1
Why is war so central to the academic study of International Politics?
Francisco Ruiz Sánchez
Msc International Relations 2014
The University of Glasgow
______________________________________
Introduction
In order to answer a question with such broad significance, we would first
pay special attention to the concept of war. How do we understand war? How
can we measure it? A priori, an intuitive definition makes me think about
power and conflict within a system. And how do we operate with these
concepts? If we start from the premise that war is fundamental to the study of
International Politics, the way we study power and conflict within the system
should determine such centrality. Therefore, the aim of this essay will be to
reflect upon the centrality of war on the basis of these terms, taking the
modern state as a unit of analysis.
The human being, as a social animal has always been in the middle of a
behaviorist crossroad. Cooperation and conflict have always been the two
main options humans have had when socializing with other individuals. In the
V century B.C., Thucydides had already studied conflict among individuals in
its most extended and destructive form writing about the Peloponnesian war
between Sparta and Athens. In the modern age, from Thomas Hobbes to Hans

2
Morgenthau, we can see that war and its causes have been and continue to be
one of the most important issues for the social sciences academia (Baldwin:
1979, p. 161). But, why war? Destruction, violence or competition seem to
captivate the human being the same way fire does. Fire is the singularity of a
chemical reaction that is only produced under certain exceptional conditions in
nature. It needs fuel, a means to propagate and detonating. Fire has certain
similarities with war. It is exceptional1
, but because of its magnitude and
power to transform the environment, its capacity attract the humans being’s
attention is practically inevitable and even more so today, with the dramatic
increase of the destructive ability of weapons.
From a less philosophical perspective, what interests International Politics
is the analysis of the power that shapes the system and the conflict that leads
to lack of cooperation, and finally, to war. Power is inevitably the force that
molds our social word. In relation to the states, power has been traditionally
interpreted from a structural perspective, focused on material quantification
and ultimately centered upon military capacity (Baldwin: 2002, p. 177).
Conflict on the other hand, has been generally accepted as something
inseparable from the human ethos since Hobbes came up with the State of
Nature in order to define violence and anarchy in society. If we understand
International Politics focuses mainly on power relations and conflict among
states, we should then plunge into the general understanding academics have
about these concepts that takes us to study war as the latest expression of both.
Thus, this essay is structured in three straightforward parts. The first part
deals with power in International Politics, emphasizing its structural version
which unites it with the centrality of military power in the relations among

3
states. Then, in part two I will focus on the relation of conflict and anarchy in
the system, which will take us to the conclusion of my reflection on why war
is central to the academic study of International Politics.
Power in International Politics: Military power and the traditional
structural view
Studying power as a relationship between two subjects is something
relatively new (Baldwin: 1979, p.162). Harold Laswell and Abraham Kaplan
in 1950, and after them Robert Dahl in 1957, lay the groundwork for the
modern study of power as causal relations based on cultural context2
(Baldwin:
1979, p.161). However, until then power between states had been studied
primarily under material terms from a pure structural perspective (Baldwin:
2002, p. 177).
In the XVI century, in his work “The Prince”, Machiavelli was the first to
relate the power of the governor to his capacity to accumulate military power
more than any other (Machiavelli: [1513] 2005ed). The quantification of
power has given a central importance to the military capacity of the states, to
such extent that some academics have equated power to “the study of the
capacity to wage war” (Cline: [1975] 1997). This idea of war as the definitive
form of power, David Baldwin tells us, is extended in the study of
international politics (Baldwin: 1979, p.184).
There are also some authors that see the use of military power as something
inevitably complementary to International Politics. Robert Art, for instance,
introduces us to the concept of “power actives”, focusing his analysis on
military power, economic power and political power (Art: 2011, pp. 196-198).

4
Regarding military power, he reflects specifically upon its gravitational effect
which, according to him, gives it the feature of influencing the political
calculations of the actors within the international realm (Art: 2011, pp. 196-
198). The size and quality of an army is what we usually use to measure the
military power of a state. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to think that an
accurate way to measure its utility as the domain of its extension could be to
look at its influence in other areas of power, such as politics or economy. It is
this ability to influence other areas of power, Art tells us, that turns it into a
very versatile and “fungible” power (Art: 2011, pp. 198). When Art talks
about the fungibility of force, he is pointing to the notable level of influence it
has in other realms of power. Thus, he gives us the example as the use of force
to create economic wealth: during the cold war the United States granted the
expansion of their liberal economy thanks to their military influence (Art:
2011, p. 206).
Reflecting upon this idea of the superior influence of military power on
others, we might wonder what makes military power something so important
in the international realm to the point that it influences the political and
economic power of other states. We can argue too, that while political and
economic power are based on ideas and concepts such as the variable value of
money or the legal validity of treaties, military power is founded on physical
things that do not change their function or their aim with time. In other words,
military power is completely tangible3
. Let’s look at the example of the Soviet
Union. The collapse of the communist block in the early 90’s of the past
century put Russia aside the first line of International Politics. Its economic
power was drained and its political leadership was under deep transformation.

