State, Power, and Conflict - Lecture 8 PDF

5. Why do liberals think democracy can prevent war? What are the limits to their view? 6. What is the di erence between the structure and process of an international system? Is constructivism useful for understanding how processes change? 7. What is counterfactual history? Can you use...

5. Why do liberals think democracy can prevent war? What are the limits to their view? 6. What is the di erence between the structure and process of an international system? Is constructivism useful for understanding how processes change? 7. What is counterfactual history? Can you use it to explain the causes of the war in Afghanistan? Lecture 8: From Westphalia to World War I How did the modern state system evolve from the 17th century until the 19th century? Balance of Power, Hegemonic Stability Theory, Hegemonic Transition Theory The Revolutions of Modernity Identifying di erent causes of World War I Nye & Welch, Chapter 4: From Westphalia to World War I Acharya & Buzan, Chapter 1: The World up to 1919: The Making of Modern International Relations PEACE OF WESTPHALIA (1648) Treaties of Osnabrück and Münster and the Peace of Münster Cuius regio, eius religio Rex est imperator in regno suo Precursor to the principle of state sovereignty. Stable international system (Westphalian system). —> key moment in history These wars caused: 8mln people killed + mostly motivated by religions + were shorter, more focused It was designed to ensure state survival and STABILITY The text traces the evolution of political units throughout history, culminating in the modern sovereign state. By the 20th century, the sovereign state system, characterized by clearly de ned territories and sovereignty, had become the dominant global political structure. This system originated in Europe, speci cally from the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which ended the Thirty Years' War. The Westphalian treaties established the principle of state sovereignty, where rulers could determine the religion and governance of their own territories without outside interference. Although not the end of war in Europe, the Peace of Westphalia marked a signi cant shift toward a more stable and regulated international system. THE MYTH OF 1648? A Marxist critique of the notion that the Peace of Westphalia laid the foundation of the modern international system. Dynastic patrimonial rule would persist. Many states were absolutist monarchies. L'état, c'est moi (6 years after) No conscription army —> mostly mercenaries, no mass prescriptions According to Teschke, modern international relations only started with the rise of capitalism (but this view has also been criticized!). Acharya and Buzan: modern international relations started with the revolutions of modernity. TREATY OF UTRECHT Concluded (after 13 years) the War of the Spanish Succession. —> concerns: too powerful (France + Spain) Referred to the Balance of Power. Peace in Europe can only be sustained if the Balance of Power is preserved. Collective responsibility for the 'security and tranquility of Europe! The French and Spanish monarchies would never be united under a single person. Realpolitik 118  ff ff fi fi fi  FOUR MEANINGS OF THE BALANCE OF POWER: Distribution of power: How is power distributed among states? —> DESCRIPTION This refers to how power is spread among states at any given time. It can describe situations where power is equally distributed (equilibrium) or where one state dominates (hegemonic stability). Hegemonic transition theory suggests that when a dominant power declines, con ict becomes more likely, as seen with the onset of World War I. A policy: realpolitik; strategy to ensure that no single state becomes too powerful This describes a deliberate policy by states to prevent any one state from becoming too powerful, often through alliances. For example, Britain’s alliances during the Napoleonic Wars aimed to balance France’s power. Leaders like Churchill and Palmerston exempli ed this approach, prioritizing strategic interests over ideological consistency. Balance of power theory: predicts 'a more or less automatic equilibration of power in the international system! —> academic theory to understand what’s happening (neo-realism) This is the idea that states will naturally act to prevent any single state from achieving dominance, through internal means (increased military spending) or external alliances. In international politics, balancing prevents any one power from becoming too strong, though it does not guarantee peace, as states are often in uenced by perceptions of threat, proximity, or economic interdependence. Sometimes, countries align with stronger powers, contradicting balance-of-power theory, due to other concerns like proximity or ideology, as seen in post-World War II alliances. Historical multipolar systems —> what do we actually mean? This refers to speci c historical systems, like 18th- and 19th-century Europe, where