Is War inevitable amongst sovereign States?

Similarly, seventeenth century Dutch Philosopher Benedict de Spinoza often cited “human imperfections” to explain not only conflict between man but also War between sovereign states. Spinoza’s principal assumption was that man and states are alike, sharing both the will to survive and the inability to act according to the “dictates of reason”. Assuming this then, and supposing that mans imperfections lead to conflict amongst one another, it seems that “Wars among states are then as inevitable as are defects in the nature of man”, apparently condemning man to a warring world. These assumptions on the nature of man are the foundation of Realist thought. Although many realists would not assign such importance to the nature of man, the lack of faith in man is indicative of Realist thought. Such a perception of man appears ominous as to the inevitability of War. Yet despite this pessimistic perception of man, other realists cite the international system as the primary catalyst for war and do not share the same extreme distrust of mankind as Spinoza.

        Pioneer of Realism, Ancient Greek philosopher Thucydides remains massively influential in the Realist realm. His principals regarding the Peloponnesian War remain the basis of realist International Relations. However, it was not until circa. 1800 that Realism gained its most recent influential writer in Carl Von Clausewitz whom we must consider for a more modern perspective. Clausewitz left a legacy of realism most renowned for his theory regarding War as a “continuation of political intercourse…a branch of political activity: that it is in no way autonomous”. Clausewitz here implies the significance of the governmental role within a state. Through dismissing war as autonomous, it is inferred that only governments can bring about War, a governmental measure to protect one nation’s sovereignty against another. The realist perspective views state relations with suspicion as Niccolo Machiavelli explained in the fifteenth century; claiming it essential to “conquer neighbouring states before they (inevitably) attack you”. It is this process of pre-emptive action in Realist thought that causes many problems. Thucydides warned, “to make peace when you should be going to war may be often very dangerous”, setting a precedent of War over Peace. Indeed the Realist sphere emphasises the importance of power that arrives from War. As Hans Morgenthau elaborated in his celebrated work Politics Among Nations in the Twentieth Century, interest is “defined in terms of power”. As Hobbes or Spinoza would elaborate, mans selfish nature and lust for power will always lead governments into war in search of power, be it for Competition, Diffidence or Glory.

Moreover, a further realist postulation is that International Relations runs in a ‘balance of power’ system, where War is seen to complement the balance of power or at least be a fundamental component of the system’s stability. Essentially then, war is considered necessary in order to maintain the equilibrium of world order and power. If War is considered as essential to stability, this certainly suggests that War is inevitable amongst nations, as the loss of War would destabilise the balance of power. This appears especially pertinent when considering the view of Hedley Bull, who professed the world’s ‘anarchical’ structure: The lack of an international body to control the states dictates that states are in “a society without government”; a lawless society. Realist cynicism on the integrity of governments and men would further enhance the chances of war occurring within this system, such is its lawlessness. With no governing body it could be expected that man would seek to gain power through invasion of another sovereign nation as it is considered “of the very essence of war to penetrate the territory of the enemy”. This essentially selfish, Social Darwinist Realist theory considers “prudence - the weighing of the consequences of alternative political actions - to be the supreme virtue in politics”. Where the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, “War is the ultimate resort of states who can see no other way to have their interests met”. These assumptions infer that World Peace is impractical and essentially impossible, such is the egotism of man. War is all but inevitable if all these assumptions were to be combined, especially in conjunction with Hobbes’s notion of man.

        In contrast to the Realist perception of International Relations is the Liberalist school. The most ideologically opposite ‘strain’ of Liberalism in comparison to Realism is ‘Idealism’. Whilst Realists are cynical on humanity, government and the state system, Idealists tend to have a more optimistic view of International Relations. Jean Jacques Rousseau was the Idealist equivalent of Thomas Hobbes. Also an eighteenth century philosopher, Rousseau shared many of the enlightenment theories with Hobbes, such as the equality of man. Yet in other spheres of thought, Rousseau was the ideological opposite of Hobbes. Rousseau had much faith in mankind, believing man to be “naturally peaceful and timid”, a people striving for peace. He stated, “the human species has not been created solely in order to engage in mutual destruction”. Rousseau does not see mans corrupt nature as Hobbes did, there is no belief that man is inherently bad, quite the opposite. Rousseau instead concentrating on mans freedom, conscience and virtue.

Not all Liberalists shared this same degree of confidence in man however. Liberalist and pacifist Leonard Woolf was more sceptical in man, believing that “men will never cease to desire [power]”. Yet Woolf did not see the situation as hopeless, instead seeing a solution in implementing a “consciously devised machinery”, as did other like-minded Twentieth Century Liberalists such as Woodrow Wilson. The theory behind this being that an International government could stop War altogether, or decrease the chance of it occurring. Under this utopian vision, War is by no means inevitable. “Peace is not a natural condition but is one that must be constructed”. The basis for this view came from Immanuel Kant’s 1795 work, ‘Perpetual Peace’, a work setting the foundation for the 1919 League of Nations. Kant’s ideas were in search of achieving a long lasting peace and Kant produced a series of measures that would lead to this scenario. Among them were the ideas of the abolition of standing armies and the establishment of Republic-run states, as opposed to Monarchies. Although not suggesting a ‘world government’, Kant’s structured approach to International Relations was fundamental to other Liberalists and Idealists of the twentieth century. Kant’s views appeared optimistic, yet in principal, a possibility.

It was not until the aftermath of World War One that Idealism became the prominent ideology of Liberal thought. Twentieth Century War proved “ a disaster that should be avoided at almost all costs” such was the expense in lives. The ‘cure’ for War was highly sought after and American President Woodrow Wilson emerged the spokesperson for the Idealist solution. Kenneth Waltz highlights the Idealist thinking: “if anarchy is the cause [of conflict], the obvious conclusion is that government is the cure”. Although later Congressional difficulties restricted the United States involvement in the League of Nations, this ‘world government’ was adopted by many sovereign states as the solution to further War. Wilson demanded that involved nations “must be prepared to use their power on behalf of the established law” in order for the League to work. This policy of ‘collective security’ ultimately failed in preserving World Peace, yet the emergence of a ‘world government’ later led to the establishment of the United Nations; considered a political triumph in many respects. One could point at “evidence to show that it [the United Nations] has materially contributed to the shortening of five wars”. In this respect there is limited success in Idealist theory, perhaps suggesting that the Idealist approach to War and Peace proves that War is not necessarily inevitable.

However, despite the invaluable role the United Nations undoubtedly played in the twentieth century, war remained a prominent fixture of International Relations. One need look no further than Korea, Vietnam or World War Two to illustrate the presence of War amongst sovereign states whilst a ‘world government’ was operating. The ideas of the Idealist school seem impossible to achieve as Liberalist “Faith in public opinion…has proved utopian”. The failures of the League of Nations allowed World War Two to occur and the United Nations could not influence the Cold War and its surrounding conflicts, leaving Liberal solutions seemingly vulnerable and flawed. If the Idealist ideology of achieving Peace cannot be achieved then, does this imply that War is indeed inevitable? Undoubtedly “the real interests of all peoples are furthered by peace” but if War cannot be controlled inside of a governed environment is it then unavoidable? History infers this is so and the principals of Liberalism appear naïve and unfeasible. Idealist may cite the League of Nations and the United Nations as not representing the ‘purest’ principals of Idealism to explain its failure. Yet the flaws of Liberalism suggest Realist thought to be more realistic and Morgenthau would argue that history proves that this is so.

Conclusion-not inevitable if idealism achieveable and principals can be achieved

---