that not all capitalist states have engaged in imperialism, that not all conflicts between capitalist states ended in war, that war has been around longer than capitalist economic systems, that wars between capitalist states were not necessarily fought for economic reasons, and that states with socialist or centrally planned economies have often been engaged in conflict, even with each other

  8. But

  9. Butdoes not rule out possibility that economic coditions/force provide explanation for war Conquering others resources in order to address economic problems may be a major motivation for some states to initiate wars. Evidence that good economic conditions may be related to war because that is when states can afford military adventures.

  10. War may benefit certain economic interest groups in a society Weapons manufacturers make increased profits from war Concept of military industrial complex focuses on the relationship among the military, the bureaucracy, and the defense industry as a coalition of economic and political interests that benefit from international conflict

  11. Types of Political Systems In addition to the systemic- level characteristic of interdependence, liberal explanations of international conflict include the type of political system that states have. Specifically, liberalism expects states with democratic systems to be less war prone than nondemocratic states because of the constraints that are built in to democratic structures and the cultural values of peaceful resolution of conflicts that are related to democratic processes

  12. Internal Opposition Supposedly, democracies are constrained from choosing war because of an opposition that views war as counter to cultural norms Leaders of democratic states are accountable through the ballot box

  13. Democratic Dyads Democratic states are just as likely as non- democratic states to go to war Evidence suggests that democratic states are much less likely to become involved in war against each other Known as the democratic peace proposition democratic states will not go to war against each other Democratic dyads are conflict free

  14. Global Democracy Index Map https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/49z 4s2/democracy_index_map_for_2014_2754x139 7/?st=ixrxj5ya&sh=5041bc2c

  15. A disclaimer The validity of this proposition is heavily dependent on the definitions of democracy and war used It is easy to discredit the idea by adopting very broad definitions Equally easy to make the proposition invulnerable to contrary evidence, (and empirically meaningless) by adopting a definition of democracy that is so strict as to eliminate virtually every state that has ever existed

  16. But

  17. But if democracy is defined as a type of political system in which the identities of the leaders of the executive branch and the members of the national legislature are selected in elections involving at least two independent political parties, in which at least half the adult population is eligible to vote, and in which the possibility that the governing party will lose has been established by historical precedent, then . . . none of those [controversial] cases is appropriately categorized as an international war between democratic states

More Related Content

giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#