Posted by on Sep 17, 2021 in Uncategorized |

And third, every potential fighter should expect success as they define it. In other words, everyone must believe that if war occurs as a result of the increasingly unstable status quo, it will be able to achieve its war objectives (desirable piece of territory; defeat the border attack of the other; force the acceptance of a new sphere of interest; establish control of trade routes, humiliate the other, defend one`s honor, and so on). The second inhibitor is that of cross-pressures which, like polarity, play a dual role of cause and effect, but in opposite directions. As a result of diverse and competing interests, cross-pressure fosters conflicting behavior, bleeds, segments, and confuses that conflict, so that violence and war are inhibited. Private motivation – The view that private motivation plays an important role in prolonging or even causing conflict in some countries is well aided by work in Sudan, Sierra Leone, and Liberia.9,19,20 Collier and Hoeffler tested the greed hypothesis (but with a rather approximate measure of resources) and found a significant link to conflict. Although this has been questioned.21 They also found that men`s higher education up to upper secondary education reduced the risk of war. They concluded that “greed” outweighed dysfunctions in conflict declaration. Beyond the ways of inhibiting violence, war, as a type of violence, has only one particular obstacle: forced power parity. Power parity makes an escalation to war more likely and more likely. The ambiguity of power portends the success of both sides. A power gap that highlights the dominance of power from one party to the other tends to discourage war. Fourth, it is the forced power of the state.

The more relative power a state has, the more global its contacts and interests are and the more it worries about its reputation for power. Great power is not necessary or sufficient for conflicting behaviors. Fragile states are the source of conflict; Go to war. But power stimulates and aggravates problems and gives them a more global meaning. And the centralization of state power also means that resources can be controlled and directed toward conflict and internal political restrictions can be manipulated. The more power the parties have in a conflict, the greater the risk of conflict. Whenever there are states in the world, these causes delineate potential war zones, possible fronts of extreme violence at the global level.