Foreign Policy Analysis Dersi 8. Ünite Sorularla Öğrenelim

What is the definition of war in the academic literature?

In the academic literature the definition of war resembles the technical definition in terms of the
use of force, but it also comprises armed conflicts among non-state actors. In this manner war can be defined as the use of force by groups with the aim of achieving their objectives. The famous definition given in the 19th century by a German strategist Carl Von Clausewitz at this point can add a new insight to facilitate our attempt for finding the correct definition.

How does  Clausewitz define war? 

Clausewitz defines war as follows: “war is not merely a political act, but also a political instrument, a continuation of political relations, a carrying out of the same by other means.” In other words, war is a continuation of politics by other means. In this context, war might be defined as “the systematic violence imposed by political entities in order to achieve their political goals”. While the above definition can be accepted as the broadest definition of war, this concept can be defined differently from various aspects. As a matter of fact, the definition of war viewed from the socio- political angle is totally different from the definition given according to the legal perspective.

How does Sun-Tzu define war?

Sun-Tzu: The classical study of Sun-Tzu The Art of War begins with the definition of war. Accordingly “the art of war is of vital importance to the state. It is a matter of life and death,
a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected”

How does Thucydide define war?

According to Thucydides war is result of power and the search for power. The search for power is inherent in human nature and when combined with the fear the weak side feels this results in
war. Since the search for power and fear are inherent in human nature, war is inevitable in the view of Thucydides. This view will later be the ground of the realist international relations .

How does Niccolo Machiavelli define war?

Italian Renaissance political philosopher and historian Machiavelli suggests that “war is just when it is necessary; arms are permissible when there is no hope except in arms”. Accordingly, war is inevitable, and because the most important political objective for states is survival war is seen just as a means of foreign policy. This point of view also reflects the realist international understanding.

How does Thomas Hobbes define war?

One of the most prominent founders of the realist thought Hobbes defines war as “an extension of the state of nature which is the condition of war of all against all”. The state of nature, the natural condition of mankind is also a condition of war of all against all in which human beings constantly seek to destroy each other in an incessant pursuit for power. To avoid this, free men contract with each other to establish political community (civil society) through a social contract in which they all gain security, in return for subjecting themselves to an absolute sovereign. This in the interstate system is not possible, because the anarchical structure of the interstate system or the state of nature is profitable, thus bearable.

How does Jean Jacques Rosseau define war?

Another Enlightment philosopher Rousseau contrary to Hobbes does not base wars in human nature. According to Rousseau, war is a social institution, and thus, states the struggle between states not individuals. The root cause of war is the inequality between nations.

How does Carl Von Clausewitz define war?

War is merely an extension of diplomacy by other means. It is an an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will, directed by political motives and morality.

How does John Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel define war?

Another 19th century philospher Hegel also sees war as inevitably, but beyond this he glorified war as a means of foreign policy. Because for Hegel succesful wars consolidate the power of the state, and thus, preserves national pride.

What is the criteria used to define war quantitatively?

1. The event ought to result at least in 1000 battle deaths - Size
2. It ought to be prepared and planned by large-scale social organizations through recruitment,
training and deployment of troops the acquisition, storage and distribution of arms - Preparation
3. It ought to being legitimized by an established governmental organization, so that large-scale killing is viewed not as a crime but as a duty- Legitimizing

How does Wright define war on an analytical ground?

One of the most influential attempts of this kind can be found in Quincy Wrights works. Wright defines war on an analytical ground as “the legal condition which equally permits two or more hostile groups to carry on a conflict by armed force” (Wright, 1942: 8). This conception, according to Wright, comprises all aspects from legal to political and from military to socio-psychological viewpoints. It is explained by Wright as follows; instead of violence there is reference to armed force implying a very specific type of violence and its conscious employment to achieve an end. The word “conflict” is used with the implication that war is a definite and mutually understood pattern of behavior. The expression “hostile groups” is used to confine
the entities which may be at war to indicate that small class known as social groups and finally the warring entities are said to have equality under law which suggests that the entities are the members of a higher group besides their hostility.

What are the developments of weaponry in the  14th century?

With the dawning of the 14th century, and the decline of feudalism, the period of a new economic, social and thus political transition began. The Hundred Years’ War (1337-1457) raised the need for large military forces, including the mercenary contingents. This, in turn, required the development of a centralized governmental mechanism (Gabriel and Metz, 1992: 73). In the 15th century, Europeans began to make enormous improvements in both guns and ships, starting a new phase of war (Moses, 2012: 28). By the time of the Thirty Years’ War (1618-48) all the major elements of the modern army had been set into place, which, in turn, ended with the new era of the modern inter-state system.

