The evolution of war: theory and controversy

Lopez, Anthony C.

doi:10.1017/s1752971915000184

Cited by 36 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 138 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Wilson captures the evolutionary logic succinctly, saying that humans would fight wars “when they and their closest relatives stand to gain long-term reproductive success,” and he continues, “despite appearances to the contrary, warfare may be just one example of the rule that cultural practices are generally adaptive in a Darwinian sense.” 73 An evolutionary approach allows the expectation that contemporary humans possess specific behavioral traits that contributed to fitness in the past, including the willingness to fight to retain or gain the resources necessary so that the individual, the family, and the extended family group would continue to survive and reproduce. 74…”

Section: Human Evolution Under Anarchy: Predation Resource Competitimentioning

confidence: 99%

The evolution of offensive realism

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Offensive realism, a theory of international relations, holds that states are disposed to competition and conflict because they are self-interested, power maximizing, and fearful of other states. Moreover, it argues that states are obliged to behave this way because doing so favors survival in the international system. Debate continues as to whether modern states actually do, or should, behave in this way, but we are struck by a different question. In this article, we ask whether the three core assumptions about behavior in offensive realism-self-help, power maximization, and outgroup fear-have any basis in scientific knowledge about human behavioral evolution. We find that these precise traits are not only evolutionarily adaptive but also empirically common across the animal kingdom, especially in primate and human societies. Based on these findings, we hypothesize that states behave as offensive realists predict not just because of anarchy in the modern international system but also because of the legacy of our evolution. In short, offensive realism may really be describing the nature of the human species more than the nature of the international system. If our hypothesis is correct, then evolutionary theory offers the following: (1) a novel ultimate cause of offensive realist behavior; (2) an extension of offensive realism to any domain in which humans compete for power; and (3) an explanation for why individual leaders themselves, and not just states, seek power. However, a key insight from evolution is that the primacy of self-help, power maximization, and outgroup fear does not necessarily condemn individuals or groups to competition and conflict; rather, these traits can in themselves give rise to cooperation and alliances.

show abstract

Section: Human Evolution Under Anarchy: Predation Resource Competitimentioning

confidence: 99%

The evolution of offensive realism

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…So long as terrorism has not fulfilled its political objective, there exists a ‘suspended’ hostility between the oppressed and their oppressor (Wydra, ). The endurance of this feeling is likely drawn from the indivisibility of the ‘sacred values’ that Lopez () describes. Because such values are necessarily neither negotiable nor subject to compromise, any peace deal made at an organisational level between the state and the terrorist organisation is unlikely to last.…”

Section: Terrorist Violence As Moral Discoursementioning

confidence: 99%

Violence, Power and Meaning: The Moral Logic of Terrorism

Johnston

Bose

2020

Global Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dominant orthodoxies within the study of terrorism have developed and promoted a strategic understanding of terrorism which has, in effect, reinforced the very conflict it seeks to explain. In response, this article develops the challenge of critical terrorism studies to propose a new strategic approach to terrorism. It posits that, while unable to achieve a Clausewitzian victory over the state per se, terrorism is able to politically paralyse the state's overwhelming power by shifting the moral horizons of that state's constituency. We explore two mutually reinforcing mechanisms by which terrorism achieves this objective and explore a number of strategic policy implications of each. This new approach is needed as current approaches misrepresent the challenge the global community currently faces, creating a self-perpetuating loop of conflict and grievance which promises no end to terrorist violence. Policy Implications• Rather than escalating measures with terrorist violence, states are ultimately best placed responding within legal and humanitarian frameworks.• The state's resources and institutions are better directed towards understanding and mediating what fundamentally drives hostility aimed towards the state, rather than at containing its violent, yet transitional, expression.• In order to escape a 'hurting stalemate' with a terrorist actor, the state must recognise the terrorist as legitimate, and integrate them into mainstream political spheres.

show abstract

“…territory can always be divided or compensated somehow), which suggests this is in fact not a rationalist explanation for war as such, but rather, an example of the failure of rationality in the bargaining process. An "all or nothing" attitude among policymakers can facilitate violence by rendering war-avoiding bargains impossible to agree on, or even to identify (Fearon 1995;Lopez 2016).…”

Section: Realism: Extensions and Middle-range Theory All Realists Acmentioning

confidence: 99%

The determinants of war in international relations

Lopez

Johnson

2020

Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study of warfare is one of the oldest and most important dynamics of interest for students of politics. This area of research is predominantly-but not exclusively-undertaken within the sub-field of international relations (IR). IR theorists argue that war is the contingent outcome of the interaction among variables operating at three "levels of analysis": the international level, the domestic level, and the individual level. The international level explores variables that operate exclusively "above" states such as anarchy and the distribution of power. The domestic level explores variables that operate exclusively within states, such as regime type and bureaucratic design. The individual level explores the ways in which individual psychology (i.e. beliefs, culture, personality) contributes to the outbreak of war. We also offer a discussion of new puzzles and challenges in the study of warfare, such as the decline of war hypothesis and the growing prevalence of civil war, insurgency and non-state violence. War has been a preoccupation of policymakers, heads of state and political leaders for as long as there have been political communities. Thus, the "study" of warfare can be said to have begun almost as soon as its practice (Keeley 1996; LeBlanc and Register 2003; Gat 2009). Early studies of warfare were undertaken by direct observers of war or by its practitioners, including landmark works by the Greek historian Thucydides and the Chinese strategist Sun Tzu in the 5 th Century B.C., as well as

show abstract

The evolution of war: theory and controversy

Cited by 36 publications

References 138 publications

The evolution of offensive realism

The evolution of offensive realism

Violence, Power and Meaning: The Moral Logic of Terrorism

The determinants of war in international relations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About