Transcript Slide 1

THEORETICAL APPROACHES
TO SECURITY:
WAR & PEACE STUDIES
Lecture Week 4
Implications of War

What are some of the negative implications of war?

…Positive implications of war?
Implications of War?

Negative Implications of War are Obvious
 Human
Suffering, Economic Consequences, Political Turmoil,
Social Tensions, etc…

Positive Implications of War
 Technological
Innovation
 Medical Advancement
 Humanitarian Intervention
 Economic Booms
 Etc…
Three Methods of Defining War

Political

Legal

Cultural
Defining War : Political Approach

Most popular within Security Studies

Clausewitz (1976):
 Warfare
as ‘an act of violence intended to compel our
opponent to fulfill our will’

War as Rational, National, and Instrumental
 Decision
for war should be made on basis of a rational
calculation…
 Taken by a political authority concerned…
 With the purpose of achieving a specific goal.
Defining War : Political Approach (cont.)


Hedley Bull (1977) - War is:
“organized violence carried on by political units against
each other… What distinguishes killing in war from
murder is its vicarious and official character, the symbolic
responsibility of the unit whose agent is the killer.
Equally, violence carried out in the name of a political
unit is not war unless it is directed against another
political unit.”
Excludes, for example violence in the execution of
criminals or the suppression of piracy.
Defining War: Legal Approach

Defines war in legal terms

Wright 1983: War as
“the legal condition which equally permits two or more hostile
groups to carry on a conflict of armed force” (7)


War is distinguished from peace because it is a state of
legal contestation through military means
However, can have legal state of war without overt
violence

Example: N and S Korea post 1953
Defining War: Legal Approach (cont.)

Q: Problems with Legal Approach?

Limited capabilities of legal approach
 IL
of war acknowledges the state as primary actor
 Growing
 Legal
number of non-state actors in armed conflict
disputes regarding ‘warfare’ versus ‘criminal activity’
Defining War: Cultural Approach

Definition of ‘warfare’ is relative to time and space


Depends on where and when in human history we look
John Keegan (1994):
War “is always an expression of culture, often a
determinant of cultural forms, in some societies the culture
itself” (12)


War is a socially constructed category with powerful
material implications
How ‘we’ define an act of war may not coincide with
how ‘others’ see war
Three Philosophies of War

Political Philosophy

Eschatological Philosophy

Cataclysmic Philosophy
Political Philosophy of War

War as a legitimate instrument of state policy


(as long as take into account rational, national and instrumental
elements discussed earlier)
Victory comes to those who are most accomplished
in the ‘arts of war’ (leadership, strategy, assets…)
Eschatological Philosophy

Involves the idea that
“history, or at least some portion of history, will culminate into a
‘final’ war leading to the unfolding of some grand design –
divine, natural or human’ (Rapaport 1968: 15)

Two Variants according to Rapaport: Messianic & Global
Eschatological Philosophy (cont.)

Messianic Variant: the agency destined to carry out the ‘grand
design’ is presumed to exist already


Examples:


End goal: ‘impose a just peace on the world’ and ‘eliminate war
from future history’
Crusaders (Middle Ages); Nazi’s doctrine of the Aryan Race; Christ’s
‘Second Coming’
Global Variant: agency of action must be created


Similar End Goals
Example: Communist eschatology

The emergence of a ‘global’ working class movement was required to
convert imperialist war into class warfare
Cataclysmic Philosophy



Views war as “a catastrophe that befalls some portion
of humanity or the entire human race.” (Rapoport
1968: 16)
Scorn of God… or unfortunate by-product of anarchic
‘international system’
Two Variants to Philosophy: Global and Ethnocentric
Variants of Cataclysmic Philosophy
1



2



Global Variant
No one responsible for war
No one benefits from war, affects humanity as a whole
Research is focused on predicting the causes of war and
conflict-resolution
Ethnocentric Variant
War is a phenomena likely to befall us
war is something others threaten to do to us
War is unavoidable

Can only alleviate or forestall impending disaster
Reflections on Philosophical Approaches
Rapoport’s reflections on the three philosophical
approaches (1968):

In political philosophy, war is compared to a game
of chess

In eschatological philosophy, to a mission

In cataclysmic philosophy, to a fire or epidemic
Uppsala Conflict Data Program


Comprehensive Conflict Database
Measures armed conflict:
 By
type
 By scale
 By intensity
 By region
 Allows for time comparison analysis from 1945

www.ucdp.uu.se - Research Database
Types of Armed Conflict
1


State-based Armed Conflict: a govt. is one of the warring parties
Interstate armed conflict: between two or more states
Intrastate armed conflict: between a govt. of a state and internal
opposition groups


