![]() Clearly the state of the research on conflict causes is inconclusive. ![]() Remarkably there are theories that say that an existing monopoly of power and internal cohesion are supportive for peace, and theories that say the opposite. Of the existence of a monopoly of power, and of the connection between internal cohesion and external aggression. Of specific forms of political organisation (democracy, authoritarian regimes, transitional regimes) Of the state as such and the ideology of nationalism Of relative deprivation (difference between expected and real access to well-being and power) Of power imbalances (a concept known since Roman domination) Only recently have the causes for internal conflict come into consideration. (2)īefore the early 1990s most scholars concentrated on international war. ![]() Social/cultural theories (ethnicity and/or religion as conflict causes), and cognitive (attitudes) explanations. Genetic and evolutionary/biologist theories (aggression as a genetic function, maximisation of survival chances) īehaviourist theories (war as learned behaviour) Ĭost-benefit theories (maximisation of benefit) There are different categories of explanations : What makes war probable, however, is a far more complicated question." (1) War is possible as soon as weapons are available with which to fight it and as long as there is a dispute between two or more parties. It is obvious that there are “very few necessary conditions” which need to be fulfilled in order for a war to develop, and “very many sufficient conditions, of which only a few of these may apply, in any single conflict. However, It is very likely that there is one consensus: that conflict cannot be reduced to a single cause, or a single explanation. The research on causes of armed conflict so far has not produced a consistent theory acceptable to most scholars working in the field.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |