The basic content of the theoretical exposition of international security is the explanation of war and peace between countries, that is, it aims to explain from a theoretical perspective: what factors may lead to war and violent conflict between countries? What factors or ways may promote peace among countries? Traditionally, international security has been regarded as “high-level politics” in international relations, which has become the focus of international relations research.

However, limited by the length and the author’s understanding of relevant theories, this chapter cannot involve every relevant theoretical point of view (such as the impact of culture on national security policies).

In view of the absolute dominance of realism paradigm in the theory and practice of international relations, this book does not intend to involve the theory of constructivism.

In addition, this book does not involve theories on how to use military power to achieve political goals, such as deterrence theory and nuclear strategy theory.

On the other hand, the theoretical exposition here will not exhaust all the factors that may affect international cooperation and conflict, such as the territorial disputes between countries left over by history, or the domestic political and economic turmoil of a country that may induce external interference, or even the amazing military genius of a country’s political or military leaders.

The link between such factors and international conflicts is obvious.

In short, the hope of this chapter is to make a concise theoretical exposition of war and peace between countries, so as to make people understand what basic theoretical thinking can be made on the issue of war and peace between countries.

The reasons for international war and the ways of international peace constitute the main part of the first chapter of this book.

In fact, this division is only for the consideration of the style of this chapter.

Obviously, as the text shows, the analysis of the causes of international war includes the revelation of the road to international peace, while the evaluation of some way to promote international peace often means exploring what may be the soil for conflict.

On this basis, the last part of this chapter will try to discuss the relationship between theoretical understanding and current Asia Pacific security practice.

Conflicts or wars continue to this day with the emergence of human society.

Perhaps the “evil” of human nature or the greed of groups can be simply identified as the root cause of war.

However, under the condition that these root causes always exist, war does not constitute the whole content of human history, and peacetime still exists.

Accordingly, there must be more factors to promote or inhibit the occurrence of war.

The purpose of this section is to discuss some factors that may lead to violent conflicts between countries from a theoretical perspective.

If these factors should be roughly classified for the convenience of readers’ understanding, it is not an appropriate method to distinguish them according to the basic schools of international relations theory (such as realism, liberalism, globalism and constructivism).

As far as the factors discussed in this section are concerned, it is difficult to satisfactorily summarize them in these categories.

For example, how to classify “nationalism”? Under what theoretical title should “the utility relationship between attack and defense” be placed? In fact, the so-called schools of international relations theory basically cover systematic or macro “big theories”, which can not command all theoretical understanding of international relations.

In addition, the discussion of some factors affecting international security may involve the relevant views of non international relations disciplines.

For example, when it comes to human nature, in addition to the views of political philosophers, the book also refers to the conclusions of Freud and Lorenz, which do not belong to the theory of international relations or politics.

However, the factors below can be summarized into different levels.

Analytic hierarchy process is a common perspective and research method of observation in the study of international relations, Kenneth.

Waltz’s man, state and war is a masterpiece in this regard.

The book believes that the causes of international war are distributed in three vertical levels: individual, state and international system, and analyzes the role of human nature, national political system and the structure of international system on war and peace between countries.


Lassette’s excellent textbook world politics also uses analytic hierarchy process.

He listed more levels extending from individuals to the international system and explained how factors at different levels determine the basic appearance of foreign policy and international relations.

It is considered that the “multi-level” factors of the “multi-level” of the state and the “multi-level” of the international decision-making are also considered as the factors of the “multi-level” of the state and the “multi-level” of the international decision-making.

A traditional and universal view holds that the existence of war is inseparable from human nature.

Like Hans.

Morgenthau wrote: “the motivation of survival, reproduction and domination exists in all people.

Many philosophers and thinkers in history believe that human beings are dirty and degenerate in essence.

Many thinkers in ancient China held the view of” human nature is evil “, such as Xunzi and Zi.

The same is true in the West.

Christianity is based on human” original sin ” “Above saying.

Religious philosophers such as St.

Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Reinhold nieble of the 20th century all regard man as the root of all evil.

John Calvin said: even babies themselves.

Will be punished for their own sins.

Because although they have not yet produced the fruits of their evil, they are already dead Scripture has the seeds of evil.

Their whole nature,.

Is a seed of sin, so they can only be hated by God.

Outside the field of religion, many philosophers such as Machiavelli, Spinoza and Hobbes also attribute the suffering and pain of the world to human nature.

