The Origins of War and Terms of Peace

The Origins of War and Terms of Peace
This article written by Jack S. Levy in 1998 is an analysis and assessment of writing in political science regarding causes of warfare and the condition for peace. This review examines the relevant theories, their significant variables, the primary paths resulting to war, and the circumstances on which this effect is most probable to happen. It also considers the level of verifiable support for various concepts and hypotheses concerning war and resolutions. It goes further to examine the primary research programs on original causes of war and expansion of conflicts. The analysis focuses majorly on the equitable power theories, power transition concepts, and the connection in economic interdependence and theories of conflict, national coalitional systems, and deciding under risk and insecurity (Levy 139).
What needs to be considered is the question of how to explain the variations in conflict and resolution as to the origin of warfare. Why does war occur in that particular time and not any other time, between specific nations, under specified political leaders instead of others, in some historical and cultural circumstances instead of others? This contrast from other queries: How is the origin of a specific war explained? This review considers war as a dependent variable, defining it as a large-scale violence between political units. According to Levy, in differentiating war from minor degrees of violence, individuals adopt the Correlates of War Development’s effective condition of at least 1000 battle-associated deaths (Levy 141).

Two theories explain the systemic level of war: Realism and liberalism. According to realism, the key variance in realism is the discussion concerning hegemonic philosophies and balance of power models. Hegemonic concepts understate the function of lawlessness, emphasize on power transition, and permits power structure. Realists emphasize that the origin of war is not only because some nations wish for war to peace, but also for the reason that of unplanned penalties of activities by the individuals who choose peace to conflict and are more concerned about protecting their state than in increasing it. Liberalism, on the other hand, is for trade interdependence and reconciliation. The liberal disagree that trade promotes harmony is grounded on the principle that conflict eradicates or extremely affects business.
The societal level theories section emphasizes on diversionary war concepts and on philosophies of forming coalitions. Liberal and Marxist philosophers propose that the public view is intrinsically nonviolent; in a case of a war, political leaders or capitalist class most probably initiates it. They choose conflict at the expense of the public. For instance, according to the description of institutionalists concerning democratic peace, accepts that the publics in every government are not for military force, unlike the political leaders who incline to that.
In explaining the individual level concepts, it is assumed that, firstly, both the international and national organizations and societal forces are not decoded directly into international rule choices. Secondly, that key determiners differ in their meanings of state welfares, assessing the risks to those interests, and trusting the ideal strategies to attain those matters (Levy 157). About general trends, people have moved from great power kind of war, and directed towards small-scale wars. Researchers have been focusing on trade, competitions, territorial contiguity, and bargaining (Levy 159).

Works Cited
Levy, J. “The Causes of War and the Conditions of Peace.” Annual Reviews in Political Science, 1(1), (1998): 139-165.