The year 2012 marks the 67th year since which time the world has not seen any direct military confrontation between superpowers. When World War II ended in 1945 the “Cold War” came about and was fought out by the USA and Soviet Union with mediate means. Even the end of the US-Soviet conflict preceded peacefully – a historical unusual demise for a struggling super power. Furthermore, there has been no war among the USA and the aspirants of super power including China, Japan, Russia and the European Union ever since. This discovery is named the long peace, also known as the great powers peace.
However, it is hard to say whether a sixty four year long absence of direct military confrontations between great powers is already a significant indicator for a qualitative shift in international politics, or whether it is nothing but a historical and contemporary randomness. Could the long peace cease anytime resulting in an apocalyptic world war, or are we indeed justified to conclude a positive change in the relations among great powers compared with earlier times? More importantly even, are we right in calling this period a long peace, and if so, up to what degree?
In this paper I want to undertake three things in turn. First I want to show due to what particularities inherent in the long peace we may conclude a significant change in great powers’ relations. Next I will seek to grade the long peace in its nature and stability. And lastly, I shall turn to two theories in order to illustrate how the emergence of the long peace and its enduring appearance down to the present day has been made possible.
I chose this topic for two reasons: Firstly, peace-studies are one of the greatest focuses in the discipline of International Politics. Finding appropriate ways and means to maintain peace in the world has been the original inducement of erstwhile historians, jurists and political scientists to arouse a new branch of science nearly a century ago. The second and more important reason is that the phenomena long peace reveals a noteworthy gap in International Politics. Neither of both theories, as will be seen, is capable of fully illuminating the long peace on its own.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The Long Peace
2.1 Features of the Long Peace
3. Definitions
3.1 Definition of Power
3.2 Definition of Great Power
3.2.1 Offensive and Defensive Great Powers
3.2.2 Hegemony
3.3 Definition of Peace
3.4 Definition of Stable Peace
3.5 Definition and Types of War
4. Bipolarity and Nuclear Technology – The Realist Perspective
4.1 Bipolarity
4.2 Technology
4.3 Gaps in Explanation
5. Dysfunctionality and Regimes – The Institutionalist Perspective
5.1 Dysfunctionality of War
5.2 International Regimes
5.3 Gap in Explanation
6. Conclusion
Objectives and Research Themes
The paper examines the phenomenon of the "Long Peace" observed since 1945, investigating whether the absence of direct military conflict between superpowers indicates a qualitative shift in international relations or mere historical randomness. The primary objective is to evaluate the explanatory power of Realism and Institutionalism in accounting for this sustained period of peace.
- Analysis of the historical and qualitative characteristics of the Long Peace.
- Definitions and conceptual boundaries of power, peace, and war in the context of great power relations.
- Evaluation of Realist explanations, specifically bipolarity and nuclear deterrence technology.
- Assessment of Institutionalist arguments regarding the dysfunctionality of war and the stabilising role of international regimes.
Excerpt from the Book
3.1 Definition of Power
Using the word “great power” requires us to define “power” at first. In fact there is a serious political and philosophical debate on the core term “power”, conducted for instance by Arendt or Foucault. Focusing on the discipline of International Politics we find discrete determinations in each theory putting forth when to consider which actor as powerful. However in this paper I shall make room only for the definitions provided by realism and institutionalism, since we will have a look at the great power peace from their perspectives.
Realists argue that the disposal of physical power such as armed forces is the most important power resource in the international system. No doubt, military power requires other sources at earlier stages: A large territory makes the states less vulnerable against attacks; the progress in powerful weaponry asks technological knowledge and skills; and the production of these weapons necessitates financial and administrative capacities. Yet, de facto these elements contribute to power only to the extent they turn into military force. (Morgenthau, 1948: pp. 29-39)
From the institutionalist point of view, political power is multifaceted. Military forces and weaponry do not necessarily let itself convert into power, as will be seen in 5.1. Instead institutionalism separates power into overall power and issue-area power. While the former is meant to be military resources, the latter expresses various factors such as, among other things, status and position of a state, persuasiveness and problem specific solving skills. Thus it is absolutely possible for a military power to be weak when it comes to negotiate for, say, environmental protection. Similarly, a state weak in military forces could have power owing to crucial information and scientific knowledge about a specific area. (Waltz, 1983: pp. 5-9)
However, because the latter is difficult to measure when it comes to state entities and is further unsuitable for our issue of peace among great powers, I shall adopt the realist definition.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter introduces the "Long Peace" since 1945 and outlines the paper's intent to analyse this phenomenon through Realist and Institutionalist theories.
2. The Long Peace: It defines the Long Peace as the absence of direct military struggle between superpowers and highlights its unique duration compared to previous historical periods.
3. Definitions: This section establishes the necessary conceptual framework by defining power, great powers, peace, and war to clarify the scope of the study.
4. Bipolarity and Nuclear Technology – The Realist Perspective: This chapter examines the Realist explanation for the Long Peace, focusing on the structural impact of a bipolar system and the deterrent effect of nuclear technology.
5. Dysfunctionality and Regimes – The Institutionalist Perspective: This chapter explores the Institutionalist view, which argues that modern wars are dysfunctional and that international regimes have been essential for maintaining stability.
6. Conclusion: The concluding chapter synthesises the findings, suggesting that both theories are necessary to explain the emergence and persistence of the Long Peace.
Keywords
Long Peace, International Politics, Realism, Institutionalism, Bipolarity, Nuclear Deterrence, Great Powers, International Regimes, Cold War, Proxy Wars, Power Structures, Military Technology, Global Power Projection, Stability, Mutual Assured Destruction
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the central focus of this research paper?
The paper focuses on the "Long Peace"—the unprecedented period since 1945 marked by the absence of direct military confrontation between superpowers.
What are the primary thematic fields covered?
The work covers International Relations theory, specifically Realism and Institutionalism, applied to the analysis of superpower stability, nuclear deterrence, and international security regimes.
What is the core research question?
The research seeks to determine whether the Long Peace represents a fundamental shift in international relations or if it can be explained by specific theoretical variables, and to what extent those theories suffice.
Which scientific methods are employed in the study?
The author employs a theoretical analysis and conceptual evaluation, contrasting Realist and Institutionalist perspectives to explain historical phenomena in international politics.
What is the primary content of the main body?
The main body systematically defines the key concepts (power, war, peace), analyses the Realist structural and technological explanations, and explores the Institutionalist perspective on the dysfunctionality of war and international cooperation.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include Long Peace, Realism, Institutionalism, Bipolarity, Nuclear Deterrence, and International Regimes.
How does the author define a "Great Power" in this study?
The author adopts a realist definition, categorising great powers based on their defensive capability (second-strike capacity) and offensive capability (global power projection).
Why does the author argue that nuclear deterrence alone might not explain the stability of the Long Peace?
The author notes that nuclear deterrence does not account for the role of direct communication and diplomatic crisis management, which are better explained by Institutionalism's focus on international regimes.
- Quote paper
- Emre Yildiz (Author), 2012, The Long Peace. International Relations in the Cold War, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/232022