In modern times, the view of war based on human nature has been elucidated in the space outside moral philosophy.

In this regard, the most influential figure is Austrian ecologist and award winner Conrad.


He thinks, Many species other than humans have an instinctive biological “aggressive” nature.

Even without external stimulation, it sometimes appears.

And this will also be reflected in humans.

To minimize war, we can only dissolve the aggressive energy in humans through active social competition as much as possible Scholars of social physiology also support the theory of the nature of war.

But unlike Lorenz,Mainly from monopoly companies.

In the trade and investment structure of capitalist countries, the importance of colonies is not so great.

In the 20th century, most of the export capital of developed countries flowed into other industrial developed countries or emerging industrial countries.

Britain and France, which have conquered the most new territories, are the countries that do not need these lands economically.

⑥ Many wars in contemporary capitalist countries are not fought for economic reasons.

Therefore, although the theory of Hobson and Lenin has certain explanatory power, it places too much emphasis on economic factors and excludes the political, psychological and cultural factors that determine human activities.

Leninist criticism still has a strong influence in today’s world.

Many modern Marxists and Leninists (including many scholars in the western world) believe that although the colonial areas have basically gained independence after World War II, western countries still try their best to seek political control over the underdeveloped areas by indirect means, so as to make the latter economically subordinate to them, Continue to serve as their raw material origin and industrial product market.

Therefore, underdeveloped regions are basically dependent on the West in terms of economy and politics, or they have a “peripheral” and “central” relationship with the developed capitalist world.

John in the western world.

Gatton, Thomas.

Weiskopf, Emanuel.

Wallerstein et al.

And Samir Amin and Raul in the third world.

Prevish and other scholars have made systematic theoretical discussions on these aspects.

The different view is that capitalism has promoted the economic and social development of underdeveloped areas after all.

There is no necessary link between the raw material export-oriented economy and poverty.

The main causes of poverty and instability in the third world lie within these countries. III. militarism another traditional view that links the economic needs of a certain class within the country, especially in capitalist countries, with international conflicts is that capitalists or military industrial departments engaged in arms production will deliberately create war or tension between countries in order to make profits by expanding the demand for arms.

Marxists or leftists often regard the pursuit of profits by general fire capitalists as an important driving force of imperialist war.

In capitalist countries, there are endless voices condemning war traffickers associated with military industry or warning people of their existence.

After the end of World War I, many people in the western world who reflected on the causes of the war condemned the general fire merchant as a “death merchant”, including British Foreign Secretary gray when the war broke out.

Moreover, as many people believe, the military industrial sector and the military with which they have many common interests, as well as several scientific research and labor organizations, will form a “military industrial complex” and exert a strong impact on national policies.

The concept of “military industrial complex” was first put forward by the president of the United States in his outgoing speech in 1961.

He said at the time: “We are forced to create a long-term large-scale armament industry.

This combination of a large military department and a large armament industry is unprecedented in American history.

Its overall impact – economic, political and even spiritual – can be felt in every city, every state capitol and every federal government office.

In government departments, I We must guard against undue influence on the military industrial complex, whether it is intentional or unintentional.

The possibility of a catastrophic rise in this wrong power exists and will continue.

” “Military industrial complex” not only exists in capitalist countries, but also has a strong political influence in the former Soviet Union.

However, with regard to the relationship between the “military industrial complex” and international war, the main view today is that by supporting the arms race and exaggerating international tension, the “military industrial complex” hinders disarmament and the stability of relations between States, thus indirectly increasing the possibility of war, but it does not directly lead to war.

Preparing for war can benefit it, not war.

Military department is the basic component of “military industrial complex”.

This alliance between the military and the military industrial sector reflects the “organizational interest” of the military.

Scholars generally believe that in a bureaucratic country, any organization has its own “organizational interests”, that is, each organization wants to obtain more wealth, power and prestige.

A long-standing view is that the military may advocate or even carry out foreign war for the interests of the group.

Steven. Fan. Evila pointed out that for its own organizational interests, the military will intentionally or unintentionally publicize some “myths” to the society in order to convince others that the military has reason to get more resources.

Based on the history of Europe, he listed five major “myths” once created by the military.

First, the military exaggerates the power of attack relative to defense and the ease of conquering other countries.

Second, the military exaggerates the hostility of other countries and portrays neighboring countries as vicious and aggressive.

