War and

Typology of War
Lecturer: Mr Junaid Jhandad
War?
 War?
• The first issue to be considered is what is war
and what is its definition.

• The student of war needs to be careful in

examining definitions of war, for like any social
phenomena, definitions are diverse, and often
the proposed definition covers a particular
political or philosophical stance exhibited by
the author.
 War?
• A violent clash of interests between/among organized
groups characterized by the use of military force.

• Violent struggle between two hostile, independent,

irreconcilable wills, each trying to impose on the other (can be
more than two parties).

• To impose our will on the other (objective of war)

• War is interaction in which two or more opposing forces have

a “struggle of wills”
 War?

• Hugo Grotius defines that “War is the state of contending parties”

• Carl von Clausewitz, “War is the continuation of politics by other

means", and so on.

• 'War' defined by Webster's Dictionary is a state of open and declared,

hostile armed conflict between states or nations, or a period of such
conflict.

• This captures a particularly political-rationalistic account of war

and warfare, i.e., that war needs to be clearly declared and to be
between states, to be a war.
 War?
• The military historian, John Keegan offers a useful
classification of the political-rationalist theory of war in his A
History of War.

• It is assumed to be an orderly affair in which states are

involved, in which there are declared beginnings and
expected ends, easily identifiable combatants, and high
levels of obedience by subordinates.

• Nevertheless, the rationalist theory does not deal well with

pre-state or non-state peoples and their warfare.
 War?
• There are other schools of thought on war's nature other
than the political-rationalist account, and the student of
war must be careful, not to incorporate a too narrow
account of war.

• If war is defined as something that occurs only between

states, then wars between nomadic groups should not be
mentioned, nor would hostilities on the part of a displaced,
non-state group against a state be considered war.
 War?
• Correlates of War (COW) (Singer and Small)
One can differentiate between quantitative and qualitative
approaches to a scientific definition of war.

Quantitative definitions of “war” require that the number of

direct (or indirect) deaths caused by violent clashes crosses a
certain threshold.

The most known and influential approach was developed by

David Singer and Melvin Small in the framework of the
‘Correlates of War (COW)’ project at Michigan University.
 War?
• Correlates of War (COW) (Singer and Small)
• This project attempts to assemble statistical data on wars
that have been waged globally since 1816.

• According to this approach, a war is any violent conflict

with at least 1,000 killed combatants per year.

• Both parties to the conflict must have organized themselves

to commit collective violence, or the party with the least
combatants must have inflicted at least five percent of their
own losses on the opponent.
 War?
• Correlates of War (COW) (Singer and Small)

• The COW definition is quite controversial. Historian

Spencer R. Weart for instance uses the criterion of
200 killed soldiers per year to classify a violent
conflict as a war.
 War?
• Correlates of War (COW) (Singer and Small)

• Other studies point to the difficulties resulting from the

reference to an absolute number as threshold value.

• One must assume that the number of deaths as a result of violent

conflicts should be perceived and assessed differently depending
on the size of the affected or involved population.

• Some researchers have therefore suggested not taking the

absolute number of deaths as a critical benchmark, but rather
their proportion of the total population of the affected country.
 War?
• Correlates of War (COW) (Singer and Small)

• Most quantitative approaches, however, have not yet been able

to compete with the popularity of the threshold of 1,000 killed
soldiers defined by Small and Singer.

• The conflict data base developed by the University of Uppsala in

Sweden offers a further development of the definition by COW.

• It does not limit itself to the losses of the regular armies but also
includes civilian casualties of direct physical violence.
 War?
• Correlates of War (COW) (Singer and Small)

• While its definition of “war” still follows the COW approach of more than
1,000 deaths per year.

• It additionally differentiates between “smaller armed conflicts” (at least

25 deaths per year but less than 1,000 deaths in the entire conflict),.

• “Medium-sized armed conflicts” (more than 1,000 deaths in the entire

conflict but less than 1,000 deaths in each single year).

• This quantitative differentiation of different levels of intensity is useful as

it takes into consideration violent conflicts beyond the “war” threshold.
 3 sorts of conflicts
• International wars: durable conflict on which 1 state stands in
opposition to another and where 1000 soldiers shall have
died.

• Civil War: internal conflict in which more than 1000 soldiers

shall have died. (within a state)

• Short Military Confrontation: not durable for a long period of

time, less than 1000 soldiers have died.
Peace?
 Peace?
• How do we define Peace?