Civil wars: fought for control of an existing government
State formation/secessionist conflicts: fought between a govt. and a
territorially focused opposition group seeking to redraw existing state
borders
Internationalized intrastate armed conflict: intrastate conflicts with
additional intervention from other states in the form of troops
 Extrastate armed conflict: between a state and a non-state group
outside that state’s territory
2 Non-state Armed Conflict: recognized govt. is not one of the
parties. Ex. Fighting between warlords, intercommunal conflicts,
etc…

Scales of Armed Conflict


Quantity dead & Intensity of Death Rate
Minor armed conflict
≥
25 battle related deaths per year, and
 < 1,000 battle related deaths during course of conflict

Intermediate armed conflict
≥
25 battle related deaths per year, and
 ≥ 1,000 battle related deaths during course of conflict, but
 < 1,000 battle related deaths in any given year


War
At least 1,000 battle related deaths per year
Trends in Armed Conflict since 1945

Trend One:
 Significant
decline in interstate armed conflict (particularly
since mid 1970s)
 Internal
conflicts now accounting for vast majority of armed
conflict
 Trend
has encouraged non-state conflict research
Trends in Armed Conflict since 1945 (cont.)



Trend Two
Drastic fall in the intensity of global armed conflict since
end of Cold War
Andrew Mack (2007) attributes fall in intensity of
conflict to four factors:
1
2
3
4
End of colonialism removed major conflict source from IP
End of Cold War: encouraged superpowers to stop fueling
‘proxy wars’
Increased level of international activism (spearheaded by
UN following end of Cold War)
Increasing popularity of global norms regarding the use
of military force in IP
Trends in Armed Conflict since 1945 (cont.)



Trend Three
Significant decline in battle related deaths
Average number of battle related deaths per conflict,
per year:
1950 – 38,000
 2005 - 700
(98 % decrease)


However, battle related deaths do not include collateral
damage or ‘indirect deaths’ (war-exacerbated disease
or malnutrition, etc…)
Trends in Armed Conflict since 1945 (cont.)







Trend Four
Shifting regional spread of armed conflicts
In global historical terms, major wars were confined to
relatively small geographic areas
Until mid 1970s, East and Southeast Asia had most battle
related deaths
In later stages of Cold War, most battle casualties spread to
Middle East, Asia and Africa
Since mid-1990s, sub-Saharan Africa proved by far to be
world’s most conflict-prone region
In spite of the fact most African states were non-independent
prior to the 1960s, Africa suffered 69 of the worlds 187
armed conflicts between 1946-2005
Who Fights in Armed Conflict

Political units are not just states
Other major categories of actors include:
1 International Organizations


UN, EU, NATO, African Union, etc…
2 Armed Non-State Actors
Mercenaries, private military companies, insurgents, paramilitaries,
militias, self-defense forces, suicide bombers
 Significant increase in child solider in contemporary conflict


In 2005, approx. 300,000 child soldiers fighting and another 500,000 in
‘peacetime’ armies (Singer 2005)
The Burden of War




Significant decrease in number of battle deaths in last
50 years due to changes in ‘modes’ of modern warfare
Resultantly, civilians count for greatest proportion of
causalities in armed conflict
30-60% of violent deaths in today’s armed conflict are
civilian deaths (Human Security Center, 2005)
Most civilian deaths are ‘indirect deaths’
 Death
from war-exacerbated disease and malnutrition
 Brought on and/or intensified by the process of
displacement
 Impacts mainly women, children, and the elderly
‘New Wars’ Debate


Kaldor (1999): Globalization has given rise to a new
form of violent conflict
Traditional distinctions between war …
 (involving

… organized crime …
 (private

violence for financial motivations),
… and large-scale violations of human rights …
 (violence

political groups with political motivations),
by states or groups against civilians)
have become blurred.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo7_X67peo&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL
82136D8D499F5718
Elements of Kaldor’s ‘New Wars’ Theory
‘New’ Wars:
 …are intrastate rather than interstate
 …take place in the context of state failure and social
transformation driven by globalization and liberal economic
forces
 … are financed through a globalized economy that is
decentralized, transnational, and where combatants are
often self-funded through plunder, the black market, or
external assistance
 The breakdown of state authority blurs the distinction
between public and private combatants

