Rationalist Explanations For War By James Fearon

Superior Essays
Rationalist Explanations for War, written by James Fearon in 1995, provides an argumentation that launching a war is costly, thus there is an ex ante bargaining range that prompt to reach an agreement. This agreement will not only reflect the possible aftermath of a war, but also avoid the cost of it. That the two belligerent will make an agreement before the war which reflect the possible results of war is always better than a war plan. As Fearon argues that war is always ex post inefficient. So a puzzle occurs, which is why rational countries choose to wage a war rather than considering a bargaining or negotiation to make a peace agreement. According to that, Fearon raised three rationalist explanations, namely information asymmetry, issue …show more content…
Thus, the existence of private information commonly render the country to exaggerate their capacity and simultaneously underestimate the opposite country’s power. Consequently, they turn to be blindly positive for the upcoming warfare. These misconception usually render a country pursue a uncompromising policy(Robert Jervis 1976). Apart from the case mentioned in this book, I, as a Chinese student, can’t help thinking the Vietnam war in which the determination to war was misjudged by the United States. The army of the United States was marching forward to the North Korea disregard of China’s warnings, supposing that China will never take action against them. Then war was waged. If the United States would perceive precisely how much possibility that China will take to take part in the war, the United States will probably stop where it should stop and therefore prevent the war from happening.
According to above we can learn that as a result of the information asymmetry and actions like keeping private information, misrepresenting private information, etc, the both parties cannot effectively form a bargaining range ahead of the war, which means as Powell(2004) argues that war is a strategical replacement of negotiation, and game interaction ends once the states decide to
…show more content…
Fearon argues that the bargaining issues among nations are rather complicated and multiple-dimension. And it is possible that side-payment is linked with other issues. In Principle, a nation may randomly choose the resolution to appease the conflict. Powell even discard the independent position of “issue indivisibility”, supposing that it still subject to commitment problems, because war is still costly, and there are still some possibilities of bargaining. The reason why negotiations break down is that even the tiniest concession will lead to catastrophic change on the distribution of power. The fast transferring of power provides a chance for those nations which want to gain power advantages over contracted nations by tearing up the agreement. For those nations who would likely to make concessions will probably make more concessions in the future, the shadow of the future will prompt them to wage a war instead of

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    War Argumentative Analysis

    • 1613 Words
    • 7 Pages

    When diplomacy fails, war steps forward. Tensions may escalate dramatically to war until diplomacy works again. Since war is another political instrument, political outcomes should be the motive for the powerful military states to wage, escalate and terminate wars. But sometimes, and despite its military power, these states struggle to reach its political outcomes due to many factors that stand in the way of achieving political outcomes smoothly. For instance, military power restrictions and fear from escalation , strategic vision and mistakes, war predictability, the balance of power and enemy potentials, history, alliances, civil-military relations and domestic support, type of war, and regime type.…

    • 1613 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Often, threatened governments will become over-zealous and infringe on the rights of their citizens indiscriminately. This can be very bad and not accomplish the needed objectives. Therefore, countries need to ensure that security is treated with the upmost importance. Indeed, internal security must be understood as a critical aspect of war. It shares similar problems and characteristics.…

    • 2297 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Boswell’s essay takes aim at people who argue for the benefits of war, particularly those who claim that war is a chance for individuals to attain glory or demonstrate their bravery. He claims that if people had not become so accustomed to war as a way of life, that they would recognize how ridiculous it is. Boswell rejects the idea that any good comes from war that could compensate its direful effects. War, he claims, is followed by no benefits, particularly not to the people who fight in them. On War is a pacifist essay in which Boswell’s “...mind has expanded itself in reflections upon the horrid irrationality of war” (Boswell 11-12).…

