International Relations
Lecture 12
Lecture Notes
Multi-level politics of war
1. Patterns of war: are war’s incidence and deadliness rising or falling?
2. Explaining patterns of war (in light of perennial debates)
3. Multi-level global politics of war
4. The complexity, contingency and chaos of ‘New Wars’
Patterns of war: are war’s incidence and deadliness rising or falling?
There are 2 main views:
1. If you look at the past 50-70 years, there seems to be a decline in the deadliness of war
a. E.g., scholars like Pinker and Goldstein
2. If you look at the date more carefully, there is a rising in deadliness
à This is more accurate
Since 1816 (Waterloo War), wars’ incidence trends show how in the 20th century there were many wars
but then they decreased
- Note: “correlates of war” (COW) means battles with more than 1000 deaths in year
- Also, this is illustrated by a graph showing the numbers of wars, including interstate, intrastate,
extrastate, and non-state wars
Definitions
- Interstate war: armed conflict between two sovereign states
- Extrastate war: armed conflict between a state and a non-state group outside its own territory
to retain control of territory outside state system
- Non-state war: armed conflict between two or more non-state groups
- Non-internationalized intrastate war: civil armed conflict between a state and one or more
non-state groups in state’s territory (no military involvement by extra-state-territorial actors)
- Internationalized interstate war: civil armed conflict between a state and one or more non-
state groups in state’s territory with military involvement by one or more extra-state-territorial
actors
,Other graphs show the rate of wars
- The number of wars divided by the number of all state
- This accounts for the changing number of states over time
à It is standardized
- It shows that it declined
However, the graph showing the number of interstate conflicts shows that it is increased
- Included are the conflicts between states where force was threatened, displayed, used, or
escalated to a war that year
Definitions
- Militarized International Disputes (MIDs): threats displays or uses of force involving states,
where deadliness of ‘use’ falls short of ‘war’ definitions
According to the Uppsala Conflict Data Program:
- Important rise, when considering and adding the data of interstate, extrastate, non-state, non-
internationalized intrastate, and internationalized interstate war
o Particularly in Africa and Asia
If we look at the absolute measures of incidence, we have reason to believe that there has been rising
rather than falling
- But if we look at the rate measures, we get the opposite story
à The professor says to look at absolute values
à So, it has been rising
Non-state conflicts
- Armed force between two organized armed groups, neither of which is the government of a
state, which results in at least 25 battle-related deaths in a year
à They have been rising
One-sided conflict
- Armed force by the government of a state or by a formally organized group against civilians
which results in at least 25 deaths
à They have been stable
,Two more reasons to be skeptical of the “Long Peace” claim/optimism:
1. Downward trends in the proportional deadliness of wars/conflicts partly reflect improvements
in medical care
o But huge increase in would-to-killed ratio
2. Wars are rare events, and their politics ‘stochastic’
o Wars might be on horizon
What about the deadliness?
à It increased
On top of the direct victims (e.g., battle deaths), there are at least as many (likely many more) people
who die due to sicknesses (e.g., malaria) cause by wars or by breakdowns in infrastructure due to wars
- These have been increasing
Also, refugees and displaced people have been increasing
So, what conclusions can we draw?