multiple states followed common rules to maintain stability. These historical cases highlight how the balance of power operated in practice, with multipolar systems preventing any one power from dominating. Ultimately, the balance of power is not foolproof and has led to wars as much as it has prevented them. However, it has played a key role in preserving the anarchic state system throughout history. HEGEMONIC TRANSITION THEORY How can we understand the absence of war? Hegemonic transition theory posits that, when the strongest/hegemonic power (inevitably) begins to slip or if a new power begins to challenge the hegemonic power, war is particularly likely: - The declining hegemon will do anything to preserve its dominant position. - The rising power will do anything to attain hegemony. Hegemonic stability theory, in contrast, holds that the international system is most stable, when one state has a preponderance of power so that other states do not attack it. THE LONG 19TH CENTURY The Impact of Modernity The revolutions of modernity transformed the international system, replacing dynastic empires with modern ideologies like Liberalism, Socialism, Nationalism, and Scienti c Racism. These ideologies rede ned concepts like war, sovereignty, and trade, in uencing IR practices that persist today. Rise of new ideologies Material changes RISE OF NEW IDEOLOGIES DURING THE ERA OF MODERNITY 1) Liberalism !!! 1. The rights of the individual should be foundational to society and society 2. The relatively open operation of markets should be the basic principle for running the economy 119  fi fl fi fl fl fi fi  Strong focus on the individual, private property, self-determination etc. Strong focus on meritocracy and rationalism Challenged the traditional order in multiple ways, speci cally birthright, dynasticism, the political role of religion, mercantilism (export as much as possible, import as less as possible) 2) Socialism Stronger focus on collectivity (rather than the individual) of the working class, egalitarianism, state command of the economy But (similar to liberals) also focus on class mobility, education of people, rationalism, people should be citizens (rather than subjects). 3) Nationalism Focus on creating a collective identity (based on shared language, culture, ethnicity, history) as the main foundation for political legitimacy Focus on people as citizens (rather than subjects), popular sovereignty. Tied the nation to the state, but disrupted empires! —> it helped state’s building 4) 'Scienti c' Racism Application of the idea of 'survival of the ttest' to society (Social Darwinism, social domain) —> reinforced racial ideology and European supremacy, that led to discrimination Reinforced racial hierarchies (notion of genetic inferiority and superiority) o Imperialism, colonialism, gender discrimination —> Western-Colonial Hierarchy: The nineteenth century saw the consolidation of a hierarchical Western-colonial international order, met with resistance from non-Western societies. —> Ideational Landscape: these four ideologies dominated the intellectual framework of this period, driving both progress and con ict. MATERIAL CHANGES DURING THE ERA OF MODERNITY 1) Shrinking of the world (in terms of global communciations, global trade, mass migrations, globalisation of war) 2) Rise of modern states, transnational corporations, intergovernmental organizations, international NGOS 3) Rapid technological change FRENCH REVOLUTION 1789-1799 Changed the previous 'rules of the game' and shook up the balance of power → instability. —> focus of popular sovereignty Levée en masse (conscription army)→ important for the creation of national identity, shared history, identity, language = people wanted to defend it, nationalism tied citizens more than socialism, globalisation, etc.. Citizenship. Notion of popular sovereignty (spread by Napoleon around Europe / Napoleonic Wars). From the Westphalian period to the early 19th century, European wars were primarily fought over territorial disputes and balance of power without challenging the legitimacy of monarchies. This changed with the French Revolution (1789-1799), which introduced the concept of popular sovereignty, challenging monarchical rule and spreading revolutionary ideas across Europe through the Napoleonic Wars (1799-1815). This shift posed a fundamental challenge to the stability of the European political system. Additionally, changes in military means further destabilized the system. Previously, wars were fought with limited goals and small mercenary armies, as seen in the 18th century. However, the French Revolution introduced mass conscription (levée en masse), which led to large-scale national armies fueled by a sense of citizenship and patriotism. This transformation in the organization of war, along with technological advances like the machine gun, contributed to the intensity and destructiveness of future con icts, such as World War I. THE BOP-SYSTEM IN THE 19TH CENTURY Napoleon's attempt to establish hegemony failed (other great powers had united; 'balancing') → defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo (1815). 