‘Globalization’ breaks down state’s monopoly of violence
Elements of Kaldor’s ‘New Wars’ Theory …

Ethnic and religious differences are more important
than political ideology
 Struggle
between cosmopolitan and exclusivist identity
groups

Civilian casualties and forced displacement are
increasing because civilians are deliberately being
targeted


Method of sowing ‘fear and hatred’ rather than winning ‘hearts
and minds’
Q: Why is ‘cultural war’ as a perspective dangerous?
 Process
of dehumanization versus doctrinization
Barkawi’s Response to ‘New Wars’ Theory




Tarak Barkawi (2006) disagrees with Kaldor’s ‘New
Wars’ Theory
Globalization is not a recent phenomenon but a
much older process
War has historically been a significant form of
interconnection between societies
In this sense, globalization is not a process separate
from war, and war has been a globalizing force for
thousands of years
Theory of War as ‘Spectator Sport’








Michael Mann (1988): ‘Spectator Sport’ Theory
Although major war between Western states is becoming
obsolete, the West is still willing and able to fight wars, and
does so regularly
In ‘modern’ West, warfare akin to a spectator sport
Key elements:
Localization of conflict: Fight away from Western homeland
‘Enemy’ in wars is narrowly defined as the
leadership/regime of the targeted state
Desire to minimize collateral damage – Reduction in
‘legitimate target’ population
Force Protection is a significant priority

Airpower technologies
Peace Research and Peace Studies





History of Peace Studies
What is Contemporary Peace Studies?
Peace Research as a ‘Science’
Transition from Peace Research to Peace Studies
Key Concepts
 Defining
‘Peace’
 Positive and Negative Peace
 Structural Violence
 Cultural Violence

Future of Peace Studies
Origins of Peace Studies



Peace - New field of study, Old topic of interest
Prevalence of violent conflict throughout history has
resulted in many reflections on war’s causes and on
variables of peace
Key Questions –
 How
to define ‘peace’?
 Conflict versus Violent Conflict?
 Peace Studies as an independent field?
 Positivist or Normative field of study?
Origins – Religious Theories of Peace

All major religions offer reflections on war and peace, few
religion all-out prohibit war

Religious doctrine has indirectly influenced peace studies

Philosopher and Devout Catholic - Pascal (17th Century)
 “Men
never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they
do it from religious conviction.”
Origins – Religious Theories of Peace (cont.)


Religious theories create moral contexts for war
ILs of War and Peace particularly influenced by
Christian tradition
 Moral
limitations of going to war (jus ad bellum)
 Moral requirements of fighting in war (jus in bello)
Origins – Secular Theories of Peace



Theorists of Enlightenment period glorify human
progress for its own sake – Rousseau and Kant
Secular view of war as an inhibitor to human
progress
Immanuel Kant – argued that universal justice and
perpetual peace were categorical imperatives that
humanity was compelled to pursue by virtue of its
own rational nature
Kant – ‘Idealist’ / ‘Utopian’ Tradition

Based on:
 Universal
reasoning,
 Human perfectibility, (and)
 The domestication of IP (through the)
 Institutionalization of interactions between states (and)
 International Law

(Think: Kantian Liberalism, Last Week)
Kantian ‘Republican’ States


Republican states as ‘peace producers’
Attributed more peaceful behavior to:
 Habits
of consultation (general, norms)
 Consultation and consensus in war decisions


Legal foundations of republican state
Acknowledged difficultly of liberal states to
maintain republican values in IP
 Therefore,
duty of republican state to create lawregulated international relations
Kant’s Program for ‘Perpetual Peace’


Two Parts to ‘Peace Program’: preliminary and
definitive articles
‘Preliminary articles’: initial conditions to be made
by republican states for international peace
 Non-interference
in affairs of other states
 Abolition of standing armies
 Outlawing of espionage, and political assassination
 Ending imperial ventures
Kant’s Program for ‘Perpetual Peace’

Three ‘definitive articles’ for peace
 The
civil constitution of every state should be republican
 Spreading
‘republican’ states as a way of spreading and
maintaining peace
 International
law should be founded on a federation of
free states
 ‘federation
 Universal
of free states’ = collective security system
Hospitality
 ‘universal
hospitality’ would create ‘republican’ international
norms and sense of community
The Democratic Peace



Liberal states do not fight wars against other liberal
states
Michael Doyle (1983): liberal societies treat other
liberal societies differently than non-liberal societies
Relied on Kant’s ‘three preconditions’ as the source
 Republican
constitutions
 Collective security arrangements
 Civic hospitality
 With added notion of ‘free trade’
The Democratic Peace (cont.)
Two Schools of Thought:
1 Liberal Ideology causes ‘Liberal Peace’

 Liberal
states trust each other because of shared
liberal norms
 Kantian View
2 Liberal Institutions causes ‘Liberal Peace’
 Including
 division
the
of powers (checks and balances)
 The electoral cycle (incumbent accountability)
 Also, liberal economic institutions
The ‘Capitalist Peace’?



