A-Z of IR: I is for 'International' and J is for 'Just War Theory'

Inspired by the British Academy’s focus on Engaging the Public with Humanities and the Social Sciences (2023), in October 2024, Adrian Gallagher (Leeds) launched an A-Z in International Politics online and free of charge. This 26 part series over 26 weeks introduces key concepts such as A is for Anarchy, B for Balance of Power, C for Cooperation and so forth. They are released on Instagram (Prof_Politics), TikTok (Professor_Politics), LinkedIn, and YouTube (@ProfessorGallagher). 

In the first few months alone, Instagram generated more than 38,000 views, 2000 interactions and 1200 followers, TikTok 22,243 views, YouTube over 1000 views, and LinkedIn around 10,000 views.

This week we look at the letters 'I' and 'J'.

I is for 'International'

Why do states go to war?

We can use a 'levels of analysis' approach: individuals, states, and the international sphere itself. 

Those who focus on level 1 argue that human beings are hardwired for violence. So we shouldn't be surprised that leaders like Vladimir Putin turn out to be warmongers. Level 2 suggests domestic factors like regime type matter most. Are authoritarian regimes more warlike? You can check out the video on 'Democratic Peace Theory' to learn more about this idea. Level 3 is generally based on Kenneth Waltz's Theory of International Politics (1979), which suggests that the anarchic realm itself pushes states into violence by creating an environment conducive to war. Anarchy means that the primary objective of all states is to ensure survival, which limits cooperation and fosters distrust.

Waltz's book is among the most debated and critiqued in the field of International Politics, but it reminds us of the importance of 'anarchy' that we introduced in Week 1, and how International Politics is often the study of the implications stemming from anarchy.

J is for 'Just War Theory'

How can Just War Theory help us analyze the Israel-Gaza crisis?

Just War Theory is often traced back to the fourth century, and the idea that violence can be used as an instrument of justice as long as it fulfills certain criteria. Today, we link this to the idea of legitimate authority with a 'just cause'. Violence has to have a 'realistic chance of success', and must be 'proportionate'. The principle of proportionality means that any violence that is used has to be proportionate to the threat posed. If someone hits you, should you beat them to death?

In Hamas, Israel faces an enemy that has expressed genocidal intent, and we should not downplay that threat. We should also oppose anti-Semitism. However, the response by Israel to the Hamas attacks on 7 October 2023 have been grossly disproportionate. Even President Joe Biden, a staunch Israel ally, said that the bombing of Gaza has been 'indiscriminate'. Indiscriminate bombing is a war crime under Article 51 of the Geneva Convention. While policymakers and academics debate whether this is genocide, at the very least the Israeli response constitutes war crimes.

In October 2024, Biden said he could not support Israeli strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities as this would be disproportionate. But Just War Theory can't be invoked in a pick and mix style, and blanket Western support for actions in Gaza have grossly undermined the rules based international order.

Photo by Robert Stump on Unsplash