Cause or Constitution?

  • K. M. Fierke


War is a reflection of the human condition. A few centuries ago, a similar claim was made about slavery, which has since been formally abolished. Slavery was once understood to be a timeless enterprise. It is now a historical phenomenon, for which US President George W. Bush, during a visit to Africa in 2003, expressed regret. Forced enslavement is a prohibited act in the statutes of the new International Criminal Court.


Human Nature International Relation Realist Theory Liberal Theory Causal Generalization 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    John G. Stoessinger, Why Nations Go to War (Bedford: St Martin’s Press, 2001), p. 205. Neta Crawford provides the positive example of the League of the Iroquois who in precolonial North America prevented warfare between the indigenous nations for over 300 years. Neta C. Crawford, “Cooperation Among Iroquois Nations,” International Organization, 48, 3(1994).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    On the debate surrounding Democratic Peace Theory, see: Alan Gilbert, Must Global Politics Constrain Democracy?: Great-Power Realism, Democratic Peace and Democratic Internationalism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999); Michael E. Brown et al., eds, Debating the Democratic Peace (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996); James L. Ray, Democracy and International Conflict: An Evolution of the Democratic Peace Proposition (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1998); Tarak Barkawi and Mark Laffey, eds, Democracy, Liberalism and War: Rethinking the Democratic Peace Debates (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2001).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Adam Roberts and Richard Guelff, Documents on the Laws of War (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 3.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    Hobbes, Leviathan (New York: Penguin Books, [1651] 1980), part I, ch. 13.Google Scholar
  5. 8.
    The most famous realist theories of international relations, include the classic by Edward Hallett Carr, The Twenty YearsCrisis, 1919–1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations (London: Macmillan, 1939), and Hans Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations, 6th edn (New York: Knopf, 1948, rev. by K. W. Thompson, 1985). Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979) is the foremost proponent of neorealism. See: Robert Keohane, ed., Neorealism and Its Critics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986) for a collection of articles that critique his theory.Google Scholar
  6. 9.
    For a discussion of the security dilemma, see: John Herz, “Idealist Internationalism and the Security Dilemma,” World Politics, 2 (1950), 157; H. Butterfield, History and Human Relations (London: Collins, 1951), p. 20; Robert Jervis, “Cooperation under the Security Dilemma,” World Politics, 30 (1978), 167–214; Nicholas Wheeler and Ken Booth, “The Security Dilemma,” in John Baylis and N. J. Rengger, eds, Dilemmas of World Politics: International Issues in a Changing World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), pp. 29–31, and Charles L. Glaser, “The Security Dilemma Revisited,” World Politics, 50 (1997), 171–201.Google Scholar
  7. 10.
    Hugo Grotius, De Jure Belli ac Pacis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, [1625] 1853).Google Scholar
  8. 11.
    Scott Burchill, “Liberalism,” in Scott Burchill et al., eds, Theories of International Relations (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001), p. 33. See also: I. Kant, Kants Political Writings, edited by H. Reiss and translated by H. Nisbet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970). For an indepth analysis of Republican thought, see: Nicholas Onuf, The Republican Legacy in International Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).Google Scholar
  9. 12.
    C. B. Macpherson, Democratic Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972), p. 24.Google Scholar
  10. 13.
    For a discussion of the liberal challenge to realism, see: Charles W. Kegley, ed., Controversies in International Relations Theory: Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge (New York: St Martin’s, 1995), and D. Baldwin, ed., Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993).Google Scholar
  11. 14.
    Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (London: Free Press, 1992), p. xx.Google Scholar
  12. 15.
    See: Inis Claude, Power and International Relations (New York: Random House, 1962); Waltz, Theory of International Politics. Google Scholar
  13. 16.
    See: Nicholas Onuf, “Institutions, Intentions and International Relations,” Review of lnternational Studies, 28 (2002), 211–28. Also, for a survey of liberal internationalism, see: M. W. Zacher and R. A. Matthew, “Liberal International Theory: Common Threads, Divergent Strands,” in Kegley, Jr., ed., Controversies in International Relations Theory, pp. 107–50; R. N. Gardner, “The Comeback of Liberal Internationalism,” The Washington Quarterly, 13, 3 (1990), pp. 23–39; Stanley Hoffmann, “The Crisis of Liberal Internationalism,” Foreign Policy, 98 (1995), pp. 159–77.Google Scholar
  14. 17.
    The International Society theorists, such as Martin Wight and Hedley Bull, stand at the intersection of these two traditions, emphasizing, on the one hand, the importance of rules in the construction of a “society” of states and, on the other hand, highlighting realist themes of power and order. See: Martin Wight, International Theory: The Three Traditions (London: Leicester University Press, 1991), and Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society (London: Macmillan, 1977).Google Scholar
  15. 19.
    Michael Nicholson, Causes and Consequences in International Relations: A Conceptual Study (London: Pinter, 1996), p. 188.Google Scholar
  16. 21.
    For a discussion of the controversy surrounding the meaning of contructivism, see: K. M. Fierke and Knud Erik Jorgensen, Constructing International Relations: The Next Generation (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 2001).Google Scholar
  17. 22.
    For a discussion of the scientific approach and causation in international relations, see: Nicholson, Causes and Consequences in International Relations; K. Knorr and J. N. Rosenau, eds, Contending Approaches to International Relations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969). On its relation to other approaches, see: Steve Smith, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski, eds, International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), and David Dessler, “Constructivism within Positivist Social Science,” Review of lntemational Studies, 25 (1999), 123–37.Google Scholar
  18. 23.
    See: C. W. Kegley, “How Did the Cold War Die? Principles for an Autopsy,” International Studies Review, 38, 1 (1994), 11–42.Google Scholar
  19. 24.