1. Proportional decline: decline, particularly among Great Powers and particularly since WWII,
in war and conflict as proportions of states, and war deaths as proportion of population
2. Absolute non-decline: but no statistically significant secular decline in absolute incidence or
deaths (let alone potential deadliness of war)
3. Rise of civil wars and internationalized civil wars: significant increase in civil wars relative to
inter-state wars, and recent big rise in internationalized civil wars (with major involvement of
external actor(s))
4. Some regions and countries have much more conflict and war-suffering than others (e.g.,
Americas versus Africa; Syria versus Tanzania; Ghana versus Congo)
5. War’s ‘victims’ go way beyond battlefield deaths (and vary also hugely across time and space)
Explaining patterns of war (in light of perennial debates)
1. Material bases of power balancing and security dilemmas: material conditions shaping clarity
and stability of power distributions and commitments
à Debate 1: realism; debate 2: realism; debate 3: material-position/interests;
debate 4: positivism/rationalism
a. Polarity (bipolarity vs. multipolarity)
b. Alliance complexity (simple and clear vs. complex and ambiguous)
c. Nuclear weapons (yes or no; ‘mutually-assured destruction’ or not)
d. (Other) military technologies favoring offense or defense (e.g., drones, anti-tank Javelin)
, It helps explain:
- Long peace
a. Post-WWII (Cold War) bipolarity, clearer alliances, nuclear weapons and technology all
focus and clarify security commitments and can diminish security dilemma
- Possibly also increasing civil wars
a. Cold War and nuclear weapons displace international to proxy/civil wars (continuation of
policy as other means)
- More recent patterns of increase
a. Post-Cold War multipolarity, US-China change in balance of power, ambiguity in
commitments, strengthen Putin’s hand (among others), and this in turn yields contagion
(e.g., Azerbaijan vs Armenia)
2. Domestic and international (security) institutions: shape representations of people bearing costs
of war, and shape also ‘transaction costs’ (enforce agreements, improve transparency, etc.) of
negotiation, together shaping security commitments
à Debate 1: idealism; debate 2: liberalism; debate 3: institutions;
debate 4: positivism/modernist constructivism
a. Democratic peace: liberal democratic institutions foster preferences and capacitates for
peace
b. International-institutional peace: many international institutions foster coordination and
cooperation, build trust, etc.
It helps explain:
- Long peace
a. Spreading and consolidating of democracy fostered peaceable political action (at least
between democracies)
b. Post-WWII (Cold War) international institutions (UN, EU, NATO, etc.) distinctly and
enduringly diminished security dilemmas, deepened cooperation
- Recent spikes in incidence of war/conflict
a. Stalling and backsliding of democracy erodes peaceable political action
b. Recent ‘post-Cold War’ erosion of capacities of international institutions awaken security
dilemmas, undermine cooperation
Lecture 12
Lecture Notes
Multi-level politics of war
1. Patterns of war: are war’s incidence and deadliness rising or falling?
2. Explaining patterns of war (in light of perennial debates)
3. Multi-level global politics of war
4. The complexity, contingency and chaos of ‘New Wars’
Patterns of war: are war’s incidence and deadliness rising or falling?
There are 2 main views:
1. If you look at the past 50-70 years, there seems to be a decline in the deadliness of war
a. E.g., scholars like Pinker and Goldstein
2. If you look at the date more carefully, there is a rising in deadliness
à This is more accurate
Since 1816 (Waterloo War), wars’ incidence trends show how in the 20th century there were many wars
but then they decreased
- Note: “correlates of war” (COW) means battles with more than 1000 deaths in year
- Also, this is illustrated by a graph showing the numbers of wars, including interstate, intrastate,
extrastate, and non-state wars
Definitions
- Interstate war: armed conflict between two sovereign states
- Extrastate war: armed conflict between a state and a non-state group outside its own territory
to retain control of territory outside state system
- Non-state war: armed conflict between two or more non-state groups
- Non-internationalized intrastate war: civil armed conflict between a state and one or more
non-state groups in state’s territory (no military involvement by extra-state-territorial actors)
- Internationalized interstate war: civil armed conflict between a state and one or more non-
state groups in state’s territory with military involvement by one or more extra-state-territorial
actors
,Other graphs show the rate of wars
- The number of wars divided by the number of all state
- This accounts for the changing number of states over time
à It is standardized
- It shows that it declined
However, the graph showing the number of interstate conflicts shows that it is increased
- Included are the conflicts between states where force was threatened, displayed, used, or
escalated to a war that year
Definitions
- Militarized International Disputes (MIDs): threats displays or uses of force involving states,
where deadliness of ‘use’ falls short of ‘war’ definitions
According to the Uppsala Conflict Data Program:
- Important rise, when considering and adding the data of interstate, extrastate, non-state, non-
internationalized intrastate, and internationalized interstate war
o Particularly in Africa and Asia
If we look at the absolute measures of incidence, we have reason to believe that there has been rising
rather than falling
- But if we look at the rate measures, we get the opposite story
à The professor says to look at absolute values
à So, it has been rising
Non-state conflicts
- Armed force between two organized armed groups, neither of which is the government of a
state, which results in at least 25 battle-related deaths in a year
à They have been rising
One-sided conflict
- Armed force by the government of a state or by a formally organized group against civilians
which results in at least 25 deaths
à They have been stable
,Two more reasons to be skeptical of the “Long Peace” claim/optimism:
1. Downward trends in the proportional deadliness of wars/conflicts partly reflect improvements
in medical care
o But huge increase in would-to-killed ratio
2. Wars are rare events, and their politics ‘stochastic’
o Wars might be on horizon
What about the deadliness?
