Dynamics of International Conflict: Theories and Solutions

Posted on May 25, 2025 in Social sciences

This policy, in turn, has major implications not just for intrastate conflicts but also for terrorism, crime, and other international security problems. However, this fact alone does not mean that such interventions will fail. Instead, stakeholders undertaking a more self-interested intervention must work diligently to bolster the legitimacy and credibility of their efforts in three basic ways:

  • By increasing multilateral contributions to their efforts.
  • By securing the endorsement of the United Nations (UN) and/or other legitimate International Organizations (IOs).
  • By negotiating an invitation from the warring parties to help solve their problem.

On the positive side, more actors than ever before are willing to take a chance on helping weak or failing states early, in the hopes of heading off larger problems later.

Theoretical Approaches to International and Intrastate Conflict

Classical Realism

This theory claims to rely upon an ancient tradition of thought which includes writers such as Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Hobbes. Established in the post-World War II era, it seeks to explain international politics as a result of human nature. The outbreak of World War II was seen by Realists as evidence of the deficiencies of Idealist thinking. There are various strands of modern-day Realist thinking.

Classical Realism: State-Level Power Dynamics

This state-level theory argues that all states seek power – the first and last principle of state behavior. States seek to increase their power; they seek to decrease the power of their enemies; and everything they do is in the name of amassing power. States view other powerful states as rivals because power, when not in one’s own hands, is perceived as threatening. As individuals are perceived as greedy, insecure, and aggressive, the states they govern are believed to exhibit these same characteristics. This does not, however, necessarily lead to war. Peace can exist, but a durable peace is predicated upon a stable balance of power, where major international actors possess roughly equal power resources, thus deterring any single entity from believing it can win a war. If a state does not believe it can win a war, it generally refrains from initiating one. The rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War exemplifies this, as they were the two most powerful states post-WWII. While wary of each other’s power and becoming adversaries, they avoided direct conflict due to their approximate equality in power.

Classical Realism: International System Anarchy

One of the central propositions of Classical Realism is that the relations between states are necessarily anarchic, as there is no central power (e.g., Hobbes’ Leviathan, world government) to maintain order and stability. Anarchy simply means a lack of a central power.

Neorealism

Kenneth Waltz sought to revitalize traditional Realist theory by translating core Realist ideas into a deductive, top-down theoretical framework, which became known as Neorealism. It posits that power is the most crucial factor in international relations.

Neorealism: State-Level Analysis and Anarchy

The level of analysis for Neorealism is the state: the power of a state translates into that state’s national interest. States are viewed as ‘black boxes’; any politics within the state (i.e., the form of government) is irrelevant for understanding that state’s interests in international society. States are assumed to be power-seeking entities that enter into competition with one another in the absence of a central power to overawe them. This situation is anarchy. Anarchy simply means a lack of a central power (e.g., Hobbes’ Leviathan) to which all states would pledge their obedience.

Neorealism builds on this classical theory by positing anarchy as the fundamental logic of the international system. In other words, the anarchy of the international system is primary, compelling states to act as self-preserving, power-seeking entities. Thus, the structure (or system) of international politics is what compels states to act in the international system. The theory implies that states no longer have a conscious interest in forming foreign policy, but that the best possible policy formulas are determined by the structure of the system itself (anarchy) and the states’ place within that system (distribution of capabilities).

Liberalism

Liberalism, while having a shorter history than Realism, has been a prominent theory since World War I. It encompasses a variety of meanings. It rejects power politics as the sole determinant of international relations and questions the security and warfare principles central to Realism. It emphasizes mutual benefits and international cooperation. It highlights the role of international organizations and non-governmental actors in shaping state preferences and policy choices.

Levels of Analysis in International Relations

System-Level Analysis

System-level analysis examines state behavior through the lens of the international system. At this level, the international system is considered the cause, and state behavior the effect. Characteristics inherent to the international system compel states to act in specific ways. Consequently, changes within the international system are expected to induce changes in state behavior. The key variable at the system level is the distribution of power among states. Some states are powerful, while others are weak. For example, the Cold War was characterized by two powerful states. Thus, the central determinant of state behavior during the Cold War was the bipolar system dominated by the United States and the Soviet Union.

