POS 2210- GROUP 2- FINAL PAPER

Members: CORDETA, PARDILLO, PORMIDA, SANICO

In 150- 300 words, please answer the following questions 25 pts.

Give two reasons why it is important to study war in IR

Firstly, it is established that war is the absence of peace . Its primary goal in International
Relations is to prevent war. The impacts that war can cause are significant and important. Hence, why
the need to analyze and study war. Not only is war the cause of destruction, but it can also shape the
way people live and its impact in the years to come. War is conflict between nations. Nations go to war
for a variety of reasons. If for a nation the benefits seem to outweigh the disadvantages of going to war,
it is considered a valid reason for pursuing it. Analysis is critical because it aids in our understanding of
the phenomenon, particularly its political, social, and historical implications. War has radically altered
societies. Through analysis there may be mechanisms created in avoiding war, which can lead to peace
and prosperity in the global arena. Limiting and counteracting the negative consequences of the event
by considering it through the numerous theoretical lenses afforded by international relations.

Secondly, from a social science and international relations perspective. War has implications that
go beyond its primary purpose of analysis which is prevention. Mentioned earlier it has social, political,
and historical implications. Throughout history war has altered societies and changed the way political
systems have functioned. As a phenomenon that still exists to this day, the analysis of war may not only
be for the sole purpose of prevention but also finding strategies in order to strengthen global
cooperation among states. In the social science aspect it can help us understand the changes it also
brings as a phenomenon. Which can be seen as a means of development in global society as it is still
prevalent and therefore there is still room for development in terms of effective governance and
strengthening relations among states.

Conceptualize realism as a paradigm

 The Realist paradigm focuses on states in their relations with one another. The theory is
situational in that it seeks to explain outcomes and actions of states in terms of the environment; in
particular, realists like to look to shifting power capabilities to explain international conflict and war.
Realism provides an elaborate theory of international conflict. It has a theory which rests on the
importance of states operating within an environment of anarchy. The major variables of concern are
national interests, the distribution of power, and war.

(a) Units: Nation-states.

The basic units for realism are nation-states. Nation-states are political organizations
that result from the fusion of nationalism and statehood.
(b) Environment: Anarchy
Anarchy is merely the outward appearance of sovereignty. Patterns of behavior in the
international system are very law-like in the underlying regularities. Anarchy simply means no
central ruler. If states report to no higher authority, i.e. if they are sovereign, it follows that
there is no central ruler, and it follows from this that the international system involves the
interaction of a multiplicity of states who themselves have no ruler.

Major variables:

(1) National Interest. It is not that states always do bad things, the point is that they do
what is in their interests. Countries act the way they do because of the “national
interest.
(2) Distribution of Power. Realism is interested in how every country stacks up in terms of
the raw calculus of power but it is also interested, even more so, in the way power is
distributed. To realists, it matters if power is spread evenly over many countries,
concentrated in just two, or distributed over a number of countries.
(3) War. For realists, war is a normal part of the international landscape. It doesn’t always
occur. There may be long periods of peace, but it is always on the horizon.

Give 3 specific causes of war and elaborate each

At the individual level, Individual-level theories believe that external and internal structures and
societal institutions do not directly influence foreign policy decisions, and that key decision-makers
differ in their conceptions of state interests, judgements of threats to those interests, and beliefs about
the best strategies to achieve those interests, as well as variations in the content of actors' belief
systems and the psychological processes through which they acquire information and make decisions.

At the state level, war was caused by immoral political, economic, and social institutions within
a country. When a state starts a war, it is typically because political leaders or the capitalist class chose
war over the public's preferences and interests, or because of "cognitive dissonance" on the side of the
public. There is strong evidence that the start of a war causes a "rally 'round the flag" effect, which
boosts public support for political leaders. Leaders are frequently aware of this "rally" impact and are
motivated to engage in risky international initiatives in order to strengthen internal political support.
This is known as the "war diversionary theory." External conflict has a calming effect on groups, and
group leaders may purposefully create external conflict to achieve their internal goals.

At the system level, the main actors in world politics are sovereign states that act rationally to
promote their self-interests. Conflicts arise due to unintended consequences of actions taken by those
who are more concerned with maintaining their position than with expanding it. State’s motivated
efforts to provide for their own security through armaments, alliances, and deterrent threats are often
perceived as threatening and lead to interactions and conflict spirals that are difficult to reverse. The
primary purpose of states is to avoid dominance, whereas the major goal is to maintain power balance
in the system. Resource scarcity and domestic constraints can lead to economic disputes which can
develop to war.

Give a situation when peace is preferred

Peace is more important than all justices. It is preferred when there is more need for
preservation rather than domination. When dominant there is more need of power involved. It can be
defined by a multitude of concepts because it opposes conflict, violence, and war. Conflict is a balancing
of powers in a certain circumstance where power is linked to agreement and as the mutual ability to
predict the outcome of activities. Cooperation will be based on power-based assumptions. A status quo,
or specific assumptions about rights and obligations, lies at the heart of this organization. As a result,
conflict connects and intertwines a certain power balance and an accompanying system of
expectations. Within social field theory, the process of adjustment between what people, groups, or
nations want, can, and will do will be dependent on the social compact that is peace. It entails a related
expectation and pattern structure. It will strike a balance between their mutual interests, capabilities,
and desires in order to attain the desired balance. Therefore, it enables each to reliably predict each
situation's responses.

What are the three classifications of war

Firstly, war is political. War only brings about political intercouse of governments and nations;
nonetheless, it is widely assumed that war disrupts this interplay and creates a completely different
state of affairs, subject to no laws but its own. Policy in the use of war avoids all of the rigorous
conclusions that arise from its nature; it is less concerned with long-term possibilities, focusing instead
on current probabilities.

Secondly, war is historical. In the last decade of the previous century, a remarkable change in
the Art of War in Europe occurred, in which the best Armies discovered that a part of their method of
War had become completely unserviceable, and events occurred far beyond anyone's imagination, it
appeared that the Art of War was to be blamed for everything. The tremendous repercussions of the
French Revolution abroad were evidendy brought about considerably less by new tactics and
viewpoints introduced by the French in the conduct of war than by changes in statecraft and civil
administration, the nature of governments, the situation of the people, and so on.

Lastly, war has a social impact. Only by this form of perspective does War regain its unity; only
through it can we recognize all Wars as being of the same kind; and only through it can the judgment
receive the real and perfect basis and point of view from which grand plans can be sketched out and
resolved. There is, on the whole, nothing more important in life than determining the proper point of
view from which things should be viewed and judged, and then sticking to it; for we can only
comprehend the mass of events in their entirety from a single point of view, and it is only by sticking to
one point of view that we are protected from inconsistency.

References:
Queen Mary University of London. (n.d)War and Peace in a global context: Why do we need to study
war?
https://hs.online.qmul.ac.uk/blog/why-do-we-need-to-study-war
Szanto, B. (2021). War and International Relations: A Critical Analysis. Routledge.
ISBN 9780367748005
Rummel, R.J. (n.d.). Understanding Conflict and War: Vol.5:The Just Peace. Retrieved from:
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/TJP.CHAP2.HTM
Mingst, Karen & Snyder, Jack (2004). Chapter 8: War and Strife. Essential Readings in World Politics, 2nd
edition. W.W. Norton & Company, New York.Levy, J. (1988, June). The causes of war and the conditions
of peace. Annual Reviews. Retrieved June 5, 2022, from
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev.polisci.1.1.139
Faculty Washington Edu. (n.d.). Introduction to International Relations. Retrieved from
http://faculty.washington.edu/caporaso/courses/203/notes/w1-paradigms_of_ir.html