Question 1

Realism

Realism views the international system as anarchic, lacking a central authority to enforce rules
and resolve disputes. This anarchy compels states to prioritize their own security in a self-help
world where no one can be trusted to assist them in the event of a conflict. This inherently leads
to insecurity and competitions between states to gain power in the form of military strength or
economic resources (Levy & Thompson, 2010, pp. 28-54). To realists, the world is a zero-sum
game where one state's gain is a loss for other states as their relative power decreases
comparatively, absolute power is not considered as important (Levy & Thompson, 2010, p. 73).

Realists propose the concept security dilemma, this occurs when investments in military
capabilities with defensive motivations accidentally appear threatening to other states, which
leads them to respond with their own military build up to ensure their safety, leading to a spiral
of escalation and increased tensions often ending in conflict. The attempt to increase security has
therefore paradoxically decreased the security (Levy & Thompson, 2010, p. 61).

For realists, states are the most important actors in international relations, there is no higher
governing body with authority, so the state becomes the only important factor when analyzing
international relations. Realism downplays the significance of international organizations,
arguing that these entities operate with the permission of, and under the influence of states.
Realists are skeptical of international cooperation and argue that cooperation is just a strategy to
achieve a state's own goals when interests temporarily align (Levy & Thompson, 2010, pp.
28-54).

The concept of power balance in realism suggests states continuously assess their own and
competitors power, acting to prevent one state becoming too powerful. Realism see three types
of power balance: Bipolarity where two equally matched powers exist, a stable system due to
mutual deterrence. Multipolarity, where several powers of comparable strength exist, a more
chaotic and unpredictable system. Unipolarity, where one state dominates, seen by some as stable
because it can enforce order, others view it as unstable as other states might cooperate to
overthrow the superpower (Levy & Thompson, 2010, pp. 38-43).

Constructivism Theory

The international relations theory constructivism offers a different perspective on international

relations in that they challenge the idea that an objective reality exists, they argue that most
things are social constructs created when a collective belief is widespread enough, everything
from the existence of states to the value of a currency is something that is true only as long as
people believe and act as if it is (Jackson, Richard, 2017, pp 2-3).

Constructivists believe state goals can be things other than material power, depending on their
identity and values, and that international norms and institutions evolve through social
interaction. They believe that through social interaction, states, international organizations,
NGOs, and corporations can change rules, norms, institutions and state behavior (Jackson,
Richard, 2017, pp 2-6).

Realism - Korean War

Realism is grounded in that international relations are a struggle for power among self-interested
states, power in this case being military and economic power.

Realists would see this as a time where the balance of power in the world was becoming Bipolar,
a relatively stable system where the Soviet Union and the United States could not engage each
other directly, but the power struggle between them continued and Korea became a battleground
where the superpowers could compete for power, with the North backed by the USSR and China
and the south supported by the US and its allies (Wikipedia, Korean War, 2024).

The division of Korea into two states backed by different superpowers created a security
dilemma, where each side feared military action and domination from the other, leading to a
spiraling arms race and military conformations.
Realists would see the involvement of the USSR and US in the Korean conflict mainly being
driven by strategic interests, not ideological reasons. Korea was a geographically important
location in Asia that offered strategic advantages.

Diplomatic talks about reunification by the UN failed to reach a compromise that the U.S. and
the USSR were willing to accept. This is what a realist would have expected to happen, as the
outcome of a UN intervention has no authority over states unless they are allowed to by the
states.

The United Nations intervention after North Korean aggression led by the United States would
by realists be seen not as an intervention to uphold international law, but as the UN being used as
a tool by the U.S to frame the situation as a collective security measure rather than an attempt to
gain geopolitical advantages for the U.S.

Constructivism - Korean War

A constructivist would point to the arbitrary division of Korea post-World War 2 as an example
of where a social construct is created devoid of naturally existing reasons. The superpowers over
time artificially created two different national identities from the same people, that eventually led
to conflict due to their divergent state ideologies and perceptions of each other.

For the reason for these identities being created, a constructivist would likely point to both state
propaganda, political rhetoric, unavailability to find unbiased information, pressure from the
superpowers on local authorities in cracking down on dissenting opinions and general pressure to
conform to the group as factors that led to this fast division among the previously quite
homogeneous group that lived in Korea.

A constructivist might point to how escalation towards war worsened when each Korean state
perceived the others filtered through their newly created identity and ideology. Leading the North
to see the South as collaborators with western imperialists, while the South viewed the North as
being a Soviet puppet. Any action the other side took was seen in the context of their belief of
the nature of the other side, leading to misperceptions, further cementing that their identities
were irreconcilable and taking steps that escalated towards war being the only solution.
When looking at superpower motivations for intervention they could point to the fact that a large
part of how the U.S saw themselves likely was as responsible for bring peace and democracy to
the world, to build and maintain that reputation internally and internationally could have been a
more important factor, instead of as realists would see it, an excuse to reach their goals of attain
as much power as possible for themselves.

