Reading and writing

Task 6. Read the text to answer the following questions:

· What influences definition of war?

· What distinguishes war from other types of violent conflict?

· What factors cause or contribute to war?

· Are we, as a species, genetically predisposed to engage in war?

· Is there such a thing as a just war?

· What are some of the ways that international law has attempted to restrict war?

· In addition to human casualties, what are some of the other major costs of war?

War

Although “war” is an all too familiar term, it would be a mistake to assume that it has only one definition that is shared by all. Definitions of war are in fact multiple and varied, influenced by historical, political, legal, social, and cultural contexts and ideologies. Conflicts described as “war” by some are labelled rebellions, struggles, riots, guerrilla uprisings, terrorism, gang violence, or genocide by others. Generally war is defined as the use of armed forces in a conflict, especially between countries.

If war is defined as an intentional and widespread conflict that occurs only between states, then war is always international in scope. International or inter-state wars are the first type of conflict that many people think of when they hear the term “war”. Despite the important place it occupies in our conceptualization of war, the number of inter-state wars has actually remained relatively low since World War II.

Today, intra-state conflicts, or civil wars, are far more common than inter-state ones. In 1946, 47 percent of conflicts were intra-state; by 2005, that figure had increased to 100 percent. The majority of today’s intra-state conflicts are low-intensity conflicts (LIC) taking place in the developing world. In contrast with conventional wars, which typically involve large armies, heavy weapons, major battles, and high death tolls, most LICs kill far fewer people and are fought by a relatively small number of lightly armed forces. Internal wars are often anti-regime wars, waged in order to maintain or over­throw a government. Sometimes the aim is simply to gain or keep political power, while in other cases the goal is to change the social system. Other internal wars are fought not over the government or the social system but rather to establish or defend an ethnic or religious group or territory. Such wars include those led by national minor­ities or repressed national majorities seeking autonomy, secession, or the elimina­tion of discrimination.

When people ponder the origins and causes of war, they often wonder whether war is an intrinsic part of human nature. Are we, as a species, genetically pre­disposed to engage in war? Or are the causes of war rooted in civilization, the state, the international system, politics, or ideology? Might we ever learn to avoid war, or is it more likely that, as long as humans exist, so too will war? Philosophers Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau both considered such questions, but they arrived at very different answers. Their two perspectives have since developed into two distinct schools of thought about human beings’ relationship to war. For Hobbes, writing in the mid-1600s, humans were intrinsically violent and always likely to turn on one other, fighting over everything from greed to reputation. The creation of the state helped control humans’ violent nature, forcing them to live peacefully with each other, if not always with other states. In stark contrast to Hobbes, Rousseau, writing approximately 100 years later, argued that human nature was intrinsically good, and that it was the state and civilization that were the problem. Aboriginal humans, he maintained, lived in harmony with nature and with each other. War only emerged with the agricultural revolution, which brought with it population growth, private property, the state, and war. There are a number of theoriesthat seek to explain patterns of war and peace between states in the international system. Some scholars argue that the underlying causes of war can be found in the structure of power and alliancesin the international system or in the way that the structure changes over time. Others trace the roots of war to political, economic, social, and psychological factors internal to the state.

Following a just war theoretical framework, which suggests that while war is reprehensible, it may be necessary in certain contexts, states have sought to formalize rules delineating when war is justifiable and what wartime actions are impermissible. Using international law, nation-states have established rules for war. International law refers to a system of agreements between nation-states that signify their adherence to specified values, standards, and regulations. It differs from other legal systems in that it focuses primarily on states rather than on private citizens. When a state’s representative signs on to a treaty or convention, the country is agreeing to the document, thereby making it law. Thus, by signing onto dozens of treaties dealing with various aspects of war, nation-states have created international laws for their own conduct as it pertains to war.

In the nineteenth century, the view that war was a legitimate act of state was broadly accepted by international lawyers as a concomitant to the doctrine of sovereignty. So long as the war-making body had the authority to act, and followed the correct legal procedures (a proper declaration of war, for example), war could be waged lawfully, and without any legal interest in the reasons for this act of state. The most significant early efforts to legally restrict war occurred at the two Hague Conferences. Convened in The Hague, The Netherlands, by Czar Nicholas II of Russia, the first Hague Conference (1899) sought to limit the total number of armaments and to establish rules for the conduct of warfare. Some progress was made, as laws dealing with the conduct of war on land were agreed to. The second Hague Conference was convened in 1907 with similar goals in mind, and it produced more rules cover­ing issues of neutrality during conflict as well as rules for war-time maritime and naval conduct. Additionally, specific types of weapons, including poisonous gas, were outlawed. The Permanent Court of Arbitration was also established at the sec­ond Hague Conference; it was designed to settle disputes between nation-states. Dozens of representatives from nation-states attended these conferences, and while the rules established were quickly ignored during the subsequent world wars, a pre­cedent had been set and international rules for war had become a permanent part of international relations.

Following World War I, efforts to craft international laws to restrict and control war have been driven by international organizations, such as the League of Nations and the United Nations, as well as by nation-states and non-governmental organ­izations. The Charters of both the League and the UN specify that states should not resort to war except in self-defence. Not only is this the current legal posi­tion; it also seems to correspond to the ways in which most people thought about war in the twentieth century, namely as a disaster that should be avoided at almost all costs – indeed, the current law on war is more likely to be criticized for being too permissive than for restricting the activity too closely. In addition to the establishment of the UN’s Charter, which sought to restrict war, the international community also created specific laws for war. In 1949, four Geneva Conventions were signed that laid out the proper conduct of war as well as the proper treatment of combatants, prisoners, civilians, and the sick and injured. Additionally, the Nuremberg Trials (1945-1946) and the Tokyo Tribunals (1946-1948) established the precedent that international law regarding war was to be taken seriously and that leaders of nation-states might be held accountable for violating them. At these trials, thousands of defendants were tried for acts of aggression that had been outlawed under international law.