Third, the military exaggerates the tendency of other countries to give in to threats, that is, they are more likely to yield to the threat of force than to point a needle at the wheat awn.

Fourth, the military generally overemphasizes the economic and strategic value brought by a broad empire.

Fifth, the military often underestimates the cost of war and sometimes even describes war as healthy or beneficial.

However, like many scholars, evira believes that military officers will not make the decision to go to war more easily than civil servants.

In this regard, the most important empirical research achievement so far is Richard Bates’s “soldiers, politicians and the cold war crisis”.

Bates concluded that during the cold war, U.S. military leaders were as cautious as civil servants on whether to launch a war.

Although the former was more hard on the issue of escalating the war, it was not denied that, for organizational interests, the military might also highlight its position by choosing war.

Here, the question to be further studied is what factors will prompt the military to do so.

In addition, under the cover of the above-mentioned “myths”, a society may be more prone to war, and even filled with militarism, which is a kind of promotionThe spirit of war.

When it comes to the occurrence of the two world wars, we cannot ignore the militarist sentiment in Germany and Japan.

Usually, militarists are used to preaching the “survival crisis” of the country or the harsh international environment, emphasizing the importance of the army for the survival and stability of the country and the noble social status of soldiers, advocating the use of force to achieve their own policy objectives, and advocating that all citizens pay active attention to, participate in and support military life and foreign war.

Militarism may be related to the military’s pursuit of organizational interests, but it is not limited to this.

A nation’s fighting ethos may also stem from its historical traditions (such as the Cossacks and the historical German nation). IV. geopolitics geographical factors inevitably affect the political relations between countries.

Accordingly, geopolitical thought always exists in the thinking of international relations.

However, if geopolitics exists, the connotation of this term is not so single.

Nicholas, a famous American Geopolitical scientist in history.

Spectman pointed out that geopolitics has three different meanings: some people regard it as a theory about the nature of national aggression and expansion.

Some people equate it with political geography or administrative geography.

Others understand it as planning a country’s foreign policy according to geographical factors.

The first is directly related to geopolitics and international relations in the third sense.

As for the former, the most important is Friedrich Ratzel and Rudolph in the modern history of Europe.

Chelon and Carl.

The thought represented by Haushofer.

Its basic view is that a country living in a certain geographical space is an organism similar to human beings.

The survival nature of the organism will stimulate the desire of all countries to expand their territorial boundaries, and the desire of a powerful country is the strongest.

Haushofer’s “living space” theory is the epitome of this understanding.

This geopolitical theory provides a theoretical explanation for the war between countries.

However, the theory that the state is an expanding organism competing for “living space” is very crude.

Instead of evaluating it from the perspective of scientific demonstration, it is better to just regard it as a philosophical concept of the country concerned.

Moreover, in history, the greatest impact of this understanding is not to make people better understand international conflicts, but to provide a theoretical tool for expansion policy, which is typically reflected in the expansion thought of Germany in the past.

In fact, one of the main purposes of Haushofer’s research is to expand the “living space” for the expansion of Germany.

The third sense of geopolitical understanding is the subject of today’s geopolitics.

In this regard, the view put forward by the British geographer Harford mackind in the early 20th century is still the most well-known.

He believes that the grassland area from Eastern Europe to Mongolia on the Eurasian continent is the hub of world politics.

Historically, the nomads who controlled this area took advantage of the geographical convenience of galloping between the East and the west, causing great pressure on the East and West ends of the Eurasian continent.

Today, Russia, which controls this area, has the potential to expand to the continental margin and then to the ocean by virtue of its rich resources and the great mobility brought by railways.

Therefore, the maritime power should control the bridgehead in the marginal areas of the continent to contain the land power.

Shortly after the end of World War I, Mackinder further pointed out that Eurasia and Africa is a world island, the northern and inland parts of Eurasia are the heart, and Eastern Europe is the only hub leading to this zone.

Therefore, whoever rules Eastern Europe controls the heart region.

Whoever rules the heart region controls the world island.

Whoever rules the world island controls the world.

Later, spekman believed that the control of the marginal areas of Eurasia was more important because it was a buffer zone for land and maritime powers, especially if these areas had sufficient industrial power and convenient transportation.

The difference between mckinder’s and spectman’s views can show that there is no invariable relationship between a certain geographical factor and a country’s security situation or strategic choice.

More cases can illustrate this.