à It increased
On top of the direct victims (e.g., battle deaths), there are at least as many (likely many more) people
who die due to sicknesses (e.g., malaria) cause by wars or by breakdowns in infrastructure due to wars
- These have been increasing
Also, refugees and displaced people have been increasing
So, what conclusions can we draw?
1. Proportional decline: decline, particularly among Great Powers and particularly since WWII,
in war and conflict as proportions of states, and war deaths as proportion of population
2. Absolute non-decline: but no statistically significant secular decline in absolute incidence or
deaths (let alone potential deadliness of war)
3. Rise of civil wars and internationalized civil wars: significant increase in civil wars relative to
inter-state wars, and recent big rise in internationalized civil wars (with major involvement of
external actor(s))
4. Some regions and countries have much more conflict and war-suffering than others (e.g.,
Americas versus Africa; Syria versus Tanzania; Ghana versus Congo)
5. War’s ‘victims’ go way beyond battlefield deaths (and vary also hugely across time and space)
Explaining patterns of war (in light of perennial debates)
1. Material bases of power balancing and security dilemmas: material conditions shaping clarity
and stability of power distributions and commitments
à Debate 1: realism; debate 2: realism; debate 3: material-position/interests;
debate 4: positivism/rationalism
a. Polarity (bipolarity vs. multipolarity)
b. Alliance complexity (simple and clear vs. complex and ambiguous)
c. Nuclear weapons (yes or no; ‘mutually-assured destruction’ or not)
d. (Other) military technologies favoring offense or defense (e.g., drones, anti-tank Javelin)
, It helps explain:
- Long peace
a. Post-WWII (Cold War) bipolarity, clearer alliances, nuclear weapons and technology all
focus and clarify security commitments and can diminish security dilemma
- Possibly also increasing civil wars
a. Cold War and nuclear weapons displace international to proxy/civil wars (continuation of
policy as other means)
- More recent patterns of increase
a. Post-Cold War multipolarity, US-China change in balance of power, ambiguity in
commitments, strengthen Putin’s hand (among others), and this in turn yields contagion
(e.g., Azerbaijan vs Armenia)
2. Domestic and international (security) institutions: shape representations of people bearing costs
of war, and shape also ‘transaction costs’ (enforce agreements, improve transparency, etc.) of
negotiation, together shaping security commitments
à Debate 1: idealism; debate 2: liberalism; debate 3: institutions;
debate 4: positivism/modernist constructivism
a. Democratic peace: liberal democratic institutions foster preferences and capacitates for
peace
b. International-institutional peace: many international institutions foster coordination and
cooperation, build trust, etc.
It helps explain:
- Long peace
a. Spreading and consolidating of democracy fostered peaceable political action (at least
between democracies)
b. Post-WWII (Cold War) international institutions (UN, EU, NATO, etc.) distinctly and
enduringly diminished security dilemmas, deepened cooperation
- Recent spikes in incidence of war/conflict
a. Stalling and backsliding of democracy erodes peaceable political action
b. Recent ‘post-Cold War’ erosion of capacities of international institutions awaken security
dilemmas, undermine cooperation
