CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY DAREN BOWYER JUST WAR DOCTRINE

One consequence of the blurring of distinctions and the increasing importance of non-
state actors, is that clearly identifying a principal cause of conflict, and thus seeing the
way to peaceful resolution, is all the more difficult. Münkler argues that ‘the
impenetrable web of motives and causes, which often leaves no prospect of lasting
peace, is a direct consequence of the fact that it is not states but para-state players that
confront one another in the new wars.’ 24 Paul Richards 25 would concur: none of the
mono-causal theories advanced in explanation of new wars really holds up. If it were,
as is often argued, scarcity of resources that provoked violent conflict, then the arrival
of international aid should conclude it. In fact, argues Richards 26 , there is plenty of
empirical evidence to contradict this; international aid often itself becomes a resource in
the conflict. Richards also rejects the so-called ‘new barbarism’ thesis – that new wars
are simply the re-emergence of ancient rivalries and hatreds held artificially in-check by
the Cold War. ‘Ethnic consciousness’ he suggests ‘emerges at the boundary between
groups rather than being something intrinsic to the group itself.’ 27 In other words the
fracture lines need to be in place in order to highlight the ethnic divide, not the other
way around. Michael Ignatieff has argued similarly 28 . Richards finds the ‘greed-not-
grievance’ thesis similarly unconvincing and, thus highlighting the inadequacy of
mono-causal explanations, proposes that ‘(new) war only makes sense as an aspect of
social process’ 29 Richards’ view of new war, then, is of war and peace as part of a
continuum that lacks precise boundaries:
(P)re war peace is often more delicate and finely balanced than appreciated, and
.. the seeds of war are to be seen shooting up in peace; … the shift towards
intense armed conflict is a process with many twists and turns (and significant
pauses, relevant as opportunities for peace makers); … conflict is sustained by
an emergent sociology and economy of war; .. turning back towards peace, even
beyond a peace agreement, is a rocky path with many pitfalls; … the hidden or
silent violence behind the conflict has to be addressed if peace is to be sustained
(justice matters); ….’ 30
This would concur with Münkler’s view that a key defining facet of new wars is their
lack of boundaries and distinctions, which were effected by the statization of war and
are now eroded by its increasing destatization. It would also support an argument for
pre-emptive action; peacekeeping today cannot be simply about consensual separation.
Nor, if war is a social process rather than a discontinuity sparked by particular causes or
170