Introduction
Since the mid-twentieth century, a remarkable phenomenon has unfolded: the end of interstate wars. This trend, which has been gaining popularity among scholars such as Joshua Goldstein and Steven Pinker, who think that the number of international and internal wars is decreasing, has become apparent (Russett, 2014). The question naturally arises: Why have interstate wars dropped since the 1950s? In order to address this query, this paper will look into international relations theories and discover the main reasons for this decline. Using in-depth analysis and exploration, the paper aims to scrutinize global security drivers and give a more comprehensive picture of this vital facet of international relations.
International Relations and the Decline of Interstate Wars
Liberal institutionalism views that international organizations (IOs) have mainly contributed to the phenomenon of interstate wars to the decline from the 1950s. IOs provide a place for states to settle disputes, find solutions to conflicts, and foster cooperation in return for lowering the risk of war between them. Russett (2014) reiterates that International organizations are the key to alleviating international wars. These are the venues through which states can interact peacefully and discuss the issues of differences and possible solutions to the problems impartially rather than engaging in potential military conflicts. The UN is one of the many organizations that promote dialogue and peacekeeping operations that aim to prevent cons and settle conflicts between members.
Furthermore, IOs implement peaceful dispute resolution and collective security norms, inhibiting hostilities and aggravation towards escalation into armed conflicts. Gill-Tiney (2021) points out that over time, UN Security Council resolutions are calling for law, interdependence, and democracy more often. These evolving norms can reshape state behavior through the disapproval of violent actions and the promotion of diplomatic approaches to conflict resolution. Similarly, IOs create peace-building strategies by developing economic and social life that eradicates the root causes of the conflict and hence reduce the risk of conflict. The use of development assistance programs and humanitarian aid to maintain stability and sustain cooperation between states is a task of IOs. Within the framework of IOs, countries endeavoring to achieve economic interdependence are motivated to maintain peaceful relationships.
Furthermore, democratic peace theory argues that democracies are less inclined to fight each other; that is, there are institutional constraints, a set of shared norms, and the commitment to resolving conflicts peacefully. The spread of democracy has significantly reduced interstate wars since the mid-twentieth century, as Russett (2014, p. 31) writes in detail. As Russett explains, democratic states usually emphasize diplomatic talks and peaceful conflict resolution techniques rather than utilizing military power to deal with problems (Russett, 2014). This standpoint is also underlined in the work of Gold and McGlinchey (2017), where the connection between democracy and peace is illustrated. It exposes how liberalists like Woodrow Wilson put forward the democratic peace theory to achieve order and harmony in interstate relations.
On top of that, introducing democratic values and institutions through international organizations has eased the spread of democracy, thus establishing the pillars of democratic peace. Nations that apply democracy usually demonstrate higher levels of transparency, responsibility, and human rights care, which leads to mutual trust and cooperation among democratic states (Gold & McGlinchey, 2017). Moreover, the existence of such democratic institutions as free and fair elections, independent judiciaries, and active civil society will serve as mechanisms for resolving domestic disputes peacefully, thus reducing the possibility of resorting to external conflicts.
Economic interdependence theory also examines the decline in wars between the states. This theory contends that rising economic connections between states decrease their probability of going to war and increase the costs of war, thus enhancing harmonious relationships among nations. Russett (2014) and Gill and Tiney (2021) highlight the impact of economic interdependence in shaping international relations. It illustrates that economic interdependence resulting from global trade and investment is the mix of countries. In such instances, states are bound by complex trading systems, and it becomes difficult to avoid the consequences of disruption or conflict for all trade partners. Consequently, states would be concerned about securing peaceful conflict resolutions to protect economic interests and sustained stability.
Furthermore, economic entanglement promotes cooperation and joint activity by allowing economic partners to reach a win-win situation through exports and investment. The countries prefer to cooperate in the economic sphere instead of fighting like wildfire because the latter, among other things, can interrupt the production cycle, interfere with the stock markets, and detrimentally affect the long-term economic perspectives. Subsequently, an interdependent economy results in countries sharing the same interests. Consequently, it reduces their chances of involvement in confrontational behaviors while at the same time improving their chances of arriving at a diplomatic consensus to solve interstate disputes.
