Meanwhile, the opposing triple entente featured the United Kingdom and France, both liberal democracies, as two of the three key states. Each alliance engaged in arms racing to maintain a balance of power, triggering the security dilemma and spiraling mistrust. This mistrust, along with Van Everea’s perceived offensive dominance at the time, encourages states to strike first. This inadvertent war theory, which is largely systemic, effectively explains the outbreak, but it is important to note that mistrust was the key factor behind the alliance formation. The different regime types, as explained by the democratic peace theory, enhanced mistrust between states.
I think the most significant cause of WW1 was the alliance system. This was most important because different countries would not be involved if they weren’t allies. Before the war happened, Russia, France and Britain had formed an alliance- the Triple Entente. All three countries think that Germany would be a threat to them. Russia thinks that Germany’s army base is too big; UK thinks that Germany’s wealth and navy increased to threaten UK; The relationship between Germany and France had been sour as Germany stole a land from France, and had been in a long-standing feud with Germany from then.
When Germany then invaded Poland. A group of countries called all the clans united to defeat Germany and its friends, who were their enemy. Germany joined Italy,Japan and Russia ( but Russia changed sides part-way through the war, they betrayed Germany). In the most cases it is accepted that the main cause of World War 2 was Germany’s political, social and economic instability. 2.
It seems to be the common belief among realists that because there is no clear authority that governs states on a global level, thats where anarchy exists; violence is always a constant possibility as each state strives for self preservation. Sovereign states are the main actors within the international system. Anarchy is a social construct and is ‘what states make of it’ according to constructivist thinker Wendt. This means that how well anarchy is
(Neiberg). The Russian Empire is an example of an old empire which broke up into independent nations. World War I sparked the revolution that brought about the formation of these new nations. Additionally, the Austria-Hungary Empire collapsed into many new independent nations after World War
Realists identify world politics as a trans-historical and trans-geographical struggle for power, and that in this context Thucydides’ dictum that, “the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept” (where strength and weakness are calculated by military capabilities) is the stark and universal truth (Schmidt, 2007; Thucydides, 1972, p. 402). Ben Gurion states the essential problem in Israel/Palestine: “we and they want the same thing: We both want Palestine. And that is the fundamental conflict.” (Shlaim, 2001, p. 18) For both Israelis and Palestinians it is nationalist conflict, there is a clear reason in the action of both parties, a territorially secure state. Yet, both Israel and Hamas seem to accept that negotiation is the eventual end through which to meet their nationalist ends (Hroub, 2006; Shlaim, 2001). However, until negotiation occurs both parties see a military capacity accumulation as an
“The spark was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914” (Duffy). This assassination started a chain reaction between the powers, and each country was dragged into it by the Mutual Defense Alliances. Gavrilo Princip assassinated Franz Ferdinand on June 28th, 1914. Princip was part of a Serbian nationalist group named the Black Hand. Franz Ferdinand wanted to replace the dual monarchy and create a government that Serbia would be represented with Austria and Hungary.
If states seek to be hegemons, the structure will punish them as other states will form balancing coalitions that will put the survival of the potential hegemon in question. Waltz’ theory suggests that to achieve security states must pursue only ‘the appropriate amount of power’ . As an offensive realist, Mearsheimer departs from Waltz’s conclusions and criticizes the ‘status quo bias’ inherent in his theory. He says that ‘status quo states’ are rarely found in international politics because the system creates powerful incentives for states to maximise power at the expense of their rivals. Therefore, all great powers (the main actors in international politics) are revisionist powers who aspire to be the only hegemon in the system as it provides the maximum security and thereby maximizes the chances of survival.
Similarly, civil wars are more likely to occur between people of different ethnicities, religions, or economic classes, such as the Sudanese ethnic conflict, and Islamic Sunni-Shiite conflict. The third level of war can be attributed to the nature of the international political system, which is anarchic, continuously changing, and lacking any higher authority. Thus, each state must defend itself against other’s aggressions. An example of this level can be seen in WWI and WWII. Having mentioned these three levels, it is essential to recognize that a war can be triggered by a combination of causes
Moreover, we have to understand the international law because if we do not understand what is humanitarian intervention and international law, we sometime misunderstand that the HR defenders are violating the HR their self. [The interpretation of humanitarian intervention and international law has been a matter of dispute between both camps ‘restrictionists’ and ‘counter-restrictionists’.] Intervention is using the military force and it can assume as a kind of military invasion, and it might be against the UN charter 2/7. On the one hand, counter-restrictionists reject that doctrine because it is straightly against the principle of sovereignty. On the other hand, the restrictionists argue that the UN’s primary goal is striving to provide peace, security, and justice; therefore, humanitarian intervention is one of the ways to shape the UN primary