120  fi fl fi fl fi  Congress of Vienna (1815): restored the BOP(balance of power) / multipolar order (Britain, Russia, France, Prussia, Austria) Concert of Europe: special rights responsibilities to the great powers in the core (periphery was denied sovereign equality). Pax Britannica (1815-1873). British hegemony (because of industrial revolution) Completion of the Italian Risorgimento and German uni cation (1871) —> they became a threat, they could challenge other states Rival Imperialisms (1873-1914) Scramble for Africa (started with the Berlin Conference, 13 European power + USA). Second Industrial Revolution: oil, chemicals, and electricity. British decline, but rise of Germany and the US. 1907: the European BoP had lost its stability (two sets of alliances: Triple Entente & Triple Alliance). Concept of the balance of power in international relations, particularly in European history from the Peace of Westphalia to World War I: - is an often-used, yet ambiguous, concept in politics —> some see it as a principle that promotes stability, others argue it has caused more wars than peace. In reality, it is a system aimed not at preserving peace, but at maintaining state independence and the anarchic state system. STRUCTURE The 19th-century system had three key phases: 1. Loose Multipolarity (1815–1871): After the defeat of Napoleon, Europe returned to a multipolar system with ve main powers: Britain, Russia, France, Prussia, and Austria. Alliances frequently shifted to prevent any one state from dominating. 2. Rise of Germany (1871–1907): With the uni cation of Germany and Italy, a new power structure emerged. Germany’s central location and growing power became destabilizing factors. 3. Bipolar Alliances (1907–1914): Europe polarized into two rigid alliances: the Triple Entente (Britain, France, Russia) and the Triple Alliance (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy). This rigidity made the system less exible and contributed to the outbreak of World War I. PROCESS The process of diplomacy and international relations also evolved over ve phases: 1. Concert of Europe (1815–1822): European powers worked together to maintain stability, meeting frequently to resolve disputes. 2. Reduced Concert (1822–1854): The Concert became less e ective, as liberal nationalist movements weakened the old system. 3. Wars and Nationalism (1854–1870): Nationalism became a dominant force, leading to wars like the Crimean War and the wars for German and Italian uni cation. 4. Bismarck’s Balance (1871–1890): Bismarck managed to maintain a exible balance of power through diplomacy and limited imperialism. 5. Rising Tensions (1890–1914): With Bismarck’s successors abandoning his careful diplomacy, alliances became more rigid, and nationalism, combined with new technologies (railroads, artillery), escalated tensions. JAPAN: EAST OR WEST? Japan was part of the rst general round of modernity (facilitated by the Meji restoration). Broke the myth of white power. Confronted the other great powers with the issue of racism at the Versailles negotiations (in 1919); challenged the racial hierarchy (fostered Japanese anti-western sentiment because they were rejected) —> Rise of Japan: Japan's rise marked the rst major instance of non-Western power challenging Western dominance, signaling "the rise of the rest.” EXPLAINING WORLD WAR I System level 121  fi fi fl fi fi fi fi ff fi fl  Domestic level Individual level A SYSTEM-LEVEL EXPLANATION OF WWI 1) The rise of Germany > upset BoP. Challenging Britain in terms of industrial production + naval arms race. Germany's late search for colonies ('rival imperialism’) 2) The increased rigidity in the alliance systems —> there wasn’t much exibility anymore, also due to the 2 di erent alliances Security dilemma (defensive realism). RELATIVE SHARES OF WORLD MANUFACTURING OUTPUT Europe didn’t even have that much powerful economy (1750-1800/30) USA —> in uenced Europe, after an isolation approach A DOMESTIC-LEVEL EXPLANATION OF WWI - PROCESS LEVEL CHANGES: Rising nationalism and the threat posed to multinational empires. For example, nationalism in Serbia, in the Balkans Pan-Slavism: Movements advocating for Slavic unity threatened the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires, both with signi cant Slavic populations. German politics: The German industrialist capitalist class sought expansionism as an alternative to social democracy. German Nationalism: Germany harbored nationalist sentiments against Slavs, with literature and education promoting the idea of inevitable con ict between Teutonic (Germanic) and Slavic peoples. Crisis of instability: 'cult of the o ensive' shared by military leaders across Europe —> misguided perceptions of the states’ technologies and they thought that the new war would have been equal compared to the others Override of Other Bonds: Nationalism proved stronger than socialism, capitalism, and even familial ties among monarchs. For instance, Kaiser Wilhelm II's personal appeal to his cousin Tsar Nicholas II failed to prevent war. 122  fl ff ff fi fl fl  Domestic Level Causes: 1. Rejection of Capitalism as the Primary Cause: - Lenin's Argument Dismissed: The war did not result from capitalist imperialism or colonial con icts as Lenin suggested. - Opposition from Business Interests: Bankers and businessmen opposed the war, fearing economic losses. 