DHS 2025 International Relations Part 2 (Lecture Notes)

1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS PART 2 CONFLICT AND RESOLUTION Definitions: ● Disputes refers to a situation where 2 or more nations or groups within nations perceive their interests to be incompatible, leading to disagreements, rivalry, or even warfare. It can manifest in diverse forms, from diplomatic disputes to armed conflict. ● Armed conflict refers to an armed confrontation between governmental authorities and other states or organised armed groups. International relations theory helps to analyse the causes and dynamics of conflict, while international law provides the framework for managing and resolving conflicts. Types of Armed Conflict (Gelditsch et al, 2002) (A) External conflict/Interstate: involving 2 or more sovereign states (B) Internal/Intrastate: involves home government and domestic opposition groups (which can take on international dimension once other country come into play) ○ Factions fighting over territorial control or to establish a government ○ Ethnonationalist movements fighting for autonomy or recognition ○ Domestic strife like genocide ○ Terrorism Causes of Conflict Political scientist Kenneth Waltz puts forth 3 causes fuelling conflicts: 1. Primarily due to the nature and behaviour of human beings 2. Some states have war prone internal structures due to how they are organised politically (eg. dictatorships) 3. When there is no world government or authority to prevent it (ie. anarchy) PART 1: PREVENTING CONFLICTS Recall traditional theories of International Relations: Realism Liberalism ● Gained momentum in WW2 ● States are seen to be insecure, selfish and power seeking ● States live in the context of anarchy ● ‘Utopian’ theory ● Anarchic nature of the international system is mitigated by interdependence among the states Preventing armed conflict: Realist point of view Realists see international relations as fluid, often dangerous and unpredictable. They point to the frequent history of international relations worsening rapidly and see no indication of an amicable new world order.

2 (A) Balance of power From the realist’s point of view, preventing war largely revolves around making the prospect of war so ___________(and the losses incurred so high) that belligerent states are less likely to launch any kind of offensive. States do this primarily by enhancing their military capability and entering into strategic alliances, while undermining the capabilities of others. This generates a ‘balance’ where theoretically, no state is permitted to get too powerful within the international system. However, this balance of power between states is neither static nor permanent. States continually accrue power to match gains made by its rival, potentially leading to arms build -up and other forms of escalation. Additionally, it is impermanent as there is no guarantee that states will be able to keep up with its rival(s), and it is believed that imbalance of power would automatically lead to a domino effect, and result in states undertaking ever more drastic and dangerous actions. As Stephen Walt explains, "when facing a powerful or threatening state, a worried country can mobilize more of its own resources or seek an alliance with other states that face the same danger, in order to shift the balance more in its favor". Furthermore, when power is unbalanced, stronger states will be tempted to use their advantage to go to war with weaker states in order to secure more power. This is done in light of the powerful international norm of raison d'État (the primacy of state interest over opinions regarding cooperation, morality or international law). The great ancient Greek historian, Thucydides put it starkly in the Melian Dialogue: “The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must .” Realists do not celebrate this norm but recognise its existence and potency. While realists describe the balance of power as a prudent strategy to manage an insecure world, critics see it as a way of legitimising aggression. ● Eg. Nazi Germany triggered a fair-weathered alliance between the US and Soviet Union during World War 2, where they saw a similar threat from rising Germany. ● Eg. India and Pakistan conducted 26 missile tests in 2021, making it a year of intense arms rivalry. This is a classic case of security dilemma whereby one state’s actions causes insecurity to the other, and the other state’s efforts to augment its securit y further makes the first one insecure. ● Eg. Japan aims to double its defence spending to about 2% of GDP by 2027, a sharp increase which is slated to put it as the world’s third -largest spender on the military after the US and China. Analysts mentioned that the game-changer was the threat perception posed by the war in Ukraine, with China and Moscow’s ‘no -limits partnership’ unsettling Japanese strategists. This is further fuelled by North Korea’s attempts to strengthen its nuclear and ballistic missile programme.

3 (B) Deterrence Deterrence is the mechanism that enables balance of power, and posits the credible threat that the use of force can prevent violence such as war. Key assumptions of deterrence theory: ● ___________ decision-makers want to avoid resorting to war in situations where costs outweigh potential gains ● alternatives to war are available It is most likely to succeed when a prospective attacker believes that the probability of success is low or the costs of attack are high. Deterrence does not necessarily require military superiority. In short, deterrence is a human construct based on the function of human perceptions and calculations which are affected by multiple factors beyond confident prediction. Its functioning remains unpredictable and fallible. Nuclear deterrence and the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) doctrine: This topic gained prominence as a military strategy in the Cold War with regard to the use of nuclear weapons. This is also related to the concept of MAD, according to which a full -scale nuclear attack on a power with retaliatory capabilities would devastate both parties. Case study: North Korea Given the extreme destructive powers of nuclear weapons, North Korea's nuclear programme serves to balance the U.S., despite being in completely different leagues both politically and economically. ● Additionally, its nuclear programme is often used as a bargaining chip to secure food and other aid, as it did in 2012. ● From this perspective, North Korea's missile tests are not so easily dismissed or consigned to irrationality, and are part of a deliberate strategy to maintain security by balancing and deterring perceived rivals. Proponents of the MAD doctrine (‘mutually assured destruction’ doctrine) claim that states are now more concerned with avoiding wars rather than winning them. As James Taub observes: It is a testimony to the lunacy of nuclear blackmail that leaders have declined to deploy it even under the most intense pressure. In the midst of the 1973 Arab -Israeli War, when Israel’s very existence briefly seemed threatened, Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan proposed readying the nation’s nuclear forces for a “demonstration” blast, but, according to an extensive study of the i ncident, the nation’s war cabinet rejected the idea. India and Pakistan fought three wars before both nations acquired nuclear weapons, but neither has ever openly threatened to use them against the other [since acquiring them]. Nuclear theorists cite both of these acts of restraint as evidence that the prospect of “mutual assured destruction” makes nukes, on balance, more stabilizing than destabilizing. However, critics highlight that such a strategy also gives rise to the Nash equilibrium, where once armed, both parties would have little or no incentive to initiate a conflict, nor to disarm too.

4 Food for