This essay examines the primary causes of war and peace in the international system and evaluates whether a lasting global peace is attainable. Drawing on scholarship by Gaddis, Viotti and Kauppi, Art and Jervis, and Vasquez, the paper identifies societal tension, leadership greed, and religious conflict as key drivers of war, while highlighting democracy, globalization, Cobdenism, and collective social consciousness as forces for peace. The essay also discusses aspects of the current global system—including religion, education, and international organizations—that are conducive to building peace, and identifies terrorism, nuclear weapons, and unresolved regional conflicts as the primary threats to international stability.
This essay investigates the prospects for global peace and seeks to determine whether a lasting international peace can be attained within the current global system. It first identifies the primary causes of war and peace, and then — drawing on scholarly literature — evaluates the likelihood of a lasting international peace. The essay also examines certain aspects of the global system that are conducive to constructing peace, as well as the primary areas of concern that threaten it.
Studies conducted by Gaddis (1992) are consistent with the United Nations Charter's assertion that "war starts in the minds of people." To challenge the assumption that military personnel acting under political influence are collectively responsible for starting wars, Gaddis further argues that war originates in a society's collective consciousness — its national mood. When tension and stress build within a society, they produce incoherence that agitates certain groups or individuals, thereby triggering or fueling violence in the form of war, crime, or terrorism.
However, Gaddis (1992) also draws a contradictory argument, disagreeing with this societal explanation and instead pointing to the personal greed and selfishness of authoritative leaders as a root cause of war. He cites the Gulf War as a supporting example: it was largely attributed to former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's personal desire for power and wealth, which led him to order the invasion of Kuwait in order to seize control of its oil resources.
Divergent religious beliefs have also been blamed for causing war. The Israel-Arab conflict is a prominent example; analysts and scholars argue it is driven by competing claims over land — particularly the Israel-Palestine territory — that both parties consider sacred and their own.
Viotti, Paul, and Mark (1999), in their book International Relations Theory, identify several causes of global peace. Among these is political ideology supportive of democracy: in countries where democracy is practiced, dialogue is typically used to resolve societal tensions and stresses that, if left unaddressed, could escalate into conflict or war. The authors also advance the capitalist peace theory, which holds that when world economies operate under capitalism — that is, under market governance — war is averted. This theory draws support from the historical observation that during periods of relatively pure capitalist operation, wars between countries were largely absent.
Another cause of global peace identified by Viotti et al. (1999) is Cobdenism — a condition in which there are no trade tariffs or barriers to hamper the free movement of goods. This interdependence between countries reduces the incentive for war, since prolonged armed conflict requires a degree of national self-reliance that mutual economic dependence undermines. Globalization is similarly identified as a cause of peace; in some respects it parallels Cobdenism because it unifies different economies into a single integrated system, making war between highly interdependent economies almost inconceivable.
Because a society's collective consciousness can be a cause of war, its constructive channeling can equally be a cause of peace. Self-organized peace — where individuals or groups from opposing sides engage in joint activities to better understand one another — can foster peaceful coexistence between otherwise conflicting parties.
Some critics have argued that because of an inherent human tendency toward irrationality and violence, lasting global peace in the current international system is entirely unattainable. Art, Robert, and Jervis (2005) disagree, arguing that violence and war are not intrinsic to human nature. They contend that lasting international peace is achievable, provided that conflicts over scarce resources — such as oil and precious minerals — are avoided now and in the future. Technological innovation, particularly the development of renewable energy sources, can help prevent such resource-driven conflicts and thereby contribute to global peace.
The accelerating pace of globalization also increases the prospects for lasting peace. As the world becomes increasingly integrated, the likelihood of armed conflict between interconnected nations diminishes. If this trend continues, the chances for a lasting international peace in the current global system should remain high.
"Religion, education, and international institutions"
"Terrorism, nuclear weapons, and unresolved conflicts"
The attainment of global peace can appear to be an unrealistic goal, but as this essay has pointed out, there are genuine chances and possibilities for lasting international peace in the current global system. After thorough examination of the causes of war and peace, it is clear that the conditions for peace are more attainable than the conditions for war in today's world.
You’re 62% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.