5
Nevertheless, it is reasonable to think that its military power, based on nuclear
weapons, was threatening enough to allow them to stay in such an important
institution as the Security Council of the United Nations.
Ergo, we understand then that the military power of a state is
interconnected with all off the others, its main function in International
Politics war or deterrence. This way of thinking has prevailed in the minds of
International Politics’ students since Machiavelli to Hans Morgenthau4
and
has, therefore, given a very notable emphasis to the study of the military
power upon others. The key to understanding this mental setting is to think
about war thought as a natural outcome of the game of power among states.
Reflection of war as a conflict within an anarchic system
We have just seen how the structural vision of power has given a
traditionally privileged position to the study of military power in International
Politics. War, as an outcome of confrontation among these powers, arises from
the conflict within a system without an apparent central authority. In other
words, the states deal with each other and compete for their interests in an
anarchical system.
Until the constructivist revolution of the 90’s, this anarchical quality of the
international system had been thought by the great majority of International
Relations theorists as something inevitable (Wendt: 1999). Since discipline
was born, the most eminent classical theories of International Relations have
considered anarchy as the defining principle of the environment where
International Politics take place. Some theories such as, realism or neorealism,
see it as something that cannot be mitigated nor overcome in any way, since

6
they believe mainly in the principle of survival of the states (on the basis of
self-help), the balance of power or the maximization of power (In that order:
Morgenthau: 1954; Waltz: 1979; Mearsheimer: 2001). On the other hand, we
have the theories that see anarchy as something that states can mitigate.
Although they admit that it is the organizational principle, liberals and
neoliberals argue that through interdependence in one case and norms and
laws in the other, anarchy can be controlled and moderated (Kehoane & Nye:
2001). Nevertheless, regardless of whether or not anarchy can be mitigated, all
of them see anarchy as something that is in the system, inherent to it.
Then, if the theories that study some of the main aspects of International
Politics start with the paradigm of anarchy, it is reasonable to think that war is
a phenomenon which underlies the whole international system. From a more
dramatic standpoint, we could even believe that everything that happens in the
international realm is what takes place between situations of conflict. This idea
of the possibility of conflict is fundamental and in all theories remains central,
in terms of cooperation and survival of the states.
The conflicts that take place within a state can be settled by justice, because
in the states we have a fully functional hierarchy. However, among states,
when they collide there is no police nor justice system to go to, that is why
conflict means war in the majority of the cases5
. Therefore, with this
statement, we reach the second pillar of the trend of thought that has
dominated international politics throughout the last century; and since war is
something embedded in the system, its causes, extent and meaning are fields
of study that the social scientist takes as his own, making the realm of study
and investigation of war something that is constantly growing.

7
Conclusion
Why war is something so central for the academic study of International
Politics is a question that can encompass an endless sort of valid and
imaginative answers. When facing a question with so many different
interpretations, one should first set the limits of his own understanding. In this
case, here I have explained the importance of war emphasizing how we think it
in the academia of International Politics.
In this essay I have tried to answer the question by focusing on the
epistemological assumptions that International Politics’ students generally
have when they think of war. The way we have traditionally measured power
among states and our vision of the nature of conflict has brought us to this
conclusion: war is central to the study of International Politics because of the
traditional focus on the structural vision of power and the understanding of
conflict as inherent of an anarchical international system. Thus, the key
interest of military power and the concept of anarchy within the system is
what has generally led the academia to study war in International Politics as
something central and, somehow, as a natural outcome in the international
system.
NOTES
1: However, we can argue about this exceptionality, for everything depends on the view one has about
human nature. We could see peace as an exception to war, or war as an exception to peace. The reader
may judge.

8
2: In the 90’s Alexander Wendt, following the constructivist method, popularizes the study of relational
power in International Politics (Wendt: 1999)
3: With tangible I mean that the power of an army has a relative value and a net value. Relative value is
related to terms of comparison with the rest of the armies of the states. Net value refers to the destructive
potential which is inherent to the material qualities of that army.
4: Morgenthau in particular pays great attention to the material and industrial capabilities of the powerful
states to win war (Morgenthau: 1954, p. 109) Morgenthau, as Art or Machiavelli, also thinks of power in
structural terms.
5: O’Driscoll, Cian. Lecture International Security, October 2013. “Clausewitz” The University of
Glasgow

9
Bibliography
-Art, Robert J. (2011c), ‘The political utility of force today’. In Robert J. Art,
and Robert Jervis (eds) International Politics: Enduring Concepts and
Contemporary Issues (New York, NY; London: Longman), 196-213.
-Baldwin, Robert A. (1979). ‘Power Analysis and World Politics: New Trends
versus Old Tendencies’, Word Politics, Vol. 31, No. 2, January, 161-194.
-Baldwin, Robert A. (2002), ‘Power in International Relations’. In Walter
Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse and Beth A. Simmons (eds) Handbook of
International Relations (London: SAGE publications ltd.), 177-92.
-Cline, Ray S. (1997c) ‘World Power Assessment 1997: A Calculus of
Strategic Drift’, Foreign Affairs, 1 Apr. As Cited in: Baldwin, Robert A.
(2002), ‘Power in International Relations’. In Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse
and Beth A. Simmons (eds) Handbook of International Relations (London:
SAGE publications ltd.), p. 184.
-Kehoane, Raobert O. & Nye, Joseph S. (2001c). Power and Interdependence
(New York, NY; London: Longman)
-Machiavelli, Niccolo ([1513] 2005ed). The Prince: Translated by Peter
Bondanella; introduced by Maurizio Viroli (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
-Mearsheimer, John J. (2001) The tragedy of Great Powers politics (New
York, NY; London: Norton)
-Morgenthau, Hans (1954c). Politics among Nations: The struggle for Power
and Peace (New York, NY: Knopf)

10
-Waltz, Kenneth (1979). Theory of International Politics (Boston, Mass.;
London: McGraw Hill)
-Wendt, Alexander (1999). Social Theory of International Politics
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)