If a country is a mountainous country that is easy to defend but difficult to attack, is it expanding because of this, or is it satisfied with self-protection? If a country has a narrow territory and no danger to defend, then does it choose to expand its defense space or adopt an offensive security policy, or compromise and live in peace? If a country is a country living alone overseas like the United States, does it pursue isolationism or actively intervene overseas? It is understandable that geographical factors are not the main determinants of a country’s security policy.

They always act on inter state behavior together with personal, economic, social and international structural factors.

In contrast, although people are used to understanding a country’s security policy in connection with geographical conditions, there is no comprehensive theory on the relationship between geographical conditions and war and peace among countries. V. on the conflict between nation and civilization war phenomenon is not only related to human nature in the sense of individual, but also related to spiritual value in the sense of group.

In this regard, the most important thing is nationalism.

In short, a nation is a human group with a common language, blood, history and culture, and – and most importantly – its members have a consistent sense of mutual recognition, and nationalism is the hope of its members to enhance their autonomy, wealth, dignity, prestige and cultural vitality, And pride in the progress in these areas.

The nationals of many countries belong entirely or mainly to one nation.

In such a country, loyalty to the nation and loyalty to the country as a political and geographical concept are basically the same, and a certain kind of nationalism has become a phenomenon pervading a country’s borders.

Nationalism can be said to be a love for the nation.

However, in reality, what usually complements this is the antagonism and even hostility against other nationalities.

Such as the British writer George.

O’Neill wrote: “when it comes to nationalism, I first mean the habit of imagining that humans can be divided into five colors and nine grades like insects, and that groups with millions or tens of millions of people can be accurately labeled as’ good ‘or.

Secondly, this is much more important – I mean the habit, even if they agree with a certain peopleEthnic groups or other units judge it by the distinction between good and evil, and determine that they have no other responsibilities except to promote their own interests.

” Accordingly, by creating a sense of identity that does not belong to each other, so as to create the interest and spiritual gap that separates mankind.

Nationalism belonging to various ethnic groups has created many conflicts on the world stage.

Nationalism is not only expressed as a continuous emotion that can burst out in an instant, but also as a systematic theory, such as the “living space” theory of Nazi Germany.

To a large extent, nationalism makes countries more involved in the pursuit of their own independence, wealth and prestige.

Lured by extreme nationalism, supranationalism or chauvinism, some countries embarked on the road of aggression and expansion.

For countries that are not expansionary, nationalism may also make it easier for them to resort to force to resolve disputes with other countries.

The motivation of nationalism can be found behind almost any war.

In a multi-ethnic country, nationalism will also trigger separatist sentiment and racial confrontation within a country’s borders, resulting in many violent conflicts in the domestic and even international sense.

However, nationalism in any international dispute is not spontaneous.

It is precisely because nationalism has a strong appeal that the ruling class or some force may achieve their goals by using and encouraging nationalism.

They either incite nationalism to serve foreign expansion, or lead the focus of contradictions to the outside world in order to extricate themselves from the plight of domestic political and economic life, or strengthen their domestic status by dressing themselves as defenders of national interests.

These behaviors often make nationalism “passively” become the intermediary of international conflicts.

Inspired by nationalism, in the face of foreign aggression, the people and army of a country will show high fighting spirit and indomitable spirit.

In this sense, nationalism can also restrain wars between countries.

Even so, the primary significance of nationalism is that it has created or strengthened differences, estrangement, suspicion and exclusion between countries or nations, and thus planted the seeds of aggression and expansion.

It goes without saying that confrontation in the sense of nationalism is often inevitably related to cultural division or differences.

Cultural differences may lead to different sense of identity and spiritual belonging, conflicting behavior patterns and misunderstandings between different cultural groups.

However, Samuel Huntington placed cultural differences in the global political context in a very high position.

Huntington’s “culture” is “civilization”, which is “the most advanced human cultural group and the broadest level of cultural identity”.

In his view, there are eight civilizations in the world, and in the post Cold War era, the most fundamental conflict in world politics is the conflict between different cultures or civilizations, and cultural opposition is the main source of inter state conflict.

Huntington’s argument provides a different perspective from the mainstream understanding for observing world politics.

Of course, there are many controversial points.

For example, Ba Bazin, a well-known British scholar of international relations, pointed out that Huntington explained many international disputes that are not in the sense of civilization conflict with “civilization conflict”, and put aside many conflicts within the same civilization.