2. Internal Crises of Declining Empires: - Austria-Hungary and Ottoman Turkey: - Threatened by Nationalism: Both multinational empires faced internal pressures from nationalist movements seeking independence. - Ottoman Weakness: Corruption and ine ciency made the Ottoman Empire vulnerable, particularly in the Balkans. - Balkan Wars: The 1912 Balkan wars expelled the Ottomans, but subsequent con icts among Balkan states destabilized the region. On the domestic front, German historian Fritz Fischer argued that Germany's ruling coalition of aristocrats and industrialists pursued expansionist policies to divert attention from domestic issues and avoid social reform. These internal tensions in Germany, combined with a broader “cult of the o ensive” mentality across European military leadership, contributed to the crisis. Generals believed rapid mobilization and o ensive strategies were crucial, even though military technology favored defense, increasing the pressure to act quickly once the July Crisis of 1914 began. TRENDS The rise of nationalism and liberalism fundamentally changed European politics. As rulers and states became more identi ed with the people, nationalism became a destabilizing force. Additionally, the industrial revolution transformed warfare with new technologies, making con icts deadlier and contributing to the rigidity of the balance-of-power system. These factors set the stage for the outbreak of World War I. Complacency About Peace: - Long Peaceful Period: Europe had avoided major wars for 40 years, leading to a false sense of security. - Managed Crises: Previous con icts (e.g., in Morocco, Bosnia, the Balkans) were resolved diplomatically, but left nations frustrated and eager for decisive action. - Social Darwinism In uence: Misapplication of Darwin's theories justi ed the belief that con ict was natural and that the strong should dominate, diminishing concerns about maintaining peace. AN INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL EXPLANATION OF WWI: MEDIOCRE LEADERSHIP German Foreign Policy Missteps: - Vague and Confusing Policies: As noted by Sir Eyre Crowe, Germany's unclear foreign policy contributed to international tensions. - Diplomatic Clumsiness: Kaiser Wilhelm II antagonized multiple nations simultaneously: Britain: Initiated a naval arms race, challenging British naval supremacy. Russia: Created con icts over interests in Turkey and the Balkans. France: Opposed French interests in Morocco. Failed Strategy with Britain: Attempts to intimidate Britain into an alliance back red, pushing Britain closer to France and Russia. - Acceptance of War Risk: By 1914, Germany felt encircled and accepted the possibility of war to break out of isolation. Poor leadership: - Franz Joseph I of Austria - Zar Nicholas II of Russia 123  fl fl ff fl fl fi ff fl ffi fi fi fl fl  - Wilhelm II of Germany (last emperor) At the individual level, the mediocrity of the leadership on the eve of World War I was signi cant. Figures like the Austro-Hungarian Emperor Franz Joseph and Tsar Nicholas II were isolated and poorly served by their ministers. Most notably, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany was insecure and emotional, often acting inconsistently and under pressure. His erratic leadership, combined with overly optimistic reports from diplomats, contributed to the unstable situation that eventually led to war. DEEP, INTERMEDIATE AND PRECIPITATING CAUSES OF WWI The war resulted from a combination of deep, intermediate, and precipitating causes. Deep causes: Changes in the Balance of Power Rise of German strength Development of a bipolar alliance system Nationalism that threatened empires like Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire Rise of nationalism (+ demise of several empires) German politics Intermediate causes: German policy —> clumsy nature The rise in complacency about peace Personal idiosyncrasies of the European leaders Immediate precipitating cause: Assassination of Franz Ferdinand at Sarajevo —> WAS WORLD WAR I INEVITABLE? World War I was not inevitable, although it may have seemed likely due to various factors. While it is easy to see war as inevitable in hindsight, counterfactual analysis helps illustrate that the war could have been avoided or taken di erent forms. If, for example, the assassination in Sarajevo had not occurred or Germany had not given Austria a "blank check," war