Realism or Constructivism

I am going to argue that realism offers the most compelling explanation of the war in Korea
between constructivism and realism.

I would argue that the Soviet Union and United States, and their respective Korean allies'
interests leading to conflict was to gain power and strategic advantages for their states. A
constructivist might argue that the ideologies and identities were the driving factor towards
conflict. My view is that ideology and identity played a factor, but that they are more than
anything a tool used by the superpowers to justify their actions and to get the population on their
side, and not the underlying motivation.

The concept of balance of power provides a probable explanation for why the desire to gain more
power between the superpowers did not lead to direct confrontation as one might expect, in a
bipolar system with two equally powerful adversaries, a direct conflict would have led to
mutually assured destruction. But the desire for states to gain more power remained, and they
therefore decided to engage in an indirect confrontation in Korea.

Realism asserts that states have the absolute power in the anarchic global system, the inability for
the United Nations to do anything to stop the conflict supports this assertion.

After the division of Korea between two superpowers that both claimed that their side had a
legitimate claim over the entire peninsula. This created what realists would call a security
dilemma, the North with the help of the Soviet Union strengthened their military capabilities, this
was likely interpreted as aggression by the south, leading the U.S feeling the need to help the
South to match the North's capabilities to ensure their security. This led to a spiral of military
buildup, increased tensions, mistrust, leading to a less secure situation with a higher likelihood of
conflict. During this tense time, if North Korea saw conflict as inevitable, the decision to invade
when they did could be seen as reasonable as not risk the South being able to catch up in military
power.

FRÅGA 2

In this text, I examine the internationalized intra-state conflict of the Kosovo War (1989-1999),
using two actor-based theoretical frameworks: Rational Actor Theory (RAT) and concepts from
Cognitive Theory.

Rational Actor Theory (RAT)

One of the core concepts of RAT is the cost-benefit analysis. This concept assumes that actors
have goals and choose the strategy that maximizes the gains towards those goals while
minimizing costs (Levy & Thompson, 2010, pp. 130-133).

Essentially all actors have more than one goal, a concept called value complexity suggests it is
necessary to prioritize the importance of different goals to be able to choose a strategy that
maximizes gains for the most important goals (Levy & Thompson, 2010, pp. 130-133). A goal
can be so important that a strategy not reaching it can be discarded immediately, such as the
survival of the decision maker (Levy & Thompson, 2010, p. 154).

No strategy has a 100% chance of success. Therefore we must estimate the likelihood of
different outcomes or failure to find the strategy with the highest expected utility on average.
(Levy & Thompson, 2010, pp. 130-133).

Creating a fully accurate assessment of a situation is not possible, there is uncertainty involved in
making decisions in international relations. By having the most possible amount of information,
the best chance of estimating outcomes can be reached. Rational Actor Theory provides a
process for decision making that can lead to making the best decision from a rational point of
view. Rational actor theory is a good starting point for analysis and theories that add more
complexities and nuances to the decision making process (Levy & Thompson, 2010, pp.
130-133).
Cognitive Theory (CT)

CT focuses on how individuals or groups perceive and process information that influences their
decision-making, the perception of information can be altered by cognitive biases or processing
it through an already established belief system. Cognitive biases is generally divided into
motivated, and unmotivated biases.

A motivated bias is when an individual's wants, needs or fears impact their subconscious
interpretation of information so it aligns with their preferred outcome, to alleviate negative
feelings or create positive ones. One example is confirmation bias, interpreting information in a
way that confirms you were right,, another is groupthink, interpreting information like the rest of
the group to fit in, or wishful thinking when you overestimate chance of success to avoid anxiety
(Levy & Thompson, 2010, pp. 141-142).

Unmotivated biases (shorten)

Unmotivated biases are not driven by personal emotional investment, they are instead to
subconscious shortcuts, sometimes called Heuristics. Because of the complexity of the world, it
is essential for the brain to simplify information so that we can process and understand it. For
example when making judgements based on stereotypes, attributing more importance to things
that easily come to mind or using the first piece of information as a baseline that all further
information is seen in context of (Levy & Thompson, 2010, pp. 141-142).

Belief systems

A belief system is a collection of fundamental beliefs that a person or group of people have,
these beliefs are deeply ingrained and affects both perception and understanding of information,
which can affect decision making. A decision an individual makes based on their perception of a
situation is influenced by their belief systems as much as, or even more than the factual details of
the situation itself (Levy & Thompson, 2010, pp. 139).

