Is Peace Possible—and How?

Abstract

The advancement of a durable peace in Europe since the end of World War II poses a tough challenge not only to practitioners but also to international relations theory and to competing approaches to world order.1 Traditionally, IR theory focused much more on explaining and understanding the causes and the dynamics of war than on the achievement and maintenance of peace, especially what will be called here a Yet the conditions for some level of peace are at the very least implicit in key IR theories. This article will make some of these conditions explicit. Many IR thinkers would agree that the achievement of a peace around the globe (and in different regional systems) is desirable in principle (with some qualifications, as laid out below). The first question is, however, is it feasible?2 And if the answer is positive, what is the best strategy to accomplish or at least advance this vision, and more specifically, the twin objectives of world peace and disarmament?There are numerous answers to these questions. I would like to focus on four major and distinctive responses that draw on some of the key contemporary IR theories. This division is based on a novel distinction not only between realism and liberalism, but also on an internal division inside each camp between offensive and defensive approaches. Indeed, aside from the distinction between offensive and defensive realism, there is also an overlooked parallel distinction between offensive and defensive liberalism. I evaluate the advantages and the shortcomings of each approach as an avenue to fulfilling a durable world peace. Each approach has some appeal but also major disadvantages. First of all I would like to place the vision of world peace in a broad typology of war and peace outcomes. The task then is to examine what the different perspectives suggest on the road to accomplishing peace in general and the vision of durable warm peace in particular. Finally, I briefly suggest avenues for further research on this subject based on the limitations ofthe realist-liberal debate and how it can be improved.A TYPOLOGY OF WAR AND PEACE: PLACING THE VISION OF DURABLE PEACEThis study distinguishes between four types of war and peace outcomes according to the probability ofthe use of force:3Hot war is a situation involving the actual use of force, leading to more than 1000 battle deaths on all sides fighting in the war.4Cold war is a situation in which hostilities may break out at any moment, though there is no current shooting. It is characterized by recurrent military crises and a considerable chance of escalation either to premeditated or inadvertent war. The parties succeed, at best, in managing crises; they avoid hot war while protecting their vital interests in crisis situations but make no serious attempt to resolve the fundamental issues in dispute between them. The presence of enduring rivalries is a key indicator of a cold war.5Cold peace is a situation in which both war among, and threats to use force by, states are absent. The underlying causes of conflicts are moderated and reduced, but are far from being resolved. The danger of a return to the use of force thus still looms in the background. There may be formal peace agreements among the parties, but relations are conducted mostly at the level of governments, rather than between societies.Warm peace refers to a low likelihood of war and to much more cooperative relations among the states than under conditions of cold peace.Only under conditions of peace can we conceive of a certain degree of disarmament. In all other situations, armament continues to be a critical element in relations among states, although arms control is possible, especially in cold peace. Under peace the danger of war is so unlikely that there is no need for armament. The trust is so high that states can disarm completely without concern for their safety.Such a vision is seemingly much more in accord with liberal theories than with realist ones. …