People who tend to think war is inevitable basically cite the inherent lack of trustworthiness in human nature. In other words, they suggest we are not really hard wired to cooperate on the scale required to avoid war. Our instinct to cooperate is limited to those in our closest circles.
These people may cite the philosopher Thomas Hobbes, who suggests that human nature boils down to the drive to protect oneself at any cost, and that, in nature, we have the right to do this.
Obviously, this creates instability and Hobbes argues, we form social contracts to reduce the instability, which is the rational thing to do. When we extend this logic to peoples or nation-states, we a philosophy called ‘realism,’ from which we get the idea that nation-states will either have difficulty trusting and cooperating with one another and will be willing to be a bit shady themselves in pursuit of their own interests.
There are people who say that warfare is likely but that the desire to go to war can be properly controlled or almost eliminated by properly using institutions to help increase trust.
Institutionalists or liberals look at something like the EU as a shining example. The EU is a series of institutions that has strengthened the linkages and dependency that sovereign nations of Europe have on one another. As a consequence of this, the EU is really unlikely to go to war. If Germany declared war on France or Austria, it would be sort of like shooting itself in the head
The critics of institutionalism look at the UN as a failure. They allege that the UN is a tool of the powerful countries on the Security Council and not a genuine place to facilitate trust and cooperation or to change power dynamics that do not favor the world’s leading powers and economies.
In a government where elites control the decision levers, there may be an increased interest in continuing diplomacy, unless you have a disproportionately powerful person or faction that is hell-bent on war for whatever reason. In a populist government or one where nationalism runs high, there might be a drive to declare war as an expression of superiority or independence or as a sign that a country has ‘evolved’.
When we think about how the chance to do diplomacy vs. go to war might be received, power plays have to come into being. A strong country may, ironically, be more likely to use diplomacy in some circumstances because it doesn’t have to fear opponents believing that it is using diplomacy to mask its weakness in war.
Another reason that stronger countries may like treaties, etc. is that strong countries don’t usually have to worry that their partners will break their promises in a huge way. On the other hand, countries that are ‘unproven’ are always at risk of having the promises made to them broken.
