Why War Persists: Human Nature or the Anarchic International System?
Why do states go to war? Why is it still difficult for states to exist in peaceful coexistence, and why does a weak state engage in another war? Why, when international law exists, are so many peaceful agreements made by the Great Powers?
Realism is a set of theoretical views in which the basic organising approach is that the international system is anarchic, with no world government or global police to maintain international law. In this system, each state has domestic hegemony to control its people and maintain law and order, as well as international autonomy to resist the external pressure from the external state and non-state actors. The international system is a collection of sovereign states that are limited by power.
Realism argues that in the basic “3S Model”, S1 is Survival, in which states ensure their survival by accumulating more power and forming alliances. S2 is Statism, in which states control their internal social, political, and economic affairs and maintain law and order within their defined territorial borders. S3 is Self-Help, which realists view as the principle that each state must defend itself on its own.
Realism has two schools of thought: one is Classical Realism, and the other is Structural Realism. Classical realists believe that the persistence of war is due to human nature, because states are made up of humans. They primarily focus on the leader’s character and attribute the causes of war and conflict to an individual’s human nature.
The other is Structural Realism, which argues that war between two states is a rational response to national security threats created by the security dilemma in an anarchic international system with no central authority. In such a system, a state seeks survival by forming alliances that may threaten neighbouring states, prompting them to form counter-alliances in response. This dynamic leads to arms races in the region as a result of the anarchic nature of the international system.
Realism also presents the idea of “double moral standards”, meaning that what is considered right and wrong at the domestic level is different from what is considered right and wrong at the international level. Classical realism argues that the powerful can do what they can, and the weak must suffer what they must, regardless of what is considered right or wrong.
Classical realists also believe that a state’s internal constitution has less impact on its international relations than the character of its leader or specific leadership decisions, such as the Bush administration’s policy to invade Iraq, and small states lack the ability to defend their interests, so they have to make alliances with great powers to protect their survival in an anarchic international system, which leads to war.
Persistence of war remains one of the most important debates in international relations: is it rooted in human nature, as classical realists argue, or is it an inevitable outcome of the anarchic structure of the international system, as structural realists suggest? What do you think? Does war persist because of flawed human leadership, or because the international system itself makes conflict unavoidable? For feedback, recommendations, collaboration, or other academic discussions, feel free to contact me at contactazeemlasharibaloch@gmail.com.
Posted Feb 22, 2026, 5:00 PM UTC