Why do Nations go to War: A Neoliberal Perspective Neoliberal institutionalism is a political ideology that recognizes the importance of the state as a rational and central actor in international politics, but as its name suggests, it also accords value to the presence of international institutions. Though, as do realists, they also believe that states are self-interested, the neoliberal paradigm puts great emphasis on cooperation and change rather than the omnipresent threat of war as a consequence of living in an anarchic world. Due to this, nations going to war in a liberal’s perspective is a rarity. War is fought for an instrumental purpose. War is going to be looked at as a problem of bargaining over goods.
The general thinking is that if war will result in greater happiness than the current situation then it is fine. However in this essay i will look at act,rule Utilitarianism and also see the preference utilitarianism approaches to war. Rule utilitarianism is the principle applied to a selection of set rules which are used to determine what to do in a particular situation( in this case war). John Stuart Mill (1806-73) created the theory of Rule utilitarianism. He saw that an action had to cause the greatest or purist happiness.
‘Warfare has been infused with some moral concerns from the beginning rather than war being a mere Macbethian bloodbath” (Moseley, 2009). The Just war theory is a set of mutually agreed rules of conflict, generally involving two culturally related enemies that share similar values and beliefs. However, when these enemies differ due to cultural and religious beliefs the enemy can be viewed as ‘less than human’ and the ‘moral rules’ of the just war theory become overlooked (Moseley, 2009). These mutually agreed rules are old as warfare itself. History indicates that moral concerns influenced warrior’s decisions to limit the potential damage of war.
He proposes to solve the problem of war by creating laws, because of their need of survival above all. A solution to avoid chaos and to alleviate the stress between the conflicting wants of others is to establish a contract, to which people subscribe to, that seeks peace for the majority. Peace, for Hobbes, is a strategy of maintaining one’s
Preemptive war and pre punishment are similar in that they both act first before an attack is made or a crime is committed. Based on my understanding of the readings thus far, I have come to the conclusion that there is a difference between pre punishment and pre emptive war. The main difference between the two is that preemptive war is in response to imminent aggression from another state while pre punishment is the act of punishing a person(s) for a crime they have been perceived of committing and have yet to commit. Michael Walzer describes preemptive war as an always justified war occurring to stop an imminent attack as opposed to sitting back and waiting to be attacked. Walzer gives an example by describing the Six Day War
Historians such as Fischer have the view that Germany was actively seeking a war and this is shown by his theory in Source 1. Another theory is the shared guilt idea which both Source 2 and 3 have evidence to support. Source 2 also points towards the Fischer theory but also that events spiralled out of control, a ‘War by Timetable’ as A.J.P. Taylor said. It is fair to say however that Germany, in any of these scenarios, was very much responsible which is why their aggression points towards the outbreak of a general European war.
Although nationalism is a factor that contributed to World war 1, to say that it is the primary cause of the outbreak of the war is incorrect. Many factors, adding up together, led to the outburst of World war 1. Alliances and Imperialism can both be seen as much of a cause to the war as Nationalism. All these three factors: Nationalism, Alliances and Imperialism are as important as the other in the lead up to the war. Nationalism refers to nations trying to take over smaller nations and making them subject to their rule.
‘German aggression was responsible for the outbreak of a general European war in August 1914.’ How far do you agree with this judgment? Whether German aggression was responsible for the outbreak of a European war in August 1914 is one that is widely debated by historians up till today. Many historians, for example Fischer, agree, as sources 1 and 2 will show. Others, however, suggest that the Germans’ actions can be seen as a form of defense against the rest of Europe – the arms race with Britain, for example - as talked about in source 3, due to the fact that they felt encircled and only had one ally. In this essay I will argue both sides of this argument using sources to back up my points, however ever maintaining the fact I agree.
War has then become a natural extension of this role, and whether it is defined as just or unjust is determined by its effect on the position of the US and its allies. Inevitably, all civilizations have to deal with war, whether purposefully waging it or defending against it. World history is filled with bloody conflicts between states, the results of which have changed the way the world interacts. Our country was even formed as a result of a war against colonial oppression. At the time it was endlessly debated as to whether going to war with the British was the right thing to do, but it was eventually decided that it was necessary in order to gain our independence.
War is a position of conflict between states, organizations or countries. Wars have been going on since the beginning of time. In ancient civilizations war was often seen as noble and moral. Today though, many people question the morality of war and often ask if war is even necessary. The questions “War creates more problems that are solved” and “Are wars necessary?” Are interlocked, because if war creates more problems than it solves, why do we go to war?