• What is Peace?

• No universally accepted definition of peace.

• Mere absence of War? Or complete absence

of violence, and presence of cooperation?
 Peace?
• Condition that’s exists between two wars. Hence war is to be
considered as the natural condition.

• Peace According to Johan Galtung

• Positive peace is not just absence of war, it is actually absence of

indirect violence and presence of harmony, equity and justice etc.
(is it practically possible to attain?)

• Negative peace is the absence of violence and absence of war.

• Have we obtained positive peace? (World is getting more peaceful?)

 Peace and Violence According to Johan
Galtung

• -negative peace (structural violence)

• -positive peace: the elimination of patterns of structural
violence

• Galtung (1969): ‘Violence is present when human

beings are being influenced so that their actual somatic
and mental realisations are below their potential
realisations’
 Peace and Violence According to Johan
Galtung

• Structural violence: average life expectancy in UK in 2011: 81

years

• Average life expectancy in Sierra Leone in 2012: 45/46 years

• 1990: Developed concept of cultural violence ‘those aspects of

culture …that can be used to justify or legitimate direct or
structural violence’

• A violent culture ‘preaches, teaches, admonishes, seeing

exploitation and/or repression as normal or natural’
International Structure and War (SAW)?
 International Structure and War (SAW)?
(Peter Wallensteen)
• Tries to answer the question if war is a result of the
asymmetry in the international system and/or economic
circumstances. (investigated period is from 1920 to 1968)

• According to the study, the more central position a country

has in the system, the more frequent is the participation in
the war.

• The majority of wars have taken place between one stronger

and one weaker part in the system (international system).
Conflicts after the end of WWII?
 Conflicts after the end of WWII?

• According to Istvan Kende (Twenty Years of

Local War), most of the wars/conflicts after
WWII have taken place outside Europe;
specially in Asia.

• Hence Conflicts have moved to the third

world.
 Conflicts after the end of WWII?

• According to Ayoob, “…most conflicts since the end

of the WWII have been either primarily intrastate in
character or have had intrastate dimensions to
them.”

• “The majority of conflicts since 1945 have been

located within the Third World where the process of
state making is far from complete”.

• Indeed, “…most conflicts …have been / are…related

to the process of state making / breaking…”
 What is the evidence?
• According to the 1993 SIPRI (Stockholm
International Peace Research Institute) Yearbook,

– “…of the major armed conflicts that were waged in 30

locations around the world in 1992 were mostly intrastate
in character.”
– “…the overwhelming majority of conflicts in the
international system since 1945 have been “a universal
consequence of the birth, formation, and fracturing of
Third World states.”
– The end of the Cold War has brought no change to this…
 Typologies of War
• How can one differentiate between the various types of war? In the literature, one can
find at least two kinds of typologies:

• One approach takes the object of the conflict and the goals of the conflicting parties
as a criterion for differentiation.

• The Working Group for Research on the Causes of War (AKUF) at Hamburg University,
for instance, differentiates between

• “anti-regime wars” (“wars about the overthrow of the ruling party or the
change or maintenance of the political system”), “wars about autonomy-
and secession” (“wars about a larger regional autonomy within the state
or the secession from the state”), and “decolonisation wars” (“wars
about the liberation from colonial rule”). Other approaches differentiate
between “ethnic wars” and politically motivated “revolutionary” wars.
 Typologies of War
• Such a typology is problematic as the goals of the conflicting parties often
tend to change in the course of violent action.

• This is why a second approach does not differentiate violent conflicts by

referring to their causes and goals but rather to the political status or
group of the actors involved.

• Mostly it is about whether parties to the conflict are state or non-state

actors. Until the end of the 1990s, only wars with at least one state actor
were taken seriously. Consequently, one can differentiate between two
different types of war:

• Symmetric, inter-state wars, i.e. violent conflicts between two states;

• Asymmetric wars between one state and one non-state party.

 Typologies of War
• The second type, asymmetric war, can be divided into
two sub-categories:

• Intra-state violent conflict, i.e. wars between one non-

state actor and a state within the existing state’s borders;

• Extra-state or extra-systemic, violent conflict between

one non-state and one state actor outside of the existing
state’s borders (as for instance in the war of Western
NATO states against the Taliban in Afghanistan).
 Typologies of War
• This second approach of a conflict typology is still incomplete and needs
to be completed. It is difficult to understand why at least one side of the
conflicting parties needs to be a state actor.

