Is war declining – and why?

Abstract

The article reviews and assesses the recent literature that claims a sharp decrease in fighting and violent mortality rate since prehistory and during recent times. It also inquires into the causes of this decrease. The article supports the view, firmly established over the past 15 years and unrecognized by only one of the books reviewed, that the first massive decline in violent mortality occurred with the emergence of the state-Leviathan. Hobbes was right, and Rousseau was wrong, about the great violence of the human state of nature. The rise of the state-Leviathan greatly reduced in-group violent mortality by establishing internal peace. Less recognized, it also decreased out-group war fatalities. Although state wars appear large in absolute terms, large states actually meant lower mobilization rates and reduced exposure of the civilian population to war. A second major step in the decline in the frequency and fatality of war has occurred over the last two centuries, including in recent decades. However, the exact periodization of, and the reasons for, the decline are a matter of dispute among the authors reviewed. Further, the two World Wars constitute a sharp divergence from the trend, which must be accounted for. The article surveys possible factors behind the decrease, such as industrialization and rocketing economic growth, commercial interdependence, the liberal-democratic peace, social attitude change, nuclear deterrence, and UN peacekeeping forces. It argues that contrary to the claim of some of the authors reviewed, war has not become more lethal and destructive over the past two centuries, and thus this factor cannot be the cause of war's decline. Rather, it is peace that has become more profitable. At the same time, the specter of war continues to haunt the parts of the world less affected by many of the above developments, and the threat of unconventional terror is real and troubling.

Prehistoric Myths in Modern Political Philosophy

“…A wide range of modern scholarship on violence and warfare across the diversity of social science fi elds shares this general philosophical orientation (Goldstein 2011;Kegley and Raymond 2011;Tertrais 2012;Gat 2013;Pagden 2013). This line of thinking has generally served as a justifi cation of a wide range of modern social institutions, as well as the overall structure of the modern world and the historical processes that brought it about.…”

The Psychology of Modern Conflict

“…Azar Gat, reviewing the archaeological and anthropological evidence, argues similarly that the creation of the state, understood as a larger, settled and hierarchical society, diminished violence. Not only could authorities in proto-and actual states impose peace on citizens, but also they provided some insulation from persistent intergroup conflict: states, even proto-states, only required a proportion of the citizenry to serve in combat (Gat 2006(Gat , 2013. As a spectacle, a pitched battle between rival states' armed forces might look hugely destructive, but proportionately the toll on society over time would be less severe than the constant attrition of a cycle of raid and ambush.…”

“…Hobbes, Gat avers, had it about right when it came to primitive society, or the lack thereof, and the pacifying effects of the state (Gat 2013). But, perhaps unsurprisingly, Hobbes lacks a way of accounting for this transformation in the state of affairs.…”

The Forum: The Decline of War

“…Although several authors have announced a “waning of war” in recent decades (notably Mueller and Payne ), this literature has moved into a higher gear with the recent spate of literature on this topic. Historians (Gat , ; Muchembled ) and political scientists (Goldstein ) have entered the fray, along with a science journalist (Horgan ), a web designer (Richards )—and, of course, a cognitive psychologist with a massive 800‐page tome (Pinker ). Despite the breadth of this literature, this is not the end of the argument, but rather the start of a long debate, to which we hope to make a modest contribution with this forum.…”

“…While World War II certainly claimed more lives than any individual war in the nineteenth century and possibly more lives than in any human‐induced disaster ever, its victims made up a smaller fraction of world population than several earlier conflicts. On this basis, the common characterization of the twentieth century as the world's most violent century becomes questionable (Gat ). This simple point invites opposition, even anger.…”