Krik Gartzke (2007) - Empirical Study
Evidence suggests that capitalism, not democracy, leads to
peace
Why democratic relations may not align:
“If democracy reflects the popular will, and many people in
the world are unhappy, we should perhaps not expect that
all new democracies will like the old ones. Democratization,
paradoxically, implies increasing tensions among
democracies.” (182)

Free markets and economic prosperity discourage war
Article and Last Week’s ‘Economic
Disarmament’

‘Economic Disarmament’: policy prescription that
 promotes
international trade regulation
 Reduces import tariffs and quotas


Particularly influential theory in the creation of
international organizations after WWII
Idea that globalization can be a ‘peace producer’
through ‘economic disarmament’
From ‘Idealism’ to ‘Realism’

1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact
 Sought




to outlaw war
League of Nations
Changes in IP creates pessimistic backlash
E.H. Carr and Hans Morgenthau rallied against
Kantian ‘naivety’ in IP
Theories of war and peace often presented within
simplistic dualism of idealism and realism
Origin of ‘Contemporary’ Peace Studies


1950s – Euro/American Influence
Key Figure - John Galtung




US trained, Norwegian Sociologist and pacifist
Goal: Developing systematic, interdisciplinary studies
of conflict and war within the confines of a positivist
understanding of social science
First ‘peach research’ program founded in 1959 at the
International Peace Research Institute of Oslo (PRIO)
1964 – Founding of the Journal of Peace Research
What is Contemporary Peace Studies?



Field of conflict research precursor of contemporary
peace studies
Interdisciplinary field by nature
Central Concerns:
 Reduction/eradication
of war
 Control and resolution of violent conflict by peaceful means


Inherent normative commitment to promote peace
Peace studies does not aim to eliminate all conflict, only
violent conflict
 Peace
researchers acknowledge the social functions of nonviolent conflict
From Social Research to ‘Science’

Early ‘Peace Researchers’ battled against the
‘idealist’ stereotype with ‘modern’ methodology
 Shift
to positivist empiricism
 ‘Objective’
Research
Interdisciplinary Peace

The problem of peace clearly overlaps with
explorations of things such as:
 conflict
resolution (at all social levels),
 global exploitation,
 human rights,
 international social justice,
 environmental security,
 global health
 alternative world orders
 research and development
 technology
Defining ‘Peace’ and ‘Peace Work’

John Galtung’s Conception of ‘Peace by Peaceful Means’
Two compatible definitions of peace:


Peace is the absence/reduction of violence of all kinds.
Peace is nonviolent and creative conflict transformation
With the understanding that:
 Peace work is work to reduce violence by peaceful means
 Peace studies is the study of the conditions of peace work
(Galtung 1996: 9)
Positive and Negative Peace

Galtung states peace has two aspects:
1
2

The Negative / Positive Dualism is based on two global
empirical tendencies:
1
2

Negative Peace: the absence of war and actual physical
violence
Positive Peace: the ‘integration of human society’
‘Man Identifies’: humans display a capacity for mutual empathy
and solidarity
‘Man rarely uses all of his means of destruction against all
enemies all of the time’: limitations and rules exists even in
warfare
Peace studies attempt to promote negative and positive
peace simultaneously
Structural Violence




Critics (particularly Marxists) see Galtung’s definition
of peace and violence as superficial
Violence, Peace and Peace Research (1969) responds
with a reconstruction of the fundamental concepts of
peace research
Research should focus more on the social origins of
conflict and address the question of ‘invisible’ or
‘latent’ conflict that arises from economic, social and
political inequalities
Inequality, Injustice are breeding grounds for violent
conflict
Structural Violence (cont.)
Redefining Peace in reference to Structural Violence:
 Galtung retains the maxim that ‘peace is the absence of
violence’, but adds…
‘Violence is present when human beings are being
influenced so that their actual somatic and mental
realisations are below their potential realisations’

Implications:
 Positive
Peace is equated with ‘Social Justice’