Furthermore, a basic view of realists in international relations theory is that war becomes the main driver of change, which results in power and security being at the heart of international relations. On the other hand, many realists (Wivel, 2018) have begun to realize that there is a possibility for peaceful change. Recognizing this shortcoming, however, realists have seldom shown interest in this idea and preferred to focus on the power politics and the state-centeredness aspect (Wivel, 2018). In the same way, the realistic heart acknowledges that sometimes peaceful changes are possible, although they are mainly considered within the context of strategic calculations and selfish interests. However, according to Wivel (2018), even offensive realism does not exclude the possibility of peaceful change, which can be provoked by factors such as the intensification of interaction opportunities, technological development, and the rise of global interdependence. According to realists like Wivel (2018), the decline in interstate warfare due to practical considerations may be behind the observable trend; however, they do not cite peaceful intentions. From this viewpoint, states could pursue peaceful options not out of sincere hope for cooperation but as a strategic reaction to the changing geopolitical systems and the necessity of keeping themselves secure and enhancing their interests. This assessment, within realism theory, stems from the power shift and strategic calculations, not because of a fundamental shift in peace. Taking into account the decline of the interstate wars, realists still hold to some doubts about the future of perpetual peace and think that states can still play a crucial role.
Further, the explanations of economics based on the Industrial Revolution shed light on the decrease in interstate wars, which is quite eloquent. When going through industrialization, states often lose their propensity to engage in war among themselves, which is not a single factor but a web of connected factors (CChatagnier & Castelli, 2016). Industrialized societies cause significant shifts in conventions or values that reduce the usefulness of war or weaken the urge to start one. Here, Schumpetier’s notion of industrialization, where state behavior stems from private individual calculations and is risk-taking-oriented, loses significance (Chatagnier & Castelli, 2016). Moreover, external openness and internal economic freedom organize a significant stake in peace-building as states with well-established market relations vary their cooperation instead of conflict. The expansion of economic modernization (industrial production) has turned state priorities towards economic prosperity and stability rather than being fixated on expanding their territorial control or conquering (Chatagnier & Castelli, 2016). This economic interdependence can be seen as a risk factor for war since states are very well aware that war is dangerous for their own countries and the other countries that could become their victims by expansion. On the other hand, industrialization acts as a catalyst in the creation of interlinked supply chains and many interdependencies between economies, which also decreases the possibility that states would be initiating conflicts that, in the end, disrupt these linkages. Industrialization-based economic explanations can provide a diversified insight into how this phenomenon came about and how a state’s economic development affects human behavior on a global level.
The changing global norms and values have also played a key role in understanding the decrease in interstate wars since the middle of the 20th century. Gill-Tiney (2021) says that a special kind of shift of sovereignty and international norms in international organizations like the United Nations that they have led. The development of this procedure involves a step-by-step transition from the classical encroachment of sovereignty, which is associated with simple power-sharing, to the basics of international law, interdependence, free trade, democracy, and individual rights and freedoms (Gill-Tiney, 2021). In this way, liberal readings of the treaty have greatly affected the understanding of international relations since they guide states’ behavior and serve as a basis for conflict resolution. Among these organizations, the mandate of promoting liberal norms and values has been of great strategic significance towards establishing a favorable environment that supports discussion and cooperation between the states. Such a shift to Western thinking inevitably diminished the obstacles to such a dialogue and made it possible for the parties to solve the joint problems constructively. Therefore, the states have more incentive to consider options that are less offensive to other states, reducing the probability of armed conflicts and promoting stability of domestic political environment.