What are the developments of weaponry in the  19th century?

By the early 19th century, the transition from the old feudal orders to the modern national era was complete insofar as weaponry, tactics, and military organization were concerned. In this era Napoleon introduced the mass citizen army based on conscription and revolutionized the conduct of war. While a number of industrial and agricultural innovations made it possible to extract ever larger numbers of manpower from the economic base without serious disruption, the size of Napoleonic armies was impossible to maintain unless the entire social and economic resources of the state were also mobilized for war. The age of modern war was beginning to dawn.

What is an absolute War?

Absolute war is a type of warfare which is unrestricted in terms of the weapons used, the territory or combatants involved, the objectives pursued and resources that are allocated. In an absolute war the whole society is seen as combatant and the land of the country is seen as a battlefield as a whole. In other words, the differentiation between combatants and non-combatants become indistinct and sometimes it even vanishes entirely because nearly every human resource can be considered to be a part of the war in absolute wars. The aim in general is to conquer and occupy the adversary. Absolute war began with the Napoleonic Wars, which introduced large-scale conscription and geared the entire French national economy toward the war effort. The practice of absolute war evolved with industrialization, and this incident integrated the whole society and economy into the practice of war. The best and last example of absolute war was the Second World War.

What is a Limited war?

Limited war, is the quite opposite of absolute war; any war limited in space andinvolving restraint by belligerents is defined as a limited war. According to Clausewitz, limited war occurs when annihilation is impossible because of the political aims or because of inadequate military means to accomplish annihilation. This approach of Clausewitz reflects actually the 19th century approach to war which was common until the Second World War. Prior to this approach, the only way to achieve victory was considered the total destruction of the enemy. Historically, the wars taking place in 18th century Europe are considered limited wars; however, after the last absolute war and with the beginning of the nuclear age in warfare the term limited war has been discussed widely, because while the wars of the post-Second World War era are limited in many aspects, it is quite impossible to limit wars in contemporary conditions where mankind is faced with the destructive power of modern weapons, especially of the catastrophic effects of nuclear weapons. The Korean and the Vietnam Wars are considered the earliest examples of limited wars after the Second World War, because of their limited character in terms of space, means or ends. 

What are conventional wars?

Conventional wars are the ones waged through the use of traditional/conventional means. It refers to a battle between states’ regular armed forces, using conventional weapons against each other which do not include biological, chemical or nuclear substances.

What is unconventional ?

Unconventional warfare, on the other hand, uses unconventional weapons along with conventional ones, targets the civilian population as well as the armed forces, and specializes in unconventional tactics. The most distinctive feature of unconventional war is the means that are used, such as nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons were used in a war for the first time in history, in the Second World War. After the US used the atomic bomb against Japan in the Second World War, nuclear weapons entered the agenda of warfare. Although nuclear weapons are not used since then it made an impact so impressive that their existence has changed the military strategy as a whole. With the invention of nuclear weapons and the probability of their use states possessing nuclear weapons reached the capacity of mutual destruction by pressing just a button without conducting armed struggle. This fact has changed the military strategy of states from gaining victory over the opponent to the strategy of deterrence. Biological and chemical weapons are part of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) like nuclear weapons, and their use in a war transforms the war from conventional to unconventional. Their negative effects are not limited with time and space, and they can harm the whole society, human beings-made structure and also natural structure.

What is a guerilla war?

One aspect of unconventional warfare is related to the military tactic used is the guerilla war. It is warfare without frontlines (Goldstein and Pevehouse, 2012: 166). The purpose is not to directly confront an enemy army, but rather to harass and punish it so as to gradually limit its operation and effectively liberate territory from its control. Rebels in most civil wars use such methods. One of the best examples of guerilla warfare can be found in the Vietnam War. The US army in the Vietnam War had fought against Vietcong guerillas (1964-1973) and it had dramatic consequences, because such warfare is the most painful for civilians. In a guerilla war, guerillas hide themselves in the midst of civilians and for a conventional army it is quite impossible to distinguish guerillas from civilians. As a result, conventional armies often prefer to punish both, to illustrate, this was experienced in the Vietnam War.

What is an international war?

International war is the conventional definition of war taking place between sovereign states.

What is a civil war?