In addition, if civilization is the fundamental actor in international relations, how to treat the status of states in international relations. Vi. the theory of “shifting” of internal contradictions sometimes, a country’s war or expansion abroad is not out of or entirely out of defending or seizing certain economic interests, but because the ruling class of the country needs to shift the attention of the domestic people to conflicts with other countries or seek victory in foreign wars to some extent, To achieve the domestic political goals of weakening domestic political contradictions, strengthening their domestic status and seeking domestic political unity.

Under such circumstances, foreign contradictions are only the “scapegoats” for domestic contradictions.

Machiavelli once praised this strategy.

In history, many wars have such reasons to varying degrees, and the military action of Argentina to seize the Malvinas Islands controlled by Britain in 1982 can be said to be almost entirely out of domestic political considerations: in the face of domestic economic crisis and people’s dissatisfaction with the autocracy of the ruling galtieri military regime, The Argentine authorities tried to win the support of the people by occupying the Falklands, which Argentines have always regarded as their own territory.

Obviously, not any domestic crisis will lead to foreign war.

Then, under what conditions are internal conflicts more likely to trigger “pass on” foreign aggression? Many studies are aimed at this.

For example, Leo Hazelwood analyzed the relationship between the intensity of domestic struggle and foreign conflict.

He assumed that low-intensity domestic conflict would not induce foreign war, because it was not worth taking war risks for it.

The existence of high-intensity internal conflicts makes it very difficult to win foreign wars, so it will not increase the possibility of transferring contradictions to foreign countries.

Therefore, moderate intensity internal conflicts are most likely to lead to external provocations.

However, quantitative studies have not confirmed this.


Mayer pointed out that the struggle between the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie, both belonging to the “elite” level, was a reason for the wars between many European countries in the 19th century.

The aristocracy needed the bourgeoisie economically, so it was difficult to suppress it, so it had to use foreign war to strengthen its domestic status.

On the other hand, in the face of confrontation with the domestic general public, the aristocracy suppressed more.

This view has its rationality, but it seems powerless to examine today’s far diversified society. Kurt. Dassel combined the “transfer” theory of foreign war with the theory of military organizational interests.

His conclusion is that when the political system is challenged, the military is willing to use force to protect and promote its interests.

When the domestic political division makes the use of force at home inevitably lead to collapse, the military has a strong tendency to use force abroad.

In short, more detailed research is still needed to answer how internal conflicts are transferred to international conflicts.

Jack levy made a comprehensive analysis of the “scapegoat” or “diversion” theory of warCan risk war.

From the perspective of structural realism, the leading power will inevitably encounter the pursuit of other countries.

The reason is that the insecurity of powerful countries under anarchy will make relevant countries try to check and balance more powerful countries by strengthening their own strength, and they can learn from their opponents the technologies, systems and experience to stimulate the growth of national strength.

For the replacement process of hegemony, Robert.

Gilpin’s more detailed and influential explanation is: due to the role of the law of diminishing returns, the increasing trend of military technology costs, the trend of private and public consumption growing faster than GDP, corruption caused by structural transformation of economic nature and prosperity, and the increasing cost of overseas political rule, The economic growth rate of hegemonic countries is slower than that of some other countries.

Therefore, the balance of power between the “declining” hegemonic countries and the “emerging” countries will gradually change, resulting in a new situation of power distribution.

Because the expected benefits are greater than the expected costs, emerging countries will seek to change the international system and carry out political, economic and territorial expansion, so as to challenge the original hegemonic countries and may lead to hegemonic war and hegemonic change.

Gilpin further believes that “looking at history, the main means to solve the imbalance between the international system structure and the distribution of power is war, especially the so-called hegemonic war”, “every international system known in the world is the product of the realignment of territorial economy and foreign relations after this hegemonic war”.

To a large extent, Gilpin’s theoretical explanation of the reasons for the change of hegemonic situation draws lessons from Lenin’s discussion on the law of unbalanced development of imperialist countries.

However, Marxism Leninists emphasize hegemonic war as a specific phenomenon in the capitalist era.

Can the international system achieve peaceful change? Neo liberalism hopes on economic interdependence, democratization, international mechanisms, cross-border multi-level exchanges and cooperation on common human problems.

The inhibition of nuclear deterrence on the war of great powers is also often mentioned.

Gilpin also evaluated the significance of these factors, but did not give a clear answer. VIII. Strategic advantage theory an important factor affecting the relationship between strength comparison and war is the utility relationship between attack and defense.

