Global Peace and War: The International System

       Ever since states were formed, there have been civil conflicts as well as international wars on a larger scale. Within the past 100 years, WWI and WWII emerged as the first world wide conflicts that impacted millions of soldiers and civilians. There are various ways in which scholars and different schools of thought believe how states behave with each other. While realists believe that states have a warlike nature to them and that the anarchic international system drives states to conflict, liberals take a more positive stance believing that cooperation can be reached through democratic institutions and a Federation of Republics. Another view of state behavior is through Wendt’s view of constructivism, the idea stating that processes have a larger impact on how states behave compared to structures. Through A Realist Theory of International Politics by Hans Morganthou and Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Politics by Alexander Wendt, it will be displayed that while the international system plays a large role in state behavior, the concept of constructivism holds a more accurate representation of how states interact with each other.

       It is seen through Morgenthau's argument how classical realists have a focus on the nature of states and that this nature is purely self interested. Because of this innate animosity, Morgenthau believes that the interaction between states is determined by their own essence and character because “international politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power” (Morgenthau, 88). Morgenthou severely rejects the idea of liberalism because of its abstract principles and overarching moral universal standards. While liberalism preaches the idea that cooperation can be reached through education and reform, Morgenthau thinks that in order to “improve the world, one must work with those forces, not against them” (Morgenthau, 86). He states that liberalism provides a false reality of the world and that a balance of power and interests is the only way to prevent conflict as best as possible. Morgenthau believes that sustaining security is the only goal for a state due to its practicality and a result based moral/ethical value. His focus in The Realist Theory of International Relations stray away from the idea of an overarching international system and focuses on the states themselves. This refuses to acknowledge the importance of an anarchical impact and does not take into consideration the international system as a driving consequential force, which displays a gap in his logic and line of reasoning.

       The idea of anarchy from Morgenthau’s perspective emphasizes the importance of states and their animosity towards one another and how a balancing of power is going to result in an endless cycle. While Morgenthau accurately acknowledges hegemony as impossible within the international system, he doesn’t recognize how the characteristics of various states affect the balance of power. He thinks that state nature is fixed and every state will always act in the same way and that “whenever [states] strive to realize their goal by means of international politics, they do so by striving for power” (Morgenthau, 88). This is a very severe realist perspective that doesn’t allow for any exceptions of any sort. Politics and states don’t always act in the way that they are supposed to, which is why it’s important to look at states and state relationships independently. By leading such a definite argument, Morgenthau’s pessimistic view on human nature and state behavior is not able to be carried through to every conflict nationwide throughout history. While it is not proven that states can always have a cooperative relationship with each other through laws and international institutions, it is also unrealistic to assume that all states hold a negative view towards each other and will never come to any sort of agreement.

       State behavior is most likely always determined by processes rather than structures. Wendt mentions that realism and liberalism both focus on the structure of states, whether that’s the international system itself or the regime type of the state. These are both built on rationalism which coincide with the universal laws of behavior. He believes that state interaction can best be rationalized by the idea of constructivism, where state behavior and interaction is determined by forming relationships with each other and states' history with one another. He looks at the international system in a sociological way by explaining that “it is through reciprocal interaction, in other words, that we create and instantiate the relatively enduring social structures in terms of which we define our identities and interests” (Wendt, 406). Because he focuses on individual relationships and interactions of states while not generalizing state and human nature, he provides a solid argument for how states behave with each other in unique ways depending on several various factors. States, independent of structure, will view each other based on their previous experiences and interactions which will lead to states creating a distinctive identity for themselves and other nations as well. He explains that “far from being exogenously given, the intersubjective knowledge that constitutes competitive identities and interests is constructed every day by processes of ‘social will formation’. It is what states have made of themselves” (Wendt, 410). While Morgenthou may be correct that some states hold hostility against each other, Wendt argues that this hostility is unnatural. States create this hostility through past interactions which is what develops identities, as well as certain attitudes and behaviors.

       Wendt believes that there are several different results and worlds that could emerge depending on the identities states form with each other. He does agree that there is a possibility that a competitive and individualistic world could emerge, but he also explains that “anarchy has this meaning only in virtue of collective, insecurity producing practices, but if those practices are relatively stable, they do constitute a system that may resist change” (Wendt, 410-411). Realists, however, don’t consider a cooperative world where constructivist views are possible.

       This constructivist theory can be seen through the development of the Cold War after WWII. While a realist perspective of the great powers searching for a sphere of influence is important, the gradual development of tension and suspicion proves Wendt’s constructivism theory as accurate. After the Potsdam Conference and the plan for postwar peace, there was tension between the US and Russia. Because of these previous interactions and encounters, these states prioritized their security out of speculation, which is what led to the war itself. Wendt’s idea of signaling, interpreting, and responding coincides greatly with how nations interact. One example of this is US ambassador George Kennon who was able to conclude on his trip to the Soviet Union that the Soviets and Americans were not friends: they turned into foes. These encounters occur because “self help security systems evolve from cycles of interaction in which each party acts in ways that the others feel are threatening to the self, creating expectations that the other is not to be trusted” (Wendt, 406). These cycles of interactions that Wendt frequently mentions in his theory is where Morgenthau’s reasoning falls short because the symbolic interactionist theory is what determines the international system.

       While Morgenthau creates a realist argument and develops his notion of a balance of power, it is inaccurate and pessimistic to say that all states act in the same destructive way each time they interact with one another. Wendt is able to ground his theory with a realistic approach and incites that anarchy is dependent on the meanings attached to it. While constructivists don’t necessarily deem war inevitable, they believe that ideologies and past interaction, not material factors and structures, drive war under the international system. This theory takes into account the historical past and displays a more comprehensive understanding of conflict compared to Morgenthou’s realist theory.