Abstract
This selection outlines four critical changes in the purposes and uses of armed force that we have seen over the last half-century. These “revolutions” include the dramatic decline in the incidence of inter-state war, the de-legitimization of conquest, the new norm requiring international community approval of the use of force, and changes in the purposes and tasks of military forces.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
This text was first published as: “The Use of Force in International Relations: Four Revolutions,” ch. 2, in Wahegur Pal Singh Sidhu and Ramesh Thakur, eds., Arms Control after Iraq. Tokyo, New York, Paris; United Nations University Press, 2006, pp. 23–39. Copyright 2006 by the United Nations University. Reproduced with the permission of the United Nations University.
- 2.
See K. J. Holsti, The State, War, and the State of War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 22 and Appendix, updated in K. J. Holsti, Taming the Sovereigns:Institutional Change in International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p. 310. Meredith Reid Sarkees, Frank Whelan Wayman and J. David Singer, “Inter-State, Intra-State, and Extra-State Wars: A Comprehensive Look at their Distribution over Time, 1816–1997”, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 47, No. 1 (2003), pp. 49–70. For more recent data using different categories and cut-off points for counting (25 battle casualties annually instead of the more conventional 1 000+), see Andrew Mack, ed. Human Security Report 2005: War and Peace in the 21st Century, Centre for Human Security, the Liu Institute for the Study of Global Issues, University of British Columbia (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).
- 3.
The list is not exhaustive. It does not include attacks to claim or re-claim small pieces of territory, reprisals, and the like. However, most cases involving formal occupation of conquered territory are included.
- 4.
For systematic data on the declining use of force for effecting territorial change, see Mark W. Zacher, “The Territorial Integrity Norm: International Boundaries and the Use of Force”, International Organization, Vol. 55, No. 2 (2001), pp. 215–250.
- 5.
As David Cortright makes clear in “The World Says No: The Global Movement against War in Iraq”, in Ramesh Thakur and Waheguru Pal Singh Sidhu, eds., The Iraq Crisis and World Order: Structural, Institutional and Normative Challenges (Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 2006).
- 6.
Michael Howard, “Temperamenta Belli: Can War be Controlled?”, in Michael Howard, ed., Restraints on War: Studies in the Limitation of Armed Conflict (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979), p. 3.
- 7.
David Capie, “Armed Groups, Weapons Availability and Misuse: An Overview of the Issues and Options for Action”, Armed Groups Project, Centre for International Relations, University of British Columbia, 2004, unpublished.
- 8.
See Peter Andreas and Richard Price, “From War Fighting to Crime Fighting. Transforming the American National Security State”, International Studies Review, Vol. 3 (Autumn 2001), pp. 31–52; Richard Price, “Hegemony and Multilateralism”, International Journal (Winter 2004–2005), pp. 109–130.
- 9.
See Adam Watson, “The United Nations and Humanitarian Intervention”, in Jennifer Welsh, ed., Humanitarian Intervention and International Relations (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 71.
- 10.
Brian Job, “The United Nations, Regional Organizations, and Regional Conflict: Is There a Viable Role for the UN?”, in Ramesh Thakur and Edward Newman, eds, New Millennium, New Perspectives: The United Nations, Security, and Governance (Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 2000), p. 230. At the end of 2004, the figure stood at 60,000.
- 11.
Ibid., p. 233, based on data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
- 12.
The position is clearly specified in the report (sponsored by the United Nations and organized by the Canadian government) by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, The Responsibility to Protect (Ottawa: International Development Research Centre, 2001). The policy prescription of the “responsibility to protect” was accepted officially in modified form at the United Nations World Summit in 2005.
- 13.
The National Security Adviser [sic], Memorandum to the President, “Impact of the 2002 National Security Strategy on Reshaping America’s Military”, 2002, available at (www.ciaonet.org/wps/kol02/kol02_addendum.pdf).
- 14.
I am grateful to Damon Colette for suggesting some of these points.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Holsti, K. (2016). The Use of Force in International Politics: Four Revolutions. In: Kalevi Holsti: Major Texts on War, the State, Peace, and International Order. SpringerBriefs on Pioneers in Science and Practice(), vol 42. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28818-5_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28818-5_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-28816-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-28818-5
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)