War termination is the cessation of any conflict with a minimum of one thousand battlefield casualties per year. Disagreements exist within the literature on war termination over how to identify when a conflict has been terminated as well as the causes of war termination. Various theories of war termination focus on different means of war termination, which range from cease-fires to comprehensive peace settlements.
Theories of war termination seldom conceptualize or explain war termination as the obverse of war initiation for three reasons. First, in contrast to decisions to initiate or join wars, war termination is seldom brought about through unilateral action. Wars are only terminated through unilateral action when one of the participants eliminates the other participant or coalition on the battlefield. In many cases, both sides must cooperate to bring a war to an end. Second, as Fred Charles Iklé argues in Every War Must End (2005), the parties seldom consider the cessation of hostilities when contemplating the initiation or actually initiating hostilities. Third, war initiation and war termination do not necessarily share the same causes. Wars may bring about the emergence of new conflicts of interests. After a war has begun it is possible for it to widen or to incorporate issues in addition to those that sparked conflict in the first place. It is also possible that the issues over which the war was initially fought may not necessarily be resolved by the time the conflict is terminated.
Theories of war termination differ over how to identify whether a conflict has been ended. Some theories of war termination conceive of the cessation of hostilities as a discrete event that occurs at a specific time. Other theories of war termination conceptualize the termination of a conflict as a process that includes a series of events that occur over a given time rather than a single event.
Although the levels-of-analysis problem informs disagreements over the causes of war termination, because wars cannot be unilaterally terminated, both first-image and second-image theories of war termination take the form of two-level games. First-image theories emphasize the centrality of individual leaders’ personalities and idiosyncrasies, but examine the interaction between leaders’ personalities and constraints imposed by the international system. Similarly, second-image theories argue that interactions between second-image and third-image variables are responsible for states’ decisions to prolong or terminate. By contrast, neorealist theories argue that the continuation or termination of wars is due to uncertainty surrounding competitors’ capabilities and present (as well as future) intentions, as well as the size of participants’ war aims. When the participants in a war possess expansive rather than limited war aims, neorealists argue that wars are more likely to be prolonged because the sides will perceive one another as implacably aggressive. When participants possess limited objectives, absent escalation or war widening, it is likely that the war will be terminated when either side attains its objectives. Participants’ possession of limited objectives also makes it possible for both sides to negotiate a settlement rather than prolong the conflict because reaching a bargain over a particular issue is not as injurious as acceding to the demands of an ambitious or imperialistic state.
Theories deriving their content from rational choice approaches do not serve as an addition to the three different types of theories discussed above. Instead, rationalist explanations for war termination have utilized both second-image and third-image variables. For example, H. E. Goemans (2000) accounts for war termination through the creation of a theory that fuses rational choice and regime type, while other rationalist explanations for war termination combine theories of bargaining with neorealist emphases on power shifts.
War termination may come about as the result of the destruction of one of the side’s forces, a cease-fire, or a comprehensive peace settlement. Cease-fires are agreements to stop fighting but do not necessarily involve resolving the conflict(s) responsible for compelling states to fight, while comprehensive peace settlements attempt to resolve the underlying conflicts responsible for war.
Bibliography:
- Fortna,Virginia Page. “Scraps of Paper? Agreements and the Durability of Peace.” International Organization 57, no. 2 (2003): 337–372.
- Goemans, H. E. War and Punishment: The Causes of War Termination and the First World War. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2000.
- Gross Stein, Janice. “The Termination of the October War—A Reappraisal.” In Termination of Wars, edited by Nissan Oren, 226–227. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1982.
- Handel, Michael I. “War Termination—A Critical Survey.” In Termination of Wars, edited by Nissan Oren, 40–71. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1982.
- Iklé, Fred Charles. Every War Must End. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005.
This example War Termination Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.
See also:
- How to Write a Political Science Essay
- Political Science Essay Topics
- Political Science Essay Examples