To Perpetual Peace

In Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition, author Jack Snyder seeks to explain why overexpansion has been so common among the great powers. Sometimes, Snyder argues, states over-expand so aggressively that their actions risk the survival of the states themselves, as was the case of Germany and Japan in the World War II era. Snyder explains that the ‘central myth of empire,’ which he considers ‘defensive realism,’ is that states think that their security can only be safeguarded through further expansion. Snyder explains that this myth of empire is the counterproductive aggressive foreign policy that was the major force that propelled

The defining characteristic of the state is the ability to wield power. The use of power, both inside and outside of one’s border, directly speaks to the sovereignty of the nation. If a nation is incapable of disciplining or punishing its citizens it will invariably become a failed state. Moreover if a country isn’t recognized as powerful in the global political arena, that country stands a very good chance of being dominated by a nation who has the capacity to enforce its own will. The use, or at least the perception, of power is so fundamental in nationhood that those who wield the most power can easily dictate world events.

The international system is anarchic. It is very important to notice that anarchy, according to Mearsheimer, does not mean chaos or disorder, but absence of centralized authority, that stands above states and protects

Liberals believe the causes of war are miscommunication, mistrust, and misperceptions. As a solution, Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher, believed that to overcome international anarchy and achieve perpetual peace, there needed to be collective action (interdependency between states), and a federation of states in which state sovereignty will be left intact (international organizations). However, for this to occur, states must have a democratic government. This later became known as the Kantian Triangle.

I agree with the quote that “Wars between states can be explained by the distribution of power and capabilities in the international system.” Power distribution among all the great powers plays an important role for the stability and economy of the state. I believe that war determines who will govern the international system, and whose interests will be primarily served by the new international order.

Ikenberry argues that there are many dilemmas within the organization of the international world order. The liberal order is defined by its openness and its rule based order. Order is maintained in these institutions when states agree to follow the rules set by these institutions. The liberal order has sought to establish its rules in a non-biased system that will not discriminate other states, so that the entire institution can agree on these regulations. However, this has raised many serious dilemmas’. There seems to be concern of how the balance of power operates. Ikenberry argues that the international order has been put into place

In the international arena, there is no hierarchical rule to keep states in line or behaved; meaning that the international system is constantly in anarchy, aka the state of nature. This lack of rule enforcement puts states in a constant state of war, in a constant state where they need to stay on guard and in a tactical advantage otherwise the safety and well being of their state will be in jeopardy. In this scenario, the state’s number one priority is to protect itself and act in its self interest when need be, despite if it would typically be deemed immoral. (Donnelly 20)

The most prevalent reasons for states going to war are security, interest, standing, and revenge; of these, I posit that security is the most frequent. For the purposes of this paper, I will focus on warfare occurring since the onset of the 20th century, however many of the core arguments retain efficacy through the countless centuries of human warfare. States don’t trust one another; even the best relationships between states are mired in spycraft with, or in opposition to one another. To summarize Waltz, drive for security is something that all states want, and need, as long as there are multiple states and at least one of them is looking for power.

In his 1988 Republican National Convention acceptance speech former U.S. President George H.W. Bush proclaimed that, “Weakness and ambivalence lead to war.”. For better or worse a state's ability to influence world politics is primarily based on much power they have. In purely academic terms, power is the ability of Actor A to get Actor B to do something that B would otherwise not do; the ability to get the other side to make concessions and to avoid having to make concessions oneself (Frieden P. A-6). Power is usually represented by the capability of a state to preserve or tip the balance of power towards their own national interests. Balance of power refers to a situation in which the military capabilities of two states or groups of

In a realist world, states have “supreme power” over its territory and population, there is an absence of a higher authority. The fact that there is no higher authority has its consequences. States become self-interested, they compete for power and security. It can lead states to continuously struggle for power “where the strong dominate the weak (Kegley, 28).” This ultimately creates a system in which each state is responsible for its own survival, making them cautious towards their neighboring states. In addition, a realist world is a self-help system; “political leaders seek to enhance national security” by building armies and forming alliances (Kegley, 28). Economic and military power are key components to a state sovereignty and to national security.

The purpose of this essay is to inform on the similarities and differences between systemic and domestic causes of war. According to World Politics by Jeffry Frieden, David Lake, and Kenneth Schultz, systemic causes deal with states that are unitary actors and their interactions with one another. It can deal with a state’s position within international organizations and also their relationships with other states. In contract, domestic causes of war pertain specifically to what goes on internally and factors within a state that may lead to war. Wars that occur between two or more states due to systemic and domestic causes are referred to as interstate wars.

World War I saw the nations involved rallied into two major alliances in order to curb German’s increasing power. It is evident that German amassing too much power poses a threat to the security of its counterparts in an anarchic system. As a result, other countries were willing to use various means not only to mitigate the risks but also maintain their independence in the world’s political structure. The balance of power theory focuses on how countries can achieve a balance and international order. The causes of World War one can be attributed to the balance of power mechanisms used by the countries involved.

Morganthau (Cited in Haas,1953, pp.445) argues that the Balance of power can be viewed as either a description of any state of international politics in relation to power distribution or a policy or action intending to distribute power. From this framework we can use the balance of power to both understand static moments in history to observe where power lies at that moment in time and to look at how states themselves actively implement foreign policy for their own power related interests whether that be looking to balance the set of scales or to tip them

International change takes place when great powers rise and fall and followed by the shift in the balance of power (Jackson and Sorensen, 2003).

seen in history that it is possible to restrain the players. It is said to be