    • 1022 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Such emphasis on importance of practicing empathy matches with liberalists’ view that empathy is required in international cooperation. Failure to be empathetic, however, can cause the strong to lose and evidences that supports McNamara’s claim can be found in Record’s article. Record first introduces Andrew Mack’s argument. Mack argued “will to fight and prevail” is the ultimate determinant of which side is likely to win. According to Mack, “ for insurgents ‘war’ is total, while for the external power it is necessarily ‘limited’, meaning that weaker side has its country and independence to lose in a war so it fights with everything it has.…

    • 1211 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Sleepwalkers Summary

    • 780 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Clark clarifies that the how approach is superior to the why approach in its objectivity as the why approach makes war seem inevitable, while MacMillan chooses to look at the events which made war more likely than peace. Clark believes that war improbable more than inevitable until it actually happens, while MacMillan believes it to have become increasingly probable with every “turn” taken, an idea presented through her analogy. Her analogy over simplifies the interactions before the war as it implies that every country could have made its decisions independently. However, Clark believes that the war was very complex because of the interlinking of the socioeconomics of Europe. In the end, both historians agree that nations fell into war because they were incapable of resolving their problems without an inventive political leader, such as Bismarck.…

    • 780 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Dominic Tierney adroitly illustrates the struggle of this latter glory-seeker in his article Why has America Stopped Winning Wars? The United States exists in an age, he asserts, where conflicts are unwinnable. This assertion is not without its detractors, but the evidence offered stands up to analysis and critique. The United States no longer emerges as a clear victor in contemporary conflicts because the very nature of war and the definition of what it means to win are changing, novel enemies are emerging, and socio-political factors limit it in both scope and execution. It is difficult to win when the rules of the game change in the middle and becomes nearly impossible when one side forgets what they are playing for in the first place.…

    • 753 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    It was their assumption that the United States was actually working to subvert their previous efforts in China. This assumption came from the United States continuing to aid Chiang Kai-Shek both economically and militarily (Iriye 20). Japan lacked the strategic diplomacy necessary for dealing in foreign affairs (Iriye 189). From this stemmed the “suspicion that the United States is as spokesman for the Chungking Regime” (Iriye 36). Because of the mistrust this idea embedded, further discussions were impaired, making the Japanese accredit any unwillingness to agree an intent “to go to war” (Iriye 32).…

    • 800 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In “Rationalist Explanations for War,” James Fearon argues that due to war’s costly nature and states’ risk-averse, or at least risk-neutral, tendencies, there should always exist some possible prewar agreement between two disputing states that both parties would prefer to achieve over committing to war. While seeking to reveal his main claim that war is caused by information problems, commitment problems, and issue indivisibilities, Fearon critiques five traditional Neorealist explanations of war: anarchy, positive expected utility, preventive war, lack of information, and miscalculation of relative power. Although Fearon’s critique of the majority of these theories are earnest and do expose multiple logical shortcomings, his rapid dismissal…

    • 1115 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Reason For War

    • 2040 Words
    • 9 Pages

    This is their way of manipulating the country and doing whatever they want whilst having the American people on their side when they make decisions. War should not be the solution unless there is no other possible way of resolving conflict or differences. It is safe to assume that when Congress declared war on Iraq, they were not using proper reasoning because they did not think about what they were risking and how much of a cost it would be overall. Since the beginning of time, people have been fighting each other and going to war, and the primary reason usually is greed, money, and power. Still to this day, these are reasons for the start…

    • 2040 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The first line of Sun Tzu’s Art of War is “War is a matter of vital importance to the state. It is a matter of life and death, survival or ruin.” Sun Tzu knows that war could lead to disaster. Sometimes the best way to win is not to fight at all, this perhaps is what Sun Tzu’s ultimate secret is. Nation often rush into wars, with very little concern or thinking through of the course it is going to be; not only in money but in terms of human suffering; not only to ourselves but the civilians of the country which we may be fighting. Before we go to war, we should question ourselves, are the reasons why we are fighting worth the total cost of the war or is there an alternative way.…

    • 840 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays