Political Science Essay: Exploring the Complex Causes of Global Wars

This essay delves into the complex causes of war, examining factors at individual, societal, and international levels. It explores the role of human instinct, determinism, and different political ideologies, such as liberalism and totalitarianism, in instigating conflicts. The essay analyzes how the balance of power, economic conditions, and the actions of states on the global stage contribute to the outbreak of wars. It discusses the perspectives of various economists and political scientists, highlighting the interplay of power dynamics, economic motivations, and the impact of democratic versus non-democratic governance on the likelihood of war. Furthermore, the essay examines historical examples and theories, such as Darwin's survival of the fittest, to illustrate how states interact and compete for resources and dominance, ultimately leading to international conflicts and instability. The essay emphasizes the multifaceted nature of war, highlighting that it is rarely a result of a single cause but rather a complex interplay of various factors.

Essay- What are the
causes of War?

Table of Contents
ESSAY.............................................................................................................................................1
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................5

ESSAY
When a person looks back upon the history, it can be seen that wars took place with the
motive of conquering any specific region, resources or as a mean to demonstrate the dominance
of one ruler or nation over another. The people when asked about the causes of wars come with
immediate answers such as greed, religion, hate, and so on. Yet it is important to take into
account certain other factors which play a crucial role in the occurrence of international conflicts
as they tend to lay down the explanation to the causes of wars. It is often seen that countries
might regard one another with disliking upon religious conflicts however this is not likely to lead
them to do wars. Within the international relations, a significant turbulence within the balance of
power often gives rise to the emergence of war in the long run. Such turbulence is often seen in
terms of the stimulator of international conflicts among the nations. For this essay, the main
focus will be upon international wars instead of interstate conflicts or civil wars. The essay will
contain the main cause of war upon individual, societal and international levels.
Wars happen in view of some part of human instinct. Man in his temperament is by all
accounts savage and bound to deliver hurt on his own race. Insatiability seems, by all accounts,
to be a fundamental quality of human instinct and in this way appears to decide the moves that
are made so as to acquire power than the opponent. This all is by all accounts rather crude and
may seem like mountain man conduct. Notwithstanding, in its fundamental structure this conduct
is still and will consistently be important for human instinct. The investigate that emerges while
talking about the idea of people as a reason for war is the accompanying: can the idea of the
individual truly consider precisely the idea of the gathering, for this situation society? This
perspective is often designated as "reductionist". One can't clarify "social phenomena in
association with the nature of personnel. Another angle to be taken a gander at in this setting is
that of determinism. The idea of determinism is the hypothesis that all occasions, including
moral decisions, are totally controlled by already existing causes that encompass choice and the
likelihood that, people might have acted something else. This hypothesis infers that war is out of
the control of personnel and accordingly they can't be considered answerable for the wars.
Determinism infers that each activity is foreordained by the reasons for nature. Man is essentially
controlled by the powers of nature. Nonetheless, who if not mankind can be considered
1

answerable for the event of war? Apparently determinism regarding war doesn't appear to be a
suitable hypothesis.
Another viewpoint that needs to be taken into due consideration while taking into account
the reasons for occurrence of the wars is that from a liberal perspective, war is brought about via
totalitarian states, where "one individual has boundless force". As per absolutist perspectives,
wars are brought about by vote based systems. Leninists accuse entrepreneur societies while
business people consider socialist to be as the underlying driver of war. It is a prevalent view that
majority rule governments don't will in general do battle with different vote based systems
however consistently battle other non-democratic societies. Liberal hypothesis states that
mankind as such is a harmony cherishing race. Hence, the conduct of states ought to follow this
trademark. Vote based systems and being chosen by the residents of the state, represent their
peaceful regular citizens and hence are probably going to forestall rough clashes with different
states. This in any case, doesn't shield them from being assaulted by other non-democratic states.
As indicated by this hypothesis, all democratic states are acceptable while all totalitarian states
are insidious and along these lines imperil world harmony. The obvious end result to this
situation would be that all together for world harmony to win, all countries must be democratic.
The arrangement is given by independents and interventionists in two distinct manners. While
noninterventionists accept that a renewal of dictatorial states into democratic states ought to be
accomplished by being a genuine guide to follow, interventionists feel that democratic states
must be effectively associated with the cycle by assaulting them if vital as opposed to holding on
and trusting that the other power will strike. The basic thought for interventionists would
consequently be that war is important to make harmony. From an untouchables perspective this
hypothesis may appear to be somewhat two-faced. It will anyway become clearer when one
thinks about the hypothesis of the overall influence, which will be taken up later on in this
article. So why it is that majority rules system ought to be less inclined to do battle? Their
governments need to "keep up open help". They rely upon the democratic decisions of their
residents and out of dread not to be reappointed, will attempt to seek after strategies, which will
fulfil the general population. In any case, on the off chance that one effectively takes part in the
investigation of history and world politics one may locate that numerous popular governments
effectively partake in wars and therefore, the state system appears to have little impact on the
likeliness of the war inclusion of a state.
2

