Download Hobbes vs. Kant: Theory, Evidence, and Policy Implications about

Hobbes vs. Kant: Theory, Evidence, and Policy Implications about War and Peace
By Rebecca L. Warren
April 30, 2004
INR3006
“On my honor I affirm that in writing this essay I have neither sought nor received
assistance from anyone at all.”
______________________________
Rebecca L. Warren
Two contrasting views of war and peace between states include the Hobbesian or
"realist" view, and the Kantian view, which is also known as the "liberal" viewpoint. The
realist theory equates war with anarchy; and according to this theory, the state of the
international system is perpetually anarchic, which creates a major international security
dilemma. Based on this theory, the anarchic state of international relations can be
attributed to the lack of a supranational government, which leads to an international
system that functions as a country engaged in civil war. Some realist factors that affect
war and peace include contiguity, distance, power ratios and alliances. Regime is not as
important as power according to this theory. The Hobbesian view of war and peace also
suggests an absence of morality and justice within the system, and a continuous cycle of
military threats and aggression that cannot be broken. This theory makes no provision for
a stable and lasting peace as states continuously engage in preemptive war regardless of
regime type. Conversely, the Kantian or "liberal" theory of war and peace does present
peace as a probable outcome of effective conflict resolution.
According to the Kantian theory, certain conditions are conducive to establishing
a lasting peace. War and anarchy are not equal based on this theory, and most states
recognize the sovereignty of other states within the system. The Kantian or "liberal"
system consists of three related elements that perpetuate peace. These elements are
democracy, economic interdependence and international organizations, which indicate
that regime is of importance to this theory. According to this theory, when these three
elements or characteristics are present in relationships between states, militarized conflict
is less likely to occur. Also, democracy, interdependence and international organizations
are inter-related and one variable can promote development of one or both of the other
variables. Russett and Oneal incorporate variables from each theory to create an equation
that indicates the likelihood of militarized conflict between a pair of states, and the
factors that contribute to war and peace.
Russett and Oneal tested elements of the realist and liberal theories by studying
evidence collected from the years 1885 to 1992. The equation developed by Russett and
Oneal is as follows: w = c-d- p1/p2 - A-D-T-I. The realist variables incorporated by
Russett and Oneal are contiguity (c), distance (d), power ratio (p1/p2), and alliances (A).
All of the Kantian variables are included in the equation and are democracy (D), trade (T)
and international organizations (I). The dependent variable "w" represents militarized
conflict, while the remaining variables on the right side of the equation are independent
variables that affect the likelihood of militarized conflict. Contiguity (c) represents a
shared border between countries. Distance (d) indicates geographical distance between
countries. The power ratio variable (p1/p2) represents the difference of power between a
stronger and weaker country. Alliances (A) specifically indicates shared alliances
between members of a dyad, which is a pair of states. The democracy (D) variable is
based on the polity score of the least democratic member of the dyad. Trade (T) is a
function of openness to the world economy and economic interdependence. The last
variable, international organizations (I), indicates shared membership in international
organizations by members of a dyad. Each of these variables, both realist and Kantian,
affects the probability that militarized conflict will occur between members of a dyad.
Evidence confirms that there is a greater potential for violence when states are
contiguous, or when geographic distance separating the states is small. A shared border
between states is more likely to result in militarized conflict because the use of military
force is more easily accomplished than if the states were farther apart geographically.
According to Russett and Oneal, contiguous dyads that contain at least one major power
as a member are most likely to engage in militarized disputes. In sum, contiguity
increases the probability of conflict while distance decreases probability. The power ratio
variable is indicative of the capabilities of the stronger state compared to the capabilities
of the weaker state. National power can be determined by several factors, which include
total population, urban population, energy consumption, iron and steel production, and
total military expenditures and manpower. Russett and Oneal suggest that a greater power
ratio, or discrepancy between the stronger and weaker state, results in fewer conflicts as
the powerful dictate the weak. Alliances, the last realist variable in the equation, are
specifically shared alliances of members of a dyad. Members of alliances do not
generally threaten or engage in military action, and they often share security interests.
Alliances, dyads belonging to a mutual defense treaty, neutrality pact or entente, decrease
the probability of conflict, but do not guarantee security.
The three variables of the Kantian/liberal theory are included in Russett and
Oneal's equation, and democracy, interdependence and international organizations each
contributes to the overall prospect for peace. The basic hypothesis of Russett and Oneal is
the idea that democracies do not fight other democracies and are generally more peaceful
overall. Evidence also suggests disputes between democracies are less likely to become
violent than are disputes between autocracies, and as more states become democratic,
conflict will occur less frequently. When the least democratic member of a dyad has a
high polity score, which indicates a more democratic state, the states are less likely to
engage in militarized conflict. Higher levels of democracy result in fewer incidences of
militarized conflict.
The independent variable of trade is a function of openness and interdependence.
Research indicates trade does reduce conflict between states, and countries open to
participation in the global economy are generally more peaceful than countries that are
closed to the global economy and trade. According to Russett and Oneal, a greater degree
of economically important trade creates commercial interests that encourage peace
between everyone involved, not just between close trading partners. When a country is
more open to trade with other countries and with the other member of the dyad, the
probability of militarized conflict is decreased. Lastly, in addition to democracy and
economic interdependence, shared membership in international organizations can also
reduce conflict between members of a dyad. These organizations enforce established
agreements, facilitate the pursuit of individual interests by member states, and teach or
establish a set of norms to be followed. Membership in international organizations
promotes peace as well as promoting democracy; therefore, more shared memberships in
international organizations means militarized conflict is less likely to occur. No one
variable alone can insure peace or reduce militarized conflict. Realist and Kantian
variables are inter-related and one may compensate for the deficiency of another, and as
the equation indicates, a combination of variables is required to reduce the likelihood of
militarized conflict between states.
In creating foreign policy, the United States must consider each variable of Russet
and Oneal's equation to develop policy that utilizes elements of both realist and Kantian
theories, and that creates an effective approach to deal with democratic and nondemocratic states around the world.
The most important consideration in forming policy is democracy. If a country is
democratic, the other variables such as alliances, trade and membership in international
organizations will follow more easily and conflict will be much less likely. However, not
all states are completely democratic or functioning as a democracy, and some states are
not democratic at all. The United States should continue to cultivate democracy and
democratic ideals by whatever means is necessary depending on the particular situation
and state, and conflict will be less likely to occur as states become more democratic. The
United States should also maintain a preponderance of power in relations with other
states. That power should not necessarily be flaunted, but should be recognized as a
means to safeguard the interests of the U.S. and other members of the democratic system.
Trade should continue to be an integral part of international relations, especially trade
among democratic states. But if non-democratic states do not take any steps toward
democratization, perhaps they should not enjoy full benefits of trade between democratic
nations; especially if those states do not abide by basic democratic principles such as
human and civil rights. The U.S. should also continue to participate in many alliances and
international organizations as a way to promote democratic relations and to establish
agreements with other states. As a result of membership in these alliances and
international organizations, economically beneficial trade and interdependence could
develop as a consequence. Again, an intermingling of realist and Kantian variables is
necessary to create foreign policy that is beneficial to both the United States and
countries with whom the U.S. interacts, and no one variable alone is sufficient to
establish a functioning system of trade, democracy and interdependence. An effective
combination of variables, however, will insure that militarized conflict will occur less
frequently or not at all.
Works Cited
Russett, Bruce R. and John R. Oneal. 2001. Triangulating Peace: Democracy,
Interdependence and International Organizations. New York: W.W.
Norton and Company.