Is Peace Possible—and How?
| Date | 01 March 2010 |
| Published date | 01 March 2010 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002070201006500110 |
| Subject Matter | Over the Transom |
| International Journal | Winter 2009-10 | 163 |
Benjamin Miller
Is peace possible—
and how?
The four-fold response of international relations theory
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 “warm peace.” 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 warm peace around the globe (and in different
Benjamin Miller is professor of international relations at the University of Haifa.
1 James J. Sheehan, Where Have All the Soldiers Gone? The Transformation of Modern
Europe (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2008). For alternative explanations of the
European peace, see, for example, Josef Joffe, “Europe’s American pacifier,” Foreign
Policy 50 (spring 1984): 64-82; Norrin M. Ripsman, “Two stages of transition from
a region of war to a region of peace: Realist transition and Liberal endurance,”
International Studies Quarterly 49, no. 4 (2005): 669-94; Emanuel Adler and Michael
Barnett, eds., Security Communities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998);
and Benjamin Miller, States, Nations and the Great Powers: The Sources of Regional war
and Peace (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007).
| 164 | Winter 2009-10 | International Journal |
2 In a practical sense, the question—as it is discussed here—of the achievement of
peace refers to a large extent to peace in regional systems, where the danger of war is
in many cases much more acute than on the global level. On the sources of regional
war and peace, see Miller, States, Nations and the Great Powers.
3 For an extended treatment of these types of war and peace and references, see Miller,
States, Nations and the Great Powers, chapter 2.
4 This figure is taken from the “correlates of war” project. See Melvin Small and J.
David Singer, Resort to Arms: International and Civil Wars, 1816-1980 (Beverly Hills:
Sage, 1982), 38, 54; and John A. Vasquez, The War Puzzle (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1993), 21–29.
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 of the realist-liberal debate and how it can
be improved.
A TYPOLOGY OF WAR AND PEACE: PLACING THE VISION OF DURABLE PEACE
This study distinguishes between four types of war and peace outcomes
according to the probability of the use of force:3
Hot war is a situation involving the actual use of force, leading to more
than 1000 battle deaths on all sides fighting in the war.4
Cold 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
| Benjamin Miller |
To continue reading
Request your trial