Jervis: Theories of War in an Era of Leading Power Peace

Jervis, R., 2002. Theories of War in an Era of Leading Power Peace. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 1-14.

“The motor of international politics has been war among the leading states” (1).

“But I would argue that war among the leading great powers…will not occur in the future, and indeed is no longer a source of concern for them” (1).

“Security communities are not unprecedented. But what is unprecedented is that the states that constitute this one are the leading members of the international system and so are natural rivals that in the past were central to the violent struggle for security, power, and contested values”
(1).

“Five questions arise. First, does the existence of the Community mean the end of security threats to its members and, more specifically, to the United States? Second, will the Community endure? Third, what are the causes of its construction and maintenance? Fourth, what are the implications of this transformation for the conduct of international affairs? Finally, what does this say about theories of the causes of war?” (2).

Does the Community mean the end of security threats? Of course not entirely, though they become quite unlikely among the Community.

Explanations for the origin and continuation of the Community: Constructivists: changing norms and identities; Liberals: increased information, the base of power is very broad, the public will suffer from war and they make the decisions, more likely to be linked via trade, international organization membership; Realists: American hegemony is what ties the Community together, nuclear weapons make war a “feckless option” (7).

“Whatever its explanation, the very existence of a security community among the leading powers refutes many theories of the causes of war or, at least, indicates that they are not universally valid. Thus human nature and the drive for dominance, honor and glory may exist and contribute to a wide variety of human behaviors, but they are not fated to lead to war” (11).

“For most scholars, the fundamental cause of war is international anarchy, compounded by the security dilemma…As we have seen, different schools of thought propose different explanations for the rise of the Community and so lead to somewhat different propositions about the conditions under which anarchy can be compatible with peace. But what is most important is that the Community constitutes a proof by existence of the possibility of uncoerced peace without central authority. Because these countries are the most powerful ones and particularly war-prone, the Community poses a fundamental challenge to our understanding of world politics and our expectations of future possibilities” (11).