In other words, which side has an advantage between attack and defense? What are the advantages? Robert.

“When we say that attack has an advantage, we mean, in short, that it is easier to destroy the other’s army and seize its territory than to defend our own side.

When defense has an advantage, it is easier to protect and master what we have than to take it further,” Jervis wrote Through the convenience of attack (especially sudden attack), the relationship between attack and defense also affects a country’s enthusiasm for war.

In many periods or situations, the two are relatively balanced, and neither side is more effective than the other.

However, in other periods or situations, this situation will change.

For example, centuries ago, the invention and improvement of the taigun increased the difficulty of guarding a castle by increasing the power of attack.

The emergence of the air force with large-scale bombing capability makes the defense force likely to be destroyed by lightning air attack in an instant.

It is more difficult to capture a stronghold on a dangerous mountain than to capture a position on a plain.

Therefore, there are not only technical factors, but also geographical or other natural factors that affect the utility relationship between attack and defense.

They affect the choice between war and peace by changing the benefits and costs of attack and defense.

Obviously, if attack is more efficient than defense and other factors are not considered, a country should have more tendency to attack first.

Otherwise, No.

Undoubtedly, the theory of Blitzkrieg is related to the change of the relationship between attack and defense by the air force and tank cluster used as an independent strategic force, and the complex terrain of the relevant areas has largely caused the difficulty of NATO in launching ground attack in the Kosovo crisis.

If both opposing sides believe that the attack has a great advantage over the defense, the war is more likely to happen, because this relationship directly makes either party quite likely to be tempted to launch the attack first, which in turn may lead to a complex unstable situation in which either party may attempt to strike first.

The occurrence of World War I was inseparable from the worship of attack at that time.

The relationship between defense and attack is related to strategic stability.

“Strategic stability” here refers to whether there is a strategic situation between two hostile countries that may induce a country to launch an attack first in order to defeat its opponent or gain strategic dominance at one stroke? If the military strength of country a is in a position that is easy to be effectively destroyed by the pre emptive attack of country B, it will naturally increase the willingness of country B to launch a sudden attack.

More importantly, this in turn may force country a to start first, which makes the issue of strategic stability a concern.

If both sides of the confrontation are in a fragile position, no one can bear the attack launched by the other side, especially the sudden attack, the situation will become worse and more dangerous and uncertain.

Thomas, who made pioneering theoretical contributions in strategic research.

Schelling gives the following examples: “If I come downstairs at night with a gun in my hand and see why there is a sound, but I find myself in direct contact with a thief who also holds a gun, there is a danger of some consequence that neither of us wants.

Even if he is willing to go straight away, and I want him to do so, there is still a possibility that he may think I want to shoot, so first Danger of fire.

To make matters worse, there was a danger that he might think I thought he was going to shoot.

Or maybe he thinks I think he thinks I’m going to shoot, wait.

The meaning of self-defense is vague when someone is just trying not to be shot in self-defense.

” Therefore, the huge defects in strategic stability may lead to international war in a way that is not transferred by human will.

Even a small-scale exchange of fire between small groups of troops in contact may quickly develop into a real military confrontation, because such situations will make each party more worried that the other party will give a fatal blow first.

The factors affecting strategic stability include the relationship between defense and attack, as well as a country’s military arrangement and so on.

The situation of strategic stability shows that war does not always happen because of the belligerent party, vertical, centralized, heterogeneous, led and regulated.

The international sphere is anarchic, horizontal, decentralized, homogeneous, unguided and mutually adaptable.

” Many scholars have expressed different views on the above views of structural realism on the relationship between anarchy and international security.

For example, while pointing out the ambiguity of the concept of “anarchy”, Helen.

Milner believes that in some countries, authority is not centralized.

The degree of decentralization of the international system also needs to be examined in detail.

Some areas may have more order than others.

In different periods, the degree of centralization or non centralization of the international system is also different.

It is not equal in the distribution of power in a certain country or in several countries.

In this way, there must be a contradiction between the two structural factors of anarchy and power distribution.

In domestic society, violence does not always serve the promotion of justice, and in the international community, the use of violence is not always unjust.

Relations between and within countries are political and are based on similar political processes.

Although anarchy is an important basic state of international politics, it is not the only one.

Strategic interdependence is at least an essential feature of international politics in the same sense.