State-Level Analysis

State-level analysis examines the foreign policy behavior of states based on their internal characteristics. For instance, some scholars argue that all democracies exhibit a particular behavior, notably that they do not engage in warfare with other democracies. Other scholars might analyze the differing behaviors of weak versus strong states, or states situated in challenging geopolitical environments (e.g., Germany or France) compared to those in more benign surroundings (e.g., the United States). Furthermore, some scholars propose that a state’s foreign policy behavior is a cultural characteristic, shaped by its historical legacy, religious or social traditions, or its economic and geographic nature (see Constructivism below).

Organizational-Level Analysis

Organizational-level analysis examines how organizations within a state function to influence foreign policy behavior. States, as abstract entities, do not make decisions. Instead, organizations within the state bargain with each other to formulate foreign policy, which often emerges as a compromise among competing interests. For example, this level of analysis might examine the Iraq War by scrutinizing the interests of the U.S. military, the Department of Defense, the State Department, and the Central Intelligence Agency. The central question at this level would be: How did these organizations collectively shape U.S. foreign policy?

Individual-Level Analysis

Individual-level analysis focuses on the role of individuals. Individuals make decisions within nation-states, thereby shaping foreign policy. Scholars might investigate the roles of various leaders. This level of analysis could explain World War II by examining the role of Adolf Hitler. It might analyze the end of the Cold War by studying Mikhail Gorbachev. It might suggest that the economic reforms in China are a result of the specific decisions and characteristics of its leaders. Individual-level analysis might ask questions such as these: Are there aspects of George W. Bush’s character and belief systems that defined the U.S. response to the 9/11 attacks? Would Al Gore or John Kerry have behaved any differently in a similar situation? How do Bush and his senior decision-makers perceive the world and their role in it?

Causes of Intrastate Ethnic Conflict

  • The state-nation balance.
  • The weak/failed state debate.
  • From passive to active causes: Ethnic communities and ‘hyper-nationalism’.
  • International security: Internationalization; threats versus victims.

Solutions to Intrastate Conflict

  • Options: Diplomacy, aid/sanctions, force.
  • Military force: International peacekeeping, peacemaking, and peace enforcement operations.
  • State preservation versus fragmentation; the balance of power and opposition cohesion.
  • ‘Humanitarian’ military intervention and the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P): rhetoric and reality.

Humanitarian Intervention and R2P

Humanitarian intervention assumes a ‘right to intervene,’ whereas the R2P is based on a ‘responsibility to protect.’ Both Humanitarian Intervention and the R2P doctrine agree that sovereignty is not absolute. However, the R2P doctrine shifts focus from state-centered motivations to the interests of victims, emphasizing not the right of states to intervene but a responsibility to protect populations at risk. Additionally, it introduces a new perspective on the essence of sovereignty, moving beyond issues of ‘control’ to emphasize ‘responsibility’ towards one’s own citizens and the wider international community.

The Three Pillars of R2P

  1. Each individual state has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity.
  2. The international community aims to help states achieve this goal.
  3. States will intervene if the home state fails to fulfill this responsibility, utilizing the third pillar of R2P.

The Kosovo War

The Kosovo War involved an 11-week bombing campaign by NATO in spring 1999, unique for its sustained use of armed forces by NATO without Security Council authorization.

  • It was an international campaign of major bombing to halt crimes against humanity being committed by a state within its own borders.
  • This ‘humanitarian war’ marked a high point in the increasing emphasis on human rights and humanitarian issues post-World War II.
  • NATO, intergovernmental bodies, and individuals in the field of human rights were divided over the intervention, as their cause was being used for war, potentially worsening violence against Kosovars rather than reducing it.
  • NATO leaders emphasized five objectives for Yugoslav President Slobodan Milošević:
    • Verifiable cessation of all combat activities and killings.
    • Withdrawal of Serbian forces from Kosovo.
    • Deployment of international military forces.
    • Return of all refugees and unimpeded access for humanitarian aid.
    • A potential framework for Kosovo building on the Rambouillet Accords.
  • Yugoslav forces subsequently left Kosovo on these terms. While this outcome can be argued as a triumph for bombing as a means of upholding human rights, such a judgment may be premature.