The greater a state is the more probable it is for the respective state to lead the wars. War
inclusion relies upon the level of liberty of any of the states. This is to state that the more
liberated a state is the more odd it is for this state to take part in war, while less libertarian states
will in general be more fierce. It stays unsure whether the measure of opportunity a state has is
associated to its vicious activities or whether it makes more strain to save said freedom. It
appears to be generally sure that states that share nearly nothing or nothing practically speaking
in their political and cultural attitude are probably going to confront each other with aggression.
It is by all accounts "political distance" that assumes a significant part.
John Hobson, a well renowned economist, held the ideology that it is the economic state
of a region which leads to the very occurrence of a war. The most war inclined states appear to
be the ones with a capitalist monetary system. This is clarified by the way that because of
"overproduction, inconsistent circulation of monetary riches and under utilization" on the general
population, the economy is compelled to extend to different nations, to put resources into
unfamiliar business sectors. Nonetheless, in a prevalently capitalist reality where all unfamiliar
business sectors are now taken, the best way to grow one's economy past one's own outskirts is at
the expense of different states. So as to extend, a state, democratic or not, would need to do
battle. It appears to be likewise coherent that war is destined to happen on occasion of budgetary
pain. Albeit monetary crises didn't promptly prompt World War II, joblessness and neediness
were unquestionably a purpose behind German residents to feel more slanted towards the idea of
confiding in a philosophy that vowed to improve their expectation for everyday comforts.
It is said to be a typical conviction that war makes occupations, be it because of arms
races and the creation of different items or the improvement of framework. War may likewise be
viewed as a method for diverting the residents of a state from inside issues. Whatever makes
governments settle on this game changing choice, we can be guaranteed that it includes a
cautious decision cycle consistently and just if the odds of achievement are high will there be
war. As Howard states, wars are not likely to be incidental. They usually take place as a result of
political reasons.
War used to be generally acknowledged as a way to ensure or help allies enduring an
onslaught. In prior years, it was additionally used to attack an area when a country was deprived
for more space because of overpopulation. This idea assumed a significant part for Germany in
World War II. Hitler contended that the German public needed more space so as to spread the
3

Arian race. One could contend that Darwin's endurance the fittest hypothesis could be applied
here. So as to spread out, one country, on account of World War II Germany, needs to assault
another. The most grounded state will endure and force its capacity upon others.
Another level to be inspected is that of the worldwide circle. Here it will be seen in what
direction states as worldwide entertainers interrelate. The worldwide system is made out of
"sovereign states, associations of states, global participation, and even people". It is in a state of
political agitation as in a global government doesn't exist. This and the absence of a dictator
power that could maintain control in the worldwide system are tended to as an issue in
International Relations. Certain activities in favour of states will upset the balance of the
purported overall influence. As per Brown, such a disturbance could happen as one state getting
more remarkable than it used to be for example through the expansion of its military force.
Different states will feel undermined by this and make a move to re-establish the parity. Because
of the general unsteadiness of the equalization and worldwide political agitation, states are in
consistent dread of being assaulted and are hence set up to protect themselves consistently. This
distrustfulness causes steady doubt towards each part in the worldwide system. To lessen this
dread, they are continually searching for likelihood to pick up power while diminishing that of
their rivals. As Brown infers, a state's own security is absolutely critical. Pragmatist hypothesis
in International Relations states that the request for the global system is kept by two
establishments: the overall influence and war. War is here observed as a "contention settling
instrument" that is a basic aspect of the overall influence. The overall influence can be viewed as
a system of states in general, which depends on power. Security can possibly exist if the
restricting powers are in harmony.
In the initial stage, war was acceptable in terms of a means for protection of or assisting
the allies who are under the attack. Also, in past times, it was seen that wars was used as a means
for invasion of territory in an instance whereby a country was in requirement of more of the
space owing to overpopulation. This concept was seen to play a crucial role for Germany in
context of World War II. In relation to this, Hitler put forth the argument that the people of
Germany required more space for spreading the Arian race. The theory laid down by Darwin
named “survival the fittest theory” can easily be put to application in this case. For the purpose
spreading out, Germany did an attack on another nation. The strongest nation was supposed to
survive, leading to imposition of its power upon the others.
4

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Reiter, D. (2018). Unifying the Study of the Causes and Duration of Wars. Polity, 50(2), 168-
177.
Newman, E., & DeRouen Jr, K. (Eds.). (2014). Routledge handbook of civil wars. Routledge.
Kuol, L. (2018). The Root Causes of Sudan's Civil Wars: Old Wars and New Wars.
ANDREGG, M. (2018). ULTIMATE CAUSES OF WARS (LONG-TERM, STRATEGIC
CAUSES) AND DIFFERING ROLES FOR INTELLIGENCE PRACTITIONERS,
ACADEMICS, AND POLICY MAKERS. Revista Română de Studii de Intelligence, (19-
20), 237-256.
Betts, R. K. (Ed.). (2017). Conflict after the Cold War: arguments on causes of war and peace.
Taylor & Francis.
Van Evera, S. (2013). Causes of war: Power and the roots of conflict. Cornell University Press.
Domar, E. D. (2017). The causes of slavery or serfdom: a hypothesis. In Critical Readings on
Global Slavery (pp. 43-57). Brill.
Cashman, G. (2013). What causes war?: an introduction to theories of international conflict.
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Andregg, M. M. (2018). Causes of Wars and the Developing Global Crisis.
Betts, R. K. (Ed.). (2017). Conflict after the Cold War: arguments on causes of war and peace.
Taylor & Francis.
Maoz, Z. (2020). Paradoxes of war: On the art of national self-entrapment. Routledge.
Frankelius, P. (2019). Back to the root causes of war: food shortages. The Lancet, 393(10175),
981-982.
5