Many discussions on morality, international law, international organizations, economic interdependence, democracy and peace, the political impact of nuclear weapons, domestic political and technological changes and other factors also refer to their restrictive role in the state of international war caused by anarchy.

Many others point out that in an anarchic world, a country is not bound to check and balance just because of the strength of other countries, as realists imagine.

Whether it takes checks and balances depends on the judgment of whether the other party has threatening intention.

In other words, “balance of threat” rather than “balance of power” prevails.

In this regard, the common retort of realists is that even if a country does not think that a power has a threat intention now, its vigilance against security threats in the state of international anarchy will make it prepare for the other party to become threatening in the future.

There are also theoretical differences within structural realism about how far countries will go in pursuit of their own security and the corresponding degree of international conflict, which can be divided into “defensive realism” and “off defensive realism”.

Defense realists believe that the goal of countries in the anarchic international system is to maximize national security.

Therefore, they will pursue power in moderation, limited to the satisfactory guarantee of survival, because the excessive expansion of power will lead to the checks and balances of other countries, which will make themselves more insecure.

Offensive realists believe that many uncertainties in the anarchic international security environment make countries unable to maximize their power in order to achieve full security, at least they have such a desire, and the maximization of security means the maximization of power.

But Randall.

Schweiler believes that there is a “status quobias” in structural realism based on the assumption that the State takes security as the fundamental goal under Anarchy.

He asked, since all countries regard their own security as their greatest value, that is to say, they all want to maintain the status quo, then why are there wars and security dilemmas in the world? The theoretical significance of structural realism is to make people pay full attention to the role of international structural factors such as international anarchy on international relations.

However, any foreign policy in reality is inevitably the result of the joint action of structural and unit factors, which must be paid attention to when using the theory of structural realism to explain reality.

Waltz listed three elements as components of the international political structure.

The first is the principle of arrangement, the second is the function of units, and the third is the power distribution between units.

He believes that anarchy is the arrangement principle of international politics, but it is difficult to change.

Countries as “units” have no functional differences, but the distribution of power among countries can change.

Therefore, in reality, the change of international structure stems from the change of power distribution among countries.

Waltz uses the number of “poles” to illustrate the distribution of power among countries.

He believes that the bipolar structure is more conducive to peace, while the multipolar structure breeds more risks of conflict.

Its main arguments are: “In the power politics of the multipolar world, it is uncertain who is in danger and who can be expected to deal with threats and problems.

In the power politics of the bipolar world, the danger of who is who is always clear.

This is the first major difference between the power politics of the two systems.

in the competition between the two countries, what one side seems to lose is What the other party gets.

Because of this, the great powers in the bipolar world will respond quickly to disturbing events.

” Moreover, since other countries are much weaker, as a bipolar power, it is impossible to expect other countries to take any important actions for themselves.

Therefore, there will be a relatively stable balance between the two poles.

“In the bipolar world, the degree of military interdependence is even faster than the degree of economic interdependence.

Russia and the United States rely mainly on themselves militarily.

They balance each other through ‘internal’ rather than ‘external’, and they rely on themselves rather than the strength of their allies.

Internal balance is more reliable and accurate than external balance.

Countries are judging their relative interests Power may make fewer mistakes than they do in judging the strength and reliability of hostile alliances.

” In the bipolar structure, the uncertainty of alliance politics is greatly reduced.

“In a bipolar and multipolar world, the alliance leader may try to obtain the greatest support from his allies.

These support is useful even in a bipolar world, although they are not indispensable.

That is why the policies and Strategies of the alliance leader are ultimately formulated according to their own considerations and interests.

The two superpowers and their respective The great inequality among the Allies makes any division and reorganization of the latter largely insignificant.

” “The power of the bipolar system provides the standard for correction.

in a world where two countries are more hostile than any other country, but the two countries are combined, the motivation of conscious response is the clearest, and the sanctions for irresponsible acts are the strongest The passage of time makes it easier for the main competitors to coexist peacefully and adapt to each other.

They know how to explain each other’s actions and how to adapt or resist them.

” “It is difficult to bargain between more than two members,.

In the case of more than two members, each party is also worried about how its strength will be affected by the possible alliance between him and others.

In addition, if two of several members reach an agreement, they must wonder whether the actions of the other members will undermine or repeal the agreement.

” The two major members of the bipolar world can reach an agreement more easily without giving more consideration to the possible options of other countries, and they may be more active in resolving their differences.