They also note that there is no scholarly agreement on exactly how to categorize a belief system,
but offer one way of but a belief system that changes the perception and understanding of
information could include aspects like views on: ideology, economic philosophy, security
paradigms, international law, state sovereignty, the responsibilities of the state, international
collaboration, environmental responsibilities, core values, ethics, culture, social practices,
religion, historical events, and social practices (Levy & Thompson, 2010, pp. 139-140).

Kosovo War - Brief historical background

The Kosovo War (1989-1999) was an internationalized intra-state conflict between the remnants
of Yugoslavia, in practice only Serbia participated. The Serbians were at war with the Kosovo
Liberation Army (KLA). The KLA were seeking independence from the Serbian province of
Kosovo, where an overwhelming majority are ethnic Albanians. Under the leadership of
Slobodan Milošević, peaceful protests in the early '90s faced brutal repression, escalating
tensions. The Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) intensified its attacks, leading to severe Serbian
crackdowns. Despite several failed peace talks, by 1998, the conflict had spiraled into full-scale
war. With diplomacy and sanctions ineffective, NATO launched a bombing campaign against
Serbia in 1999 without the sanctioning from the UN, ultimately ending the conflict and leading
to the UN taking control in Kosovo. (Kosovo conflict, 2024, Britannica Academic).

Miloševićs decision - Rational Actor Theory

For President Milošević, the decision to engage in aggressive military crackdowns on protests in
Kosovo could have been the result of a cost-benefit analysis that looked favorable for Milošević.
The perceived benefits included reinforcing Serbian control of the province, maintaining political
stability within his regime, asserting his position as a strong leader and dissuading other
provinces from seceding. Milošević likely estimated the costs to be small military losses due to
their military advantage, facing some economic sanctions and some international condemnation.
When looking at the expected utility by estimating the likelihood of different outcomes,
Milošević might have estimated the likelihood of NATO military intervention being so small,
that even with the catastrophic consequences it would bring, the expected utility of the chosen
strategy was still the highest out of the possible options based on Milošević current
understanding of the situation (Milosevic Slobodan, Encyclopedia, 2018), (Serbian nationalism,
Wikipedia, 2024).
Miloševićs decision - Cognitive Theory - Belief Systems

The belief system of Milošević and the Serbian leadership likely influenced their priorities,
evaluations and overall strategy. The parts of the belief system that was influential in this case
was a strong sense of Serbian nationalism, historical victimization followed by Serbian
resistance, Kosovo being an inseparable part of Serbia and international organizations having no
authority over internal state matters (Milosevic Slobodan, Encyclopedia, 2018), (Serbian
nationalism, Wikipedia, 2024).

This belief system likely contributed to discarding any strategy that decreased Serbian control
over Kosovo, as that was seen as an existential threat to the nation itself, no matter its other
benefits. By framing Serbians as victims of historical conflicts and internal betrayals, followed
by a brave resistance by a united Serbian people, Milošević committed to following through with
violence, any other solution could have lost him internal power. These were two examples of
many that stemmed from the belief system of Milošević and the Serbian leadership (Milosevic
Slobodan, Encyclopedia, 2018), (Serbian nationalism, Wikipedia, 2024).

NATOs decision to initiative bombing campaign - Rational Actor Theory

NATOs decision to intervene militarily in the conflict was a complex one, a cost-benefit analysis
would be necessary to choose the correct strategy. The potential benefits were prevention of
human rights abuses and stabilization of the region, increasing NATO’s perceived resolve to act
against human rights violations and the opportunity to establish a U.S. military base in the area.
The costs would be considerable, military expenditure to be justified to taxpayers, NATO
casualties might lose political support, risk of halting the positive direction of NATO-Russia
relations post Cold War, setting a precedent for military action without UN sanction or
worsening diplomatic relations with the UN for not waiting for their sanction. NATO wanted the
strategy with the highest expected utility by estimating their chances of success operationally and
diplomatically. The chance to succeed militarily were likely considered very high because of the
enormous difference in military capacity, the chance to damage UN relations was likely seen as
higher with the largest risk being the deterioration of relations with Russia. These risks were seen
as acceptable after NATO took steps by engaging in diplomacy and using the moral justification
of preventing a genocide as an argument (NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, Wikipedia, 2024).

References

Levy, Jack S. – Thompson, William R., 2010, Causes of War, Oxford, WileyBlackwell
Publishing.

Jackson, Richard, 2017. “Constructivism and Conflict Resolution” in Berchovich, Jacob,

Kremenyuk, Victor and Zartman, I. William (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Conflict Resolution.
London: SAGE

Wikipedia, Korean War, 2024

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War

Milosevic Slobodan, Encyclopedia, 2018

https://www.encyclopedia.com/people/history/yugoslavian-history-biographies/slobodan-milosev
ic

NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, Wikipedia, 2024

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia

Kosovo conflict, Britannica Academic, 2024,

https://www.britannica.com/event/Kosovo-conflict

Serbian nationalism, Wikipedia, 2024

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_nationalism