* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Hobbes vs. Kant: Theory, Evidence, and Policy Implications about
State (polity) wikipedia , lookup
World government wikipedia , lookup
Hegemonic stability theory wikipedia , lookup
United States and the United Nations wikipedia , lookup
Green theory wikipedia , lookup
State-building wikipedia , lookup
Fragile state wikipedia , lookup
United States non-interventionism wikipedia , lookup
International relations theory wikipedia , lookup
Postdevelopment theory wikipedia , lookup
American democracy promotion in the Middle East and North Africa wikipedia , lookup
Internationalism (politics) wikipedia , lookup
Development theory wikipedia , lookup
Polarity (international relations) wikipedia , lookup
Community of Democracies wikipedia , lookup
Peace psychology wikipedia , lookup
International relations wikipedia , lookup
Democratic peace theory wikipedia , lookup
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.