In addition, the emerging communication and technology trends have eventually led to the heightened connectivity of the states, which has, in turn, lowered the number of interstate wars. Furthermore, Wivel (2018) believes that the growth in telecommunications and other forms of interaction has radically changed the context of international relations, creating new opportunities for global negotiation and peace. The globe’s intricate network of connections, which is encouraged by technology, serves as a pull to countries thinking about the cost of war and the complex nature of warfare in the context of an interdependent world. Therefore, technological advances have undoubtedly enhanced the transparency and accessibility of foreign policy processes, allowing states to have discussions and negotiations more efficiently and effectively (Wivel, 2018). The proximity created a more significant overlap of mutual trust and understanding among the states, thereby reducing the chances of misunderstandings or misinterpretations that could be the source of hostility. The independent factors of liberal values, technological advancements, and interdependency among nations have led to more peaceful and cooperative relationships in the international domain of today. The apparatus of international diplomacy can be facilitated, and a shared dedication to conflict resolution and prevention is reinforced by such factors that have cumulatively constituted the gradual decline of interstate wars since the mid-twentieth century. With states increasingly tapping into technological advancements and actively engaging in the international arena, peace, and stability in the global arena are possible, and the future seems more peaceful, pointing towards a new and improved world order.
Counterargument
The counter viewpoint asserts that international relations theory does not offer unique knowledge and perspectives into internal wars; instead, it argues for the emergence of one overarching political violence theory that will encompass interstate and internal conflicts (Lake, 2003). Nevertheless, this approach omits several vital aspects that reveal the utmost importance of international relations theory in formulating a rational understanding of internal strife. Firstly, international relations theory provides valuable frameworks for analyzing the complex interactions between domestic and international actors and the impact of external factors on internal conflict dynamics. For instance, theories of international discourse that are based on realism and liberalism justify how foreign policy and the way states consider their national interest can contribute to instability internally and escalate dangerous conflicts. Considering external elements like neighbors, non-governmental organizations, and other non-state actors, international relations theory tries to balance the internal and external dimensions in a conflict resolution context.
Adding on, international relations theory offers a theoretical level of knowledge on the transnational nature of internal conflict: the flow of ideologies, weapons, and resources across borders. One of the most typical problems in conflicts of states is interstate ones, in which violence and instability pass on to the neighboring states. It illustrates the core importance of international relations theory in determining and considering what is happening inside the given countries (Lopez & Johnson, 2017). Moreover, it is essential to acknowledge the possibility of employing a cross-fertilization of ideas between the study of interstate conflicts and internal conflicts without the risk of denying the distinctiveness of the sub-types of war. Within the state’s territory could be found the struggle for sovereignty and independence of various ethnic groups, ethnic differences, and socioeconomic problems, which could be very different from the problems of the states. The de-clustering of civil discord within a nation by international relations theory is where the role-specific arguments and policy prescriptions touch upon unique challenges faced by civil wars and the people who suffer in the country.
Conclusion
In general, the decline of interstate wars since the 1950s can be viewed by several factors described in different IR theories. Liberal institutionalism accentuates the influence of international organizations on settling disputes peacefully and promoting cooperation among states. The democratic peace theory declared that democratic governance and shared norms lead to the pacification of interstate relations. Conversely, the economic interdependence theory emphasizes the contribution of economic links to the decrease of conflict probabilities. Realism theory and the industrialization concept offer us foundations of state behavior and economic peace stimuli. As a result, they highlight the complexities underlying persistent peace and demonstrate how further research in global relations is beneficial for global peace and security.
References
Chatagnier, J. T., & Castelli, E. (2016). A Modern Peace? Schumpeter, the Decline of Conflict, and the Investment–War Trade-Off. Political Research Quarterly, 69(4), 852–864. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912916670270
Gill-Tiney, P. (2021). A Liberal Peace?: The Growth of Liberal Norms and the Decline of Interstate Violence. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 66(3), 002200272110355. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220027211035554
Gold, D., & McGlinchey, S. (2017, January 9). International Relations Theory. E-International Relations. https://www.e-ir.info/2017/01/09/international-relations-theory/
Lake, D. A. (2003). International Relations Theory and Internal Conflict: Insights from the Interstices. International Studies Review, 5(4), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1079-1760.2003.00504008.x
Lopez, A. C., & Johnson, D. D. P. (2017). The determinants of war in international relations. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2017.09.010
Russett, B. (2014). The Waning of Warfare. Current History, 113(759), 30–32. https://doi.org/10.1525/curh.2014.113.759.30
Wivel, A. (2018, February 9). Realism and Peaceful Change. E-International Relations. https://www.e-ir.info/2018/02/09/realism-and-peaceful-change/
write