Summary Of Rationalist Explanations For War By James Fearon

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 …show more content…
He commences his analysis of the anarchy argument with a reference to Kenneth Waltz’s “Man, the State, and War,” and narrows in on the claim that “war occurs because there is no way to prevent it…In the absence of a supreme authority there is then the constant possibility that conflicts will be settled by force,” (Waltz, 188.) Fearon undeniably agrees that anarchy breeds uncertainty in international political dynamics, yet he remains unconvinced that the lack of a central governing force is enough to explain the recurrence of war, especially when one considers the significant associated costs. This may initially seem to be a fully developed argument against anarchy’s ability to account for war; however, in focusing solely on one component of Waltz’s argument, Fearon fails to address a key aspect of Waltz’s preferred theory that does in fact account for the phenomenon of costly war: …show more content…
The commitment problem rests in the idea that states are unable to reach mutually beneficial prewar agreements because one or both parties would have incentives to renege on the terms. Fearon does in fact state that this problem is inherently linked to anarchy, but only in so much that there is no central governing body to enforce the terms of any prewar agreement. He once again fails to clearly link this to Waltz’s self-help notion, which when applied to this situation would make it so that states are ultimately incapable of reaching an agreement because of an innate distaste for cooperation and need for self reliance within the uncertain international field. Although Fearon’s failure to acknowledge the concept of self-help weakens his argument, it does not negate his claims entirely as they retain their merit and would only have benefitted from this additional

Related Documents

  • 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

    Clausewitz: Purpose Of War

    • 1183 Words
    • 5 Pages

    From this it follows that the disarming or overthrow of the enemy, whichever we call it, must always be the aim of warfare. Now war is always the shock of two hostile bodies in collision, not the action of a living power upon an inanimate mass, because an absolute state of endurance would not be making war; therefore what we have just said as to the aim of action in war applies to both parties. Here then is another case of reciprocal action. As long as the enemy is not defeated, I have to apprehend that he may defeat me, then I shall…

    • 1183 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    War Argumentative Analysis

    • 1613 Words
    • 7 Pages

    The first factor that makes powerful states struggle to achieve the intended political outcomes is military power restriction and the fear of escalation. To clarify, major military powers avoid the escalation to the extent that makes other major powers to interfere directly, or to use a destructive weapon like the atomic bomb. With the innovation of nuclear weapon the Clausewitz concept of “absolute war” is finally achievable. This will generate fear and will restraint powerful state from using maximum power to prevail. Thus the victory as a proper outcome to be expected of the use of American arms was intractable for the duration of the cold war, for the reason of the sensible fear of the escalation of nuclear holocaust.…

    • 1613 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    This is regularly understood as meaning that war is by one means or another a "levelheaded" wonder and Clausewitz is sentenced pushing the fall back on war as a normal expansion of one-sided state strategy. Actually, the decision of interpretation for Politik "strategy" or "legislative issues," demonstrates varying accents with respect to the interpreter, for the two ideas are entirely different. "Policy" might be described as levelheaded activity, keeping in mind the end goal to keep up and boost that power. Governmental issues, is basically the procedure by which power is carried inside a given society. War is a loss of not a substitute for legislative issues.…

    • 1369 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Many liberals do view the world as a dangerous place, however, violence, and wars are conflicts that can be avoided. Problems that have alternative solutions should be taken into consideration before the option of going into war is viewed as the only choice. Political liberals emphasize broader ties between national interests, and aim to decrease the usefulness of military power. Liberals also think that the only time we should accept a war is if it puts ones’ individual rights and equal opportunity in danger. International cooperation and peaceful international behaviors has its benefits.…

    • 937 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Bhagavadgita is a tale of duty in war and why it is necessary to perform one 's duty despite the cost. However this raises the question of whether the war in the Gita was justified. The god Krishna who performs the role of charioteer for Arjuna believes that the war is just and convinces him to fight. There is a theory known as the “just war theory” which details the legitimacy beginning a conflict and proper actions during the conflict. This theory consists of two major parts (Jus Ad Bellum the right to go to war, and Jus in Bello how combatants should act) that themselves can be broken down to smaller individual elements.…

    • 1021 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The author does not support the view expressed by other scholars that ideological, political and economic differences among states will be the primary driver of conflict among states. As I have indicated earlier, this analysis is shallow and lacks both historical and empirical evidence. If his examination is strictly followed, there will be a basis for economic conflict. There is a hug economic disparity among the civilisations. However, he thinks this will not be enough to cause conflict among the civilisations.…

    • 1442 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    While this might be true, it takes away from the chief purpose of war, which is to defeat one’s enemies. And why then, do we engage in the ugliness of war? Well, Mr. Codevilla proclaims, it is to establish peace. Ultimately, wars decide peace. He writes, “Peace and war are two sides of the same human coin.…

    • 2297 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    1A Aquinas’ three conditions that make war “just” are: Proper authority, Just cause, and the right intention (PP. 4). The first condition states that war can only be declared by the highest authority in government, the head of state. The purpose of declaring war is to give the other state a chance to make peace. If the parties involved are not able to reach a peaceful settlement, then the head of state of of the second nation must refuse to resolve.…

    • 1252 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • 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.…

    • 990 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Superior Essays