• It is true that the state still plays an important, if not central, role in the
global organization and enforcement of violence. (???) But the described
removal of boundaries as is observable in many of today’s violent
conflicts shows itself best in those conflicts in which both parties to the
conflict are non-state actors.

• The German political scientist Sven Chojnacki includes these violent

conflicts under the group of “sub-state wars”, which complements the
other types of war. In total, Chojnacki defines four “core types of armed
violence”:
 Typologies of War
• Inter-state violent conflicts (between two or more states);

• Intra-state violent conflicts (between state and non-state

actors within existing borders);

• Extra-state violent conflicts (between state and non-state

actors beyond existing borders);

• Sub-state violent conflicts (between non-state actors

independent of existing borders).
 Types of Warfare
• Total War: Total war: wars in which leaders utilize all
available resources. Massive loss in life and
widespread destruction. e.g. WWII, Iran-Iraq War.

• Limited War: Limited war: wars that involve less-

than-total resources. Initiated with limited aims (i.e.
less than critical), Nuclear weapons never deployed.
• e.g. Korean War, Gulf War I (1991)
 Types of Warfare
• Conventional Warfare: is an attempt to reduce an opponent’s
military capability through open battle. It is a declared war
between existing states in which nuclear, biological, and
chemical etc weapons are not used. Conventional warfare is
the use of conventional - traditional -- means to wage war.

• Unconventional Warfare: opposite of conventional warfare is

unconventional warfare. on the other hand,
uses unconventional weapons, targets the civilian population
as well as the armed forces, and specializes in
unconventional tactics.
 Types of Warfare
• Nuclear Warfare: in which nuclear weapons are the primary method of
coercing the submission of the other side, as opposed to a supporting
tactical/strategic role in conventional conflict.

• Civil Warfare: where the focus in the conflict belong to the same
nation/political entity and are vying (competing) for control
of/independence from that nation or political entity.

• Asymmetric Warfare: is a conflict between two populations/states of

drastically different levels of military capability/size. Asymmetric conflicts
often result in guerrilla tactics being used to overcome, the sometimes, vast
gaps in technology and force size.

Tactics of the weak include 1) guerrilla warfare, 2) nonviolence, 3) terrorism

 Can War be Abolished?
Do we have to learn to live with wars?
 Can War be Abolished?
Do we have to learn to live with wars?

• Regardless of definition, war leads to the death and mutilation of

human beings.

• War is, by many scholars, considered as a natural and

indispensable part of human nature, due to our inherit nature
(human beings, by birth, are selfish).

• Human nature is imperfect and has a lust for power (Machiavelli)

• If we take this biological point of departure, then, theoretically

speaking, it can be impossible to abolish war.
 Can War be Abolished?
Do we have to learn to live with wars?

• If we believe that war is socially constructed, (constructivism), the

answer to the question is different.

• Human beings, by birth, are just like blank slates/pages. (Steven

Pinker, John Locke).

• Boys are not born to be soldiers. It takes brainwashing, group

pressure, different means of persuasion, or different means of
compulsion to make them soldiers.

• If war is a social institution/construction, then, theoretically

speaking, it can be abolished. (Slavery, that gradually became
obsolete and eventually abolished).
 Just War Tradition
what speaks in favor of the abolishment of war?

• The legal body surrounding wars have developed tremendously the last
decades. War is, legally speaking allowed to a lesser extent today than
before.

• Technologically speaking, war is about to undermine its own function,

technological achievements done risk to eliminate the human race.
(Nukes?) (AI?)

• Politically speaking, the technological development has led to the fact

that Clausewitz thesis “that war is the continuation of politics with
other means” is almost irrational today. Today, nearly, no political goal
can be achieved through war.
 Just War Tradition
what speaks in favor of the abolishment of war?
• Economically, wars are devastating. The Gulf war cost
more than 60 billion USD for the UN.

• State resources must be used for other resources.

• Just War Tradition:

• Jus ad bellum; means the justice for resorting war, must be
declared by legitimate authority.
• Jus in bello; just conduct in war.
• Jus post bellum; justice at the end of war.