Civil war on the other hand is a war between organized groups within the same country fighting with the aim of taking control of the country or a region, achieving independence for a region or changing government policies. However, wars between the government on the one side and an organized group on the other are also accepted as civil wars. Civil wars are not considered war under the provisions of International Law, in in this context according to Geneva Conventions (1949) which are part of the law of war they are comprised (in article 3) under the heading of “non-international armed conflict”. Accordingly, civil wars are defined as wars in which one or more non-state armed groups are involved. Depending on the situation, hostilities may occur between governmental armed forces and non-state armed groups or between such groups .

What is Asymmetric warfare?

Asymmetric warfare is one of unconventional warfares. The most prominent feature of asymmetric warfare lies in the military capabilities of belligerent powers. When the military capabilities of belligerents are not simply unequal, but they are so significantly different that they cannot make the same sorts of attacks on each other. However, the difference between the tactics and means used by belligerent parties is much more important in characterizing asymmetric warfare. Because the weak side is mostly a nonstate actor and since these non-state actors are not bound with the law of war, they may be open to using tactics and strategies that ignore universal moral principles. In that manner guerilla warfare is also a type of asymmetric war, however after the 9/11 attacks on US by the terrorist group El-Kaide the term is being used chiefly to refer to the international terrorism.

What is the definition of Cold War?

The term is used to refer to intensive ideological and political struggles which do not reach the level of open armed warfare. The means of Cold Wars are political and economic activities, propaganda, espionage and proxy-wars. At this point, proxy-wars are worth mentioning in a more detailed way. A proxy war is an armed conflict between two states or non-state actors which act on behalf of other parties that are not directly involved in the hostilities. In other words, a proxy-war is the indirect engagement in a conflict by third parties wishing to influence its strategic outcome (Mumford, 2013a:40). Examples of proxy-wars are ample in Cold War.

What are complex wars?

Wars with more than three participants are called complex wars, and they are longer and more uncertain than dyadic wars that are wars between two states.

What are Dyadic wars?

Dyadic wars, on the other hand, usually are not preceded by arms races, and thus, they are not severe as complex wars (Vasquez, 2009: 279). Vasquez’s research shows us that historically complex wars are rare; hence, dyadic wars are the typical war of the global system; from 1816 to 1997 64.6 % of the wars are dyadic. In this vein, manner the two World Wars are the examples of complex wars, but the rarest in type, because most of the complex wars do not include more than four parties, rather they are mostly in a type of two parties versus one or three parties versus one.

What are Religious wars?

Religious wars are conflicts, primarily caused or justified by differences in religion. They are somewhat related to ethnic conflicts because religion often serves as a cultural marker or ideological rationalization for deeper ethnic and cultural differences.

What are the immediate causes of wars?

Immediate causes are proximate while underlying causes are more fundamental. Immediate causes can be defined as causes that trigger the outbreak of war. The most famous example used for explaining the immediate cause of a war is the assassination of the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo by a Serbian nationalist in 1914. This is the immediate cause that triggered the outbreak of the First World War. However, when it comes to the underlying cause the scene changes because it is widely accepted that the war would have occurred sooner or later even if the Archduke had not being assassinated, since in 1914 in Garnett’s words the war was in the air. This argument then directs us to the underlying causes which are to be found in the structural level. The underlying causes of the First World War in this vein could be found in the structure of the international system of the time, which is mainly characterized by the colonial rivalry.

What are the efficient causes wars?

Efficient causes are related to particular circumstances, for example if state A claims something from state B the efficient cause is the claim of state A. However, a claim needs the permissive cause to lead to war. Permissive causes do not promote war actively, but they allow it to occur (Garnett, 2007: 24-25). At this point the anarchical structure of the international system is one of most argued permissive causes of war. As Kenneth Waltz has suggested in his Man, The State and War (Waltz, 1959) the structure of the international system, its lack of a superior authority creates the condition that permits and facilitates the occurrence of war.

What are the sufficient causes of wars?

The sufficient cause is a condition that if it is present, it guarantees the occurrence of war. That state A and B hate each other so much is a sufficient cause because with this condition war between them becomes inevitable. While this example is a sufficient cause of war it is not a necessary cause. Sufficient causes can change through time. For example, dynastic relations were one of the sufficient causes of war in the past, but in the present time though dynasties and dynastic relations still exist they do not play the same role as causes of war.

What are the necessary causes of wars?

A necessary cause is a condition that must exist if war is to occur, without that condition war cannot breakout. The existence of armed forces is a necessary condition because without weapons wars cannot be declared. However on the other hand the existence of armed
forces, while a necessary cause is not a sufficient cause for the outbreak of war. Finally, in the words of Garnett “a cause of war can be necessary without being sufficient while a sufficient cause can instigate war without being necessary”.

