War’s End? Realist, Liberal and Constructivist Perspectives on the Decline-of-War Thesis

Abstract

This paper was originally written for Dr. Aaron Hoffman’s POL 141 course International Relations. The assignment asked students to evaluate the “decline-of-war thesis” from the perspectives of realist, liberal and constructivist theories. The paper uses Chicago Author-Date citation style.

Within the field of International Relations, there is a lively debate over whether interstate war is on the decline. Many scholars, most notably Steven Pinker, claim that wars between states have decreased in number since the end of WWII. Others remain skeptical of this “decline-of-war thesis,” with some rejecting it altogether. Realism, liberalism and constructivism—three well-known theories in International Relations—serve as insightful frameworks with which to analyze such a debate. Hence, this paper evaluates the decline-of-war thesis using these paradigms. Utilizing quantitative and qualitative data from secondary sources, the author argues that realism rejects the aforementioned thesis on the grounds that war is an inherent part of the international system since states constantly seek to become all-powerful hegemons. While, contrary to the realist approach, constructivism and liberalism both subscribe to the above thesis, they do so for different reasons. For liberals, interstate war is waning because multilateral institutions (MIs) have led to the establishment of peace-enabling “security communities.” Constructivists, on the other hand, view the decline of war as stemming from a change in how nations and people perceive warfare. In this analysis, common criticisms levelled against each of the three theories, alongside responses by their proponents, are considered. The essay concludes with an examination of the work’s implications.