Citation

Nincic M. J. Peace Res. 1982; 19(1): 49-60.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1982, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/002234338201900105

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

The purpose here is to consider some significant gaps in the theoretical bases with which we seek to under stand international conflict - either at the level of non-military hostility or at that of actual warfare. The in centives behind both levels of conflictive behavior are examined in terms of discrepancies between achieved and expected levels of attainment (attainment gaps) on relevant needs. Two general conflict-inducing situa tions at the level of non-violent hostility are identified: one where the attainment gap is causally attributable to the target of the hostility and another where such behavior might help narrow the gap even in the absence of external attributability. Although the properties of a nation which, in the second situation, might make it the object of another's hostility are not well understood, some tentative suggestions are advanced to account for this possibility. The differences in the incentives behind warfare and those that lead to simple hostility are considered, with particular attention to the relation between specific sorts of unsatisfied needs and war involvement. It is suggested that both the salience of certain needs and the range of strategies to enhance attainments thereon are factors which link given needs to armed conflict; both, it is argued, are shaped by the nature and structure of the societies within which the needs are experienced. Situations where the bene fits from simple hostility carry over into (or are amplified by) warfare are discussed, as are instances where the contrary occurs. Tentative explanations for these patterns are suggested. Finally, the impact of military capacity on the transition from hostility to warfare is examined, both from the point of view of the balance between potential antagonists and the nature of the actual weaponry involved.