What is the first image finding the major cause of war in the first level of analysis?

The first image finds the major cause of war in the first level of analysis, or the individual level. Different approaches in this level of analysis share their focal point with regard to man, but they differ in determining the main causes stemming from them. Rooting the causes of war in “human nature” is a very common approach, shared by a wide range of theories, ranging from the idea of “man is sinful from birth” of Christian philosophy to the realist theory of international relations. This view suggests that wars are caused by the egoistic, selfinterested, power seeking and also offensive nature of human beings. One of the main figures grounding the causes of war and conflict on the aggressive motives of human nature is stated by Sigmund Freud, the founder of the field of Psychoanalytic, According to him, the human nature assumption was most widely used by the realist school of thought. The founder of the realist theory in international relations Hans J. Morgenthau based his theory on a distinctive conception of human nature. Man is possessed by a lust to power without limits, called animus dominandi that inclines him to dominate fellow Men (Schuett, 2010: 23). This view despite all its diversity can be assumed as the focal point for all classical realists such as George Kennan, Walter Lippmann, E. H. Carr, and Reinold Niebuhr. A similar aspect which is suggested mostly by research studies in the field of
social psychology claims that human beings are prone to wage wars when they feel deprived. When people are restrained they feel disappointed, and in turn, this feeling causes anger and aggression. Accordingly, this type of deprivation when accompanied by relative poverty is the main cause of war.

What is the second image finding the major cause of war in the individual level of analysis?

The second viewpoint in the individual level bases its arguments on the rationality assumption, and thus addresses deviations from rationality in the foreign policy, decision making process. These approaches focus mainly on psychological processes that cause derivation from rationality,
such as misperception. There is an ample literature on foreign policy decision makers’ belief systems, operational codes, misperception and biases.

What is the third image finding the major cause of wars?

The third image is the international system level. The key element of this level of analysis is “anarchy” defined as the structure of the international system. As mentioned in the previous section regarding the permissive cause, this level of analysis yields an explanation of the possibility of war, not of any particular war. The assertion is that “war is possible because there is nothing in the international system to prevent war”

What are significant developments of the 20th century outlawing of wars?

One of the most significant developments of the 20th century was the outlawing of war as a legitimate instrument of foreign policy. It was realized with the establishment of the United Nations after the Second World War; however, there were also initial attempts for this. The first attempt for it came after the First World War with the establishment of the League of Nations. However, the League system did not prohibit war or the use of force, but it did set up a procedure designed to restrict it to tolerable levels. The Covenant of the League declared that members should submit disputes likely to lead to a rupture to arbitration or judicial settlement or inquiry by the Council of the League. In no circumstances were members to resort to war until three months after the arbitral award or judicial decision or report by the Council. This was
intended to provide a cooling-off period, and league members agreed not to go to war with members complying with such an arbitral award or judicial decision or unanimous report by the Council (Shaw,2008: 1121-1122).
The first real attempt for the prohibition of war was materialized with the initiation of the BriandKellogg Pact in 1928. As one of the great milestones of world history the Pact counted only two substantive articles. Before these attempts war was a legal means of foreign policy, even the central way in resolving disputes between states. No one could be tried for waging a war because it was not a breakdown in the rule of law. The outlawing of war in this sense was realized with the establishment of the UN after the Second World War, in 24 October 1945. 

What are the uses of force authorized by the Security Council?

The use of force authorized by the Security Council can be in the manner of the use of force in collective self-defense; use of force for humanitarian intervention and the use of force with
the consent of the state concerned.

What is the concept began to emerge in conjunction with the necessities of the new international conditions occurred after the end of the Cold War?

In the early 2000s, a new concept began to emerge in conjunction with the necessities of the new international conditions occurred after the end of the Cold War. The new norm, the responsibility to protect (R2P) actually was developed to overcome the failures that humanitarian intervention faced in the 1990s. In 2001 The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) released “The Responsibility to Protect” report, commissioned by the Canadian government, to develop global political consensus about how and when the international community should respond to emerging crises involving the potential for large-scale loss of life and other widespread crimes against humanity. The report was adopted, with some changes by the UN General Assembly in 2005 at the World Summit. It stipulates that states have a responsibility to protect their populations from crimes against humanity; the international community has a responsibility to use peaceful means to protect threatened populations; and when a state “manifestly fails” to uphold its responsibilities, coercive measures should be collectively taken (Council on Foreign Relations, 2017). The first case the Security Council authorized a military intervention citing R2P was the Libya intervention of 2011.