    Popper’s principle of falsification was a critique of the logical positivist emphasis on verification. He rejected the idea that statements can be supported inductively by positive evidence and attempted to articulate a scientific methodology based on deduction. See: Sir Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963), pp. 33–9.Google Scholar
  20. 25.
    Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye, Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition (Boston: Little, Brown, 1977).Google Scholar
  21. 27.
    Jack S. Levy, “Domestic Politics and War,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 18 (1988), 662. See also: Bruce Russett, Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), and Michael W. Doyle, “Kant, Liberal Legacies and Foreign Affairs,” Philosophy and Public Affairs, 12 (1983), 205–35.Google Scholar
  22. 28.
    On constructivism and related debates, see: Alexander Wendt, “Anarchy is What States Make of It,” International Organization, 46, 2 (1992); Nicholas Onuf, World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1989); Fierke and Jorgensen, Constructing International Relation, and Emmanuel Adler, “Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics,” European Journal of International Relations, 3, 3 (1997), 319–63. For a sympathetic critique of constructivism, see: Ronan Palan, “A World of Our Making: An Evaluation of the Constructivist Critique in International Relations,” Review of International Studies, 26, 4 (2000). Hayward Alker’s book, Rediscoveries and Reformulations: Humanistic Methodologies for International Studies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), is an exploration of methodological issues compatible with a constructivist approach.Google Scholar
  23. 30.
    See: Thomas Biersteker and Cynthia Weber, eds, State Sovereignty as Social Construct (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).Google Scholar
  24. 31.
    For more depth on the problem of cause vs. constitution, see: Alexander Wendt, “Constitution and Causation in IR,” Review of International Studies, 24, Special Issue (1998), 101–18. Hollis and Smith analyze a similar problem in the contrast between explaining and understanding. Martin Hollis and Steve Smith, Explaining and Understanding International Relations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991).Google Scholar
  25. 32.
    Kenneth N. Waltz, Man, the State and War: A Theoretical Analysis (New York: Columbia University Press, 1954).Google Scholar
  26. 33.
    On the levels of analysis problems, see: J. David Singer, “The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations,” in Klaus Knorr and Sydney Verba, eds, The International System: Theoretical Essays (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1961). Waltz, Man, the State and War, refers to images of international relations rather than levels of analysis. For a critique, see William B. Moul, “The Levels of Analysis Problem Revisited,” Canadian Journal ofPolitical Science, 6 (1973), 494–513.Google Scholar
  27. 34.
    Examples of studies dealing with the causes of war include: Stoessinger, Why Nations Go to War; Hidemi Suganami, On the Causes of War (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996); Stephen Van Evera, Causes of War: Power and the Roots of Conflict (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999); John Burton, Violence Explained (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997); Franco Fornari, The Psychoanalysis of War (New York: Anchor Books, 1974); David A. Welch, Justice and the Genesis of War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993); Waltz, Man, the State and War; Jack Levy, “The Causes of War: A Review of Theories and Evidence,” in P. Tetlock et al., eds, Behavior, Science and Nuclear War (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), pp. 209–23.Google Scholar
  28. 36.
    The best example of an inductive analysis is David Singer’s Correlates of War project. See: David J. Singer and Melvin Small, Correlates of War Project: International and Civil War Data, 1816–1992 (Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, 1994).Google Scholar
  29. 39.
    See: John Lewis Gaddis, “International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War,” International Security, 17, 3 (1992–93), 5–58; C. W. Kegley, “How Did the Cold War Die? Principles for an Autopsy,” International Studies Review 38, 1 (1994), 11–42; Ellen Schrecker, ed., Cold War Triumphalism: The Misuse of History after the Fall of Communism (New York: New Press, 2004), and Richard Ned Lebow and Janice Stein, We All Lost the Cold War (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995).Google Scholar
  30. 41.
    See: Roxanne Doty, “Aporia: A Critical Exploration of the Agent-Structure Problematique in International Relations Theory,” European Journal of International Relations, 3, 3 (1997), 365–92.Google Scholar
  31. 42.
    See: K. M. Fierke, Changing Games, Changing Strategies: Critical Investigations in Security (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998).Google Scholar
  32. 43.
    For more depth on the concept of abduction, see: K. M. Fierke, “Logics of Force and Dialogue: The Iraq/UNSCOM Crisis as Social Interaction,” European Journal of International Studies, 6, 3 (2000), 335–71. This use of abduction builds on the work of Charles Peirce. See: Justus Buchler, ed., The Philosophy of Peirce: Selected Writings (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1956); Justus Buchler, Charles Peirces Empiricism (New York: Octagon Books, 1966).Google Scholar
  33. 44.
    Some examples that could be put in the category of constitutive analyses of war, intervention or conflict transformation, include: Julie Mertus, Kosovo: How Myths and Truths Started a War (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999); David Campbell, Politics before Principle: Sovereignty, Ethics and Narratives of the Gulf War (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1993); Jennifer Milliken and David Sylvan, “Soft Bodies, Hard Targets and Chic Theories: U.S. Bombing Policy in Indochina,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 25, 2 (1996), 321–60, and Fierke, Changing Games, Changing Strategies. Google Scholar
  34. 47.
    For a discussion of the distinction between “why necessary” and “how possible” questions, see: Roxanne Lynne Doty, “Foreign Policy as Social Construction: A Post-Positivist Analysis of U.S. Counterinsurgency Policy in the Philippines,” International Studies Quarterly, 37, 3 (1993), 297–320; Daniel Little, Varieties of Social Explanation: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Social Science (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991), and Alexander E. Wendt, “The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory,” International Organization, 14, 3 (1987), 335–70.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© K. M. Fierke 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. M. Fierke
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Politics and International StudiesQueen’s UniversityBelfastIreland

Personalised recommendations