Unit 4: Lesson 11 Parties to Conflict IB Global Politics

Parties to Conflict Over the course of the next few lessons we will consider the different parties to conflict. We will consider state and non-state actors, as well as the role played by protest movements and individuals in different conflicts. Let’s look at the different parties to the conflict in Syria. (next slide) Remember, as this is an ongoing conflict, this data can change and be rendered inaccurate with very little notice.

Syria Take a few minutes to look at the diagram. https://thinkprogress.org/why-the-middle-east-is-now-a-giant-warzone-in-one- terrifying-chart-b2b22768d952/#.tvjvdk18y Take a few minutes to look at the diagram. Now, discuss what you observed. What conclusions can we draw from the diagram?

Syria Again, while looking at the diagram answer the following questions on a separate piece of paper: Which are state actors nd which are non-actors in he conflict? How do we distinguish between them? Are the different actors constrained by different codes/expectations? This diagram was created in 2014 - how would you update it to reflect the present day situation? Who is missing?

Part 1: State Actors and Conflicts State actors can be defined as nation-states participating in a particular conflict. For example, the UK and Nazi Germany were state actors in WW2. In Global Politics, research has focused on trying to explain why states go to war with each other or, to put it in more subject specific terms, on explanations for interstate conflict.

Part 1: State Actors and Conflicts Different writers have attempted to explore interstate conflict through asking different questions. Some have looked at how the international system is the cause of conflict between states. This is known as a systemic level of analysis. Others have focused on the relationship between different types (or pairs) of states. This is known as a dyadic level of analysis.

Part 1: State Actors and Conflicts We will consider these explanations, amongst others before evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of each explanation. Read the following article. https://glopoib.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/explaining-interstate-war.pdf It is essential that you read and take notes on this as well as asking for clarification of anything you find difficult. It is not the easiest topic to get your head around. Read it more than once if necessary. After reading this and taking notes, discuss with class.

Systemic Explanations of Interstate Conflict IB Global Politics UWC Costa Rica

The Basics The system, or structural, level of analysis points to characteristics of the international system as the root of war between states. Systemic explanations of war posit that international structures can create consequences that are not intended by any of their constituent actors. In other words, states may go to war because of the nature of the international system, not because they themselves are warlike. International structures as an explanation of war are particularly important in realism and liberalism

Three structural factors Anarchy Polarity Interdependence Which of these factors would you associate with realism and which with liberalism? For each of these factors, suggest how they contribute to an explanation of interstate conflict.

Anarchy The international system is anarchic according to realists States are forced into adopting an aggressive posture for their own protection – which leads to security dilemma Under anarchic conditions it is inevitable for wars to break out periodically However, this does not explain why some wars occur while others are averted Anarchy is a realist explanation for interstate conflict

Polarity Distribution of power in international system is another structural factor explaining likelihood of interstate conflict Polarity refers to number of power centers (poles in international system) – unipolar (hegemonic), bipolar, multipolar etc. Theorists do not agree on which system of polarity is likely to lead to increased chance of conflict This is another realist explanation

Interdependence Liberal theory emphasizes the role of interdependence in the international system Liberalism argues that multiple channels across states facilitated by international organizations, transnational links among non-state actors, and the varied nonmilitary issues in which states and other actors have interests means that war becomes more costly and states are constrained from using war as a policy tool. In relationships that are characterized by a high degree of interdependence, the effects of an anarchical system that realists would expect are simply not seen.

“Particularly among industrialized, pluralist countries, the perceived margin of safety has widened: Fears of attack in general have declined, and fears of attacks by one another are virtually nonexistent. . . . Canada’s last war plans for fighting the United States were abandoned half a century ago. Britain and Germany no longer feel threatened by each other. Intense relationships of mutual influence exist between these countries, but in most of them force is irrelevant or unimportant as an instrument of policy”

Systemic Explanations for Interstate Conflict In small groups, take the example of either WW1, WW2 or the Cold War and create an outline with a systemic explanation for the cause of the conflict.

