In his soliloquy, Professor Jackson discussed both forecasting and debates regarding when conflict between rising and current great powers is most likely to occur. I would argue that, to some extent, an evaluation of civil and regional conflict can be used as a tool for forecasting the nature of international conflict. In looking at the development of non-international conflicts (ex. civil wars, regional conflict), we can forecast the various factors that might impact international conflict among great powers.
We might look at civil society as a microcosm of the international realm. Though obviously smaller and--in certain instances--more unified than the international society, domestic institutions have similar characteristics to the larger, global picture, in terms of governance, political parties, power struggles, etc. As such, the ways in which civil and/or regional conflicts occur and play out may be critical in forecasting conflicts amongst great powers. When we look at conflicts in places like Rwanda, Somalia, and Kenya, we see the ways in which groups clash for power. Oftentimes, civil war is defined by power struggles between a majority power and rebel groups, eventually leading to violence and chaos. Scholars of international relations should study the nature of these conflicts to understand the ways in which competing powers might come to clash in the international realm.
Not all smaller-scale conflict can be used to predict the nature of international conflict between great powers, but, as Professor Jackson noted, prediction and forecasting are two different concepts. The point is not always to predict what will happen, but to forecast what may happen. Theoretically, a conflict between powers--regardless of scope--is still a conflict, and will have shared fundamental roots to other conflicts. In this way, an evaluation of the characteristics of civil war can be crucial to forecasting larger-scale conflicts between global actors. It is important to have a well-rounded understanding of what may happen and--perhaps most importantly--why something may happen, especially when it comes to international conflict that will have far-reaching consequences.
This is a very interesting topic, Sarah. As Prof. Jackson mentioned, forecasting conflicts can be very difficult and even some of the most sophisticated programs and algorithms designed to do so have only "coin-toss" level success rates. There are so many variables that must be factored in and even if you manage to account for all of them, the possibility for "irrationality" is simply too high when dealing with personal relationships. For that reason, I very much like the idea of using smaller interactions/relationships (say, between individuals or between small groups of actors) to build good assumptions going in. I suppose this gets back to the idea of IR being a combination of many different fields to include sociology, psychology, etc. Nonetheless, I find the subject riveting and I hope to work on it more as I continue my studies. Thanks for bringing it up.
ReplyDeleteAnalyzing smaller-scale conflicts and using the findings to forecast conflict in the international is not a bad idea. As you point out, not everything will translate - there are far more variables that need to be considered when forecasting in the international. But at the very least looking at smaller conflicts can help scholars get a better understanding of conflict in general. Out of the smaller-scale conflicts, I think civil wars would most closely resemble the conflicts on the international. Civil wars are usually struggles for power; that is usually what we see in the international realm when we see conflict between states.
ReplyDelete