Are recent wars completely different to their predecessors? What are the purposes and causes of new wars? This paper from International Political Sociology looks at sociological accounts of warfare and uncovers weaknesses in their explanation of new wars. It challenges the notion that there has been a dramatic shift in the causes and objectives of contemporary violent conflict. What has changed is reliance on technology and the social, political and ideological context in which recent wars are fought.
A range of disciplines, from security studies to political theory, have embraced the new wars paradigm. This argues that conflicts since the end of the 20th century are completely different from their predecessors. They differ in terms of scope (civil rather than inter-state), methods, financing and are characterised by low intensity, high brutality and targeting of civilians. These wars are seen to be on the increase.
While the new wars paradigm has highlighted distinctive features of civil wars in the 1990s, subsequent cross-disciplinary research has challenged many of its claims. Recent sociological analyses have focused on the broader macro-sociological picture and the transforming power of economic globalisation.
- Although intra-state warfare has been more frequent than inter-state warfare in recent times, there is often no distinct line between the two. Some civil wars quickly become redefined as inter-state wars and many wars have elements of both.
- There is no empirical foundation for the claim that recent conflicts are more violent either in terms of human casualties or levels of atrocity.
- The uniqueness of deliberate targeting of civilians and the use of terrorist and guerrilla tactics is also questioned. These remain tactics of all civil wars, old and new.
- Sociological accounts linking wars to economic globalisation can attribute too much power to market forces. There is no direct evidence that economic globalisation causes an increase in violent intra-state conflicts.
The new wars paradigm falls short in terms of explaining the causes and objectives of recent violent conflicts. Current wars exhibit more similarity than difference with conventional warfare. Despite these explanatory pitfalls, the sociology of new wars has raised important questions and placed new wars in the wider social and historical context.
- To argue that the causes and objectives of contemporary wars do not differ from their predecessors does not mean that nothing has changed. What has changed is the reliance on technology and the social, political and ideological context in which wars are fought.
- The modern social and historical context has constrained the actions of nation states, but it has not changed the ‘old’ multiple causes of violent conflicts. Wars are still initiated and fought for economic, political, ideological and geopolitical reasons.
- Globalisation has added a layer of complexity to the motives of nation states, but it does not obliterate these motives or the nation states themselves. While new technology has transformed the means of fighting, it has not changed the ends of warfare.
- The popular support that modern conflicts have to build is still largely derived from the same nationalist sources as before. Nationalism remains the foundation of legitimate rule; and a powerful ideological source that can be mobilised during periods of major conflict.