State Level Explanation & Democratic Dyads

IB Global Politics UWC Costa Rica

What’s the point? Some people are just accident prone Similarly, some state-level explanations argue that some types of states may be more war-prone than others Factors such as nature of economy, internal political opposition, nature of political system etc.

Dyadic Explanations Dyadic explanations refer to the interaction of the characteristics of two states War within democratic dyads is extremely rare

Three factors… Economy Internal opposition Nature of political system

Type of Economy: A Marxist Explanation Argues capitalist states are more war-prone. Why? Capitalist economies experience overproduction, surplus capital, wealth inequality etc. Seek to address these through imperialism – new markets, cheap labour, access to raw materials

Marxist explanation… Imperialism, by its nature, involves military conflict “In a world of many capitalist countries imperialism means economic competition between rival states. Each state strives to gain exclusive control over markets, raw materials, sources of cheap labor, naval bases, and investment opportunities. At some point, these can be gained only at the expense of other capitalist states. Economic conflict eventually leads to military conflict”

Criticism of the Marxist view One group of arguments focuses on the Marxist assumptions for why capitalist states must engage in imperialism, pointing out, for example, that not all capitalist states were experiencing economic problems at home when they engaged in imperialism and that they often did not secure the benefits of imperialism. Another group of criticisms focuses on the historical record, pointing out that not all capitalist states have engaged in imperialism, that not all conflicts between capitalist states ended in war, that war has been around longer than capitalist economic systems, that wars between capitalist states were not necessarily fought for economic reasons, and that states with socialist or centrally planned economies have often been engaged in conflict, even with each other

But…does not rule out possibility that economic coditions/force provide explanation for war Conquering others’ resources in order to address economic problems may be a major motivation for some states to initiate wars. Evidence that good economic conditions may be related to war because that is when states can afford military adventures.

War may benefit certain economic interest groups in a society Weapons manufacturers make increased profits from war Concept of military industrial complex focuses on the relationship among the military, the bureaucracy, and the defense industry as a coalition of economic and political interests that benefit from international conflict

Types of Political Systems In addition to the systemic-level characteristic of interdependence, liberal explanations of international conflict include the type of political system that states have. Specifically, liberalism expects states with democratic systems to be less war prone than nondemocratic states because of the constraints that are built in to democratic structures and the cultural values of peaceful resolution of conflicts that are related to democratic processes

Internal Opposition Supposedly, democracies are constrained from choosing war because of an opposition that views war as counter to cultural norms Leaders of democratic states are accountable through the ballot box

Democratic Dyads Democratic states are just as likely as non-democratic states to go to war Evidence suggests that democratic states are much less likely to become involved in war against each other Known as the democratic peace proposition – democratic states will not go to war against each other Democratic dyads are conflict free

Global Democracy Index Map https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/49z4s2/democracy_index_map_for_2014_2754x1397/?st=ixrxj5ya&sh=5041bc2c

A disclaimer… The validity of this proposition is heavily dependent on the definitions of democracy and war used It is easy to discredit the idea by adopting very broad definitions Equally easy to make the proposition invulnerable to contrary evidence, (and empirically meaningless) by adopting a definition of democracy that is so strict as to eliminate virtually every state that has ever existed

But… “if democracy is defined as a type of political system in which the identities of the leaders of the executive branch and the members of the national legislature are selected in elections involving at least two independent political parties, in which at least half the adult population is eligible to vote, and in which the possibility that the governing party will lose has been established by historical precedent, then . . . none of those [controversial] cases is appropriately categorized as an international war between democratic states”

Part 2: Non-State Actors and Conflict Key Questions Answer the following questions on a separate piece of paper: How has the nature of conflict evolved due to the increasing military capability of non-state actors? To what extent does ISIS blur the dividing line between a state and non-state actor? Discuss answers and collect at the end of the discussion.