As a bipolar power, it has great advantages in economy, technology and military capability, which makes the threshold of joining the superpower club very high, so that the bipolar structure is much more difficult to change than the multipolar structure.

Waltz did not first discuss the problem of bipolar and multipole, but his view that the bipolar structure is more stable than multipole structure is the most classic and has been supplemented by many.

However, different voices can be seen everywhere.

For example, Carl.

Deutsch and David Singh believe that a multipolar world is less prone to war than a bipolar world, because in a multipolar world, a country’s attention is distracted from multiple countries, so it is more unlikely to have the concentration of hostile forces enough to trigger war.

A more cautious view is that no distribution of power is less or more dangerous than war.

Even if certain structures provide more opportunities for war, they do not necessarily translate into war.

Evira believes that on the whole, there is no gap between the impact of bipolar and multipolar structures on war and peace.

In a multipolar structure, there are several factors that can promote peace.

First, in the bipolar structure, the power of a major power with aggressive intentions is roughly equal to that of other countries that want to check and balance it, which means that aggression cannot be restrained by overwhelming defensive forces.

In a multipolar structure, the strength of a defensive alliance against an aggressor may greatly exceed the former, which is common.

Second, in the bipolar structure, no ally can rely on, which may prompt a big country to adopt competitive or aggressive policies, leading to crisis or war.

In the multipolar structure, other countries can rely on as allies, which can prevent the countries concerned from resorting to such policies.

Third, in a multipolar structure, a country can also place its own security hopes on alliances with other countries.

In the bipolar structure, the Major Powers concerned can only rely mainly on their own military strength to restrict their opponents, which may raise the status of the military and make them more likely to spread the “myth” of militarism, thus increasing the tendency of war. X. foreign policy-making theory, choosing war or peace is a decision-making behavior.

Therefore, the occurrence of war is not only affected by some macro factors mentioned above, but also by the characteristics of the decision-making process with these factors as the background.

It goes without saying that the cognition and quality of decision-makers are inevitably related to the occurrence of inter state conflicts.

In 1993, American scholar Richard Snyder first put forward a more complete theory of foreign policy-making.


Allison’s “three models” are the most classic theoretical results of decision-making.

Alison summarized the decision-making process into three models: rational model, organizational process model and bureaucratic model.

Rational model means that the decision-maker has a clear goal, sufficient information and complete wisdom.

He can list all possible options one by one and consider them carefully, and finally select the best scheme with the greatest benefit and the least cost.

This model actually represents a traditional and universal view of national decision-making.

Alison believes that although national decision-making has the characteristics of rationality, it is by no means as perfect, and it is also affected by the organizational process and bureaucratic politics.

According to the organizational process model, each organization has its own established rules, procedures and habits, also known as “standard operation procedure”.

The decision of the participants in the decision-making process is not the result of individual free and rational choice, but based on some rigid and formulaic standard behavior procedures.

The so-called “bureaucratic politics” model holds that policy is the product of competition between government leaders and department heads who participate in decision-making and represent different group interests and value orientations.

Alison’s three mode theory shows that foreign policy has never been based on the perfect estimation of the cost relations of various benefits.

The process of organization and bureaucracy will impose restrictions on the rationality of decision-making.

Therefore, international war may be the product of “bad” decisions derived from organizational process factors or bureaucratic factors.

For example, Jack levy discussed in more detail the relationship between organizational practices and the occurrence of World War I.

V Kurt Sagan also demonstrated from this point of view that the viability of the nuclear forces of nuclear states is by no means a problem, as structural realists believe.

As for the performance of the bureaucratic political model, it can not be said that the outbreak of any international war means that the leaders or departments of the main war in the relevant countries have won the decision-making competition.

It can be understood that the results of decision-making can not be separated from the characteristics of decision-makers.

Compared with ordinary people, the personal factors of decision-makers will affect the war and peace between countries to a greater extent, because they are directly related to what decisions decision-makers will make.

Although decision makers do not live in a vacuum, they are affected by many factors other than themselves, including various pressures or interest requirements, their personal temperament preference, experience, knowledge, ideal and even physical health still play a substantive role in the process of policy-making.

Clearly, the history of international relations offers too much to speculate about the relationship between the personal factors of decision makers and war or peace.

If Chamberlain had been in charge of the British cabinet in the 1930s, to what extent would Britain implement the policy of tenderness towards Germany? If there were no Hitler, there would be another possibility for Germany to start a war.