may not have erupted in 1914. Additionally, Russia's growing strength by 1916 may have deterred Germany from its aggressive two-front war strategy. Without the war, Germany's industrial strength might have enabled it to dominate Europe economically, as speculated by historian A.J.P. Taylor. Even if war had broken out, it did not have to become the prolonged global con ict that it was. Various possibilities include a limited Austro-Serbian war, a one-front war against Russia, a two- front war without British involvement, or a war without the U.S. entry, all of which would have resulted in a di erent historical trajectory. The causes of World War I were complex and multi-faceted, involving choices at multiple levels. Human decisions played a signi cant role, and while the likelihood of con ict was high, it was not a foregone conclusion. —> World War I's Trauma: The war's devastation set the stage for modern international relations, reshaping the global balance of power. THE LEGACIES OF WWI FOR INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 1. The Russian Revolution (Lenin, just before the end of WWI) 2. The break-up of the Ottoman Empire 3. The defence dilemma However, a lot stayed the same: Multipolar international system Colonialism/imperalism and human inequality remained in place. Did not destroy Europe's pretence to represent the 'standard of civilization’ THE ORIGINS OF WORLD WAR I The onset of World War I was a result of intertwined factors: 124  ff fi ff fl fl fi  - Structural Shifts: Germany's rapid rise altered the balance of power, while rigid alliances eliminated diplomatic exibility. - Nationalism and Ideology: Heightened nationalistic fervor and misapplied social theories fostered aggressive attitudes. - Diplomatic Failures: Germany's foreign policy alienated potential allies and escalated tensions. - Domestic Pressures: Internal crises within empires and the dismissal of capitalist motivations played roles in the march toward war. STRUCTURAL LEVEL CAUSES: 1. Rise of German Power: - Industrial Growth: In the 1890s, Germany's heavy industry surpassed that of Great Britain. By the early 20th century, Germany's gross national product was growing at twice the rate of Britain's. - Shift in Industrial Dominance: Britain's share of global industrial production decreased from 25% in the 1860s to 10% by 1913, while Germany's increased to 15%. - Military Expansion: Germany converted industrial strength into military capability, notably through the "Tirpitz Plan" of 1911, aiming to build the world's second-largest navy. - British Alarm: Germany's naval ambitions unsettled Britain, particularly gures like Winston Churchill. Britain's concerns intensi ed due to Germany's sympathy for the Boers during the Boer War. 2. Increased Rigidity in Alliance Systems: - Formation of the Triple Entente: Britain shifted from its traditional isolation to ally with France in 1904 and later with Russia in 1907, forming the Triple Entente. - Germany's Reaction: Feeling encircled, Germany strengthened ties with Austria-Hungary. - Loss of Diplomatic Flexibility: The rigid alliances reduced the ability to adjust diplomatically, unlike in Bismarck's era, polarizing Europe into two blocs. - Security Dilemma: The tightening alliances heightened mutual fears and mistrust among nations, a concept emphasized by defensive realists. PATH DEPENDENCY OF HISTORY What has happened in the past matters for the present (and the future) Past decisions can constrain events, limit future options (i.e., degrees of freedom) and narrow the funnel of choices. However, while WW I might have been highly probable, it was not inevitable. WWl may not have happened or may have taken very di erent forms (e.g. remain restricted to a local war, a one-front war, a two-front war without Britain, or a war without the United States). STUDY QUESTIONS 1. Was World War I inevitable? If so, why and when? If not, when and how could it have been avoided? 2. How might you apply Waltz’s images to the origins of World War I? 3. Which of the following factors do you consider most signi cant in explaining the outbreak of World War I? a. alliance systems b. public opinion c. military doctrine or military leadership (specify countries) d. political leadership (specify countries) e. economic pressures or forces f. misperception g. other (specify) 4. Thucydides argues that the underlying cause of the Peloponnesian War was the growth of Athenian power and the fear this caused in Sparta. To what extent was World War I caused by the growth of German power and the fear this caused in Britain? Or the growth of Russian power and the fear this caused in Germany? 5. To what extent, if any, was World War I “accidental”? Does it make sense to talk about “accidental” wars? What about “unintended” ones? What kind of war was intended? By whom? 6. What do realist, liberal, and constructivist approaches add to our under- standing of the origins of World War I? 125  fl fi ff fi fi