Mankind has known wars as far back as historical memory can take us, and this is unlikely to change in the future.   But the preponderant nature of war has been changing over the past half century, from international wars between states to civil wars within states.   There has been no open warfare among major powers since World War II, perhaps the longest period of such ‘peace’ since the emergence of modern states in the 17th century, although warfare on a smaller scale between some nations continues infrequently.  There are many plausible reasons for this development, e.g. such as technological changes and the declining importance of agriculture (territory) for wealth creation.   In short, the perception has grown that the real costs of war have risen while the potential benefits have declined, although one should not make the mistake of assuming that armed conflict between nuclear-armed states is universally understood to be suicidal.    With regard to war, what matters today is not so much the absence of genuine world government (an impossibility given the lack of commonality of values in the world), but rather the presence of conditions promoting civil wars in perhaps half of the world’s countries.  It is often claimed that we live in a world of international anarchy and domestic order.  But, in reality, the reverse is true.  We have an international order (of sorts) and domestic anarchy in numerous countries.

Causes of civil war
 
The causes of civil war are as diverse as mankind.   But they usually involve intense grievances by a large segment of the population, a belief in a ‘right’ to revolt, and a belief that improvement can be obtained through violence.    Many developing countries lack a sense of national community (a problem that might increasingly afflict ‘multicultural’ developed countries as well).  Poverty is not in itself a cause of civil war or internal conflict.  But, as most poverty is usually caused by corruption and incompetence of political regimes, it is the lack of ‘legitimacy’ and weakness of government (common in the developing world) that must be considered a major root cause.   Some states once considered as ‘developed’ have known extensive civil conflict in recent times (e.g. Russia and Yugoslavia), and others once considered underdeveloped now face little prospect of civil war (e.g. Taiwan, South Korea, Brazil, etc…).  Thus, it would be a mistake to think that any state is totally immune to civil conflict and that conditions cannot change fairly rapidly over time. 

There are obviously many types of civil war.  For instance, distinctions could be made on the basis of ethnic, religious and nonreligious ideological civil conflicts, on the scale of particular conflicts, on the extent of external involvement, etc….Often the concepts of civil war and of civil strife are difficult to disentangle when considering phenomena as diverse as revolutions, terrorism, insurrections, secession movements, coups, large-scale riots, etc… 

Distinctive characteristics  

When comparing civil wars with more ‘traditional’ international (or inter-state) wars, two distinctive features stand out.

• First, civil wars tend to last much longer than wars between countries, particularly when the opposing forces are fairly evenly matched.   Nations at war can often pull their troops behind some ‘border’ after a peace accord is reached.  If the agreement gets broken in some way, the conflict will likely resume.  This is surely unpleasant but not necessarily fatal to the ‘weaker side’.   By contrast, opponents in civil wars usually have to lay down arms before a peace accord can be reached.  Once they do they must trust the ‘new’ government to protect them, and that government will tend to be dominated by the stronger side.   The weaker side may find itself with no recourse if the erstwhile enemy breaks the agreement.   In other words, getting ‘fooled’ in a civil war can be fatal. 
• Second, wars between nations typically end in negotiated settlements.   By contrast, most civil wars do not, one side eventually takes all the spoils, and the conflict will keep flaring up.   For civil wars to end peacefully often a third party is involved that can enforce the terms of a settlement (with deeds, not just words!).   Also, successful civil war brokers will usually be aligned with the weaker side (which has the most to lose by laying down arms).  

Since the end of the Cold War, an increasing number of countries appears in danger of sliding into serous civil conflict or civil war.   Forces conducive to peace between states - like nuclear deterrence for instance - do not apply to internal peace, and general conditions conducive to civil conflicts may be worsening.  Liberal global (or internationalist) norms can certainly inhibit wars between some countries, but have proven ineffectual to stop internal wars.   When Saddam Hussein gassed large numbers of Iraki Kurds in 1998, the ‘international community’ barely yawned.   But when he invaded Kuweit two years later, the world gave it much more attention, even though vastly fewer people died, etc…  
 

Implications and Concerns

In the world of today, free and democratic nations may have more to fear from state weaknesses than from state strengths elsewhere.   Among the many dangers that could emanate from civil conflict in some parts of the world, by far the greatest one is weapons of mass destruction (WMD, radiological, biological, and chemical) falling in the ‘wrong hands’.   The main implication should be obvious: deterrence will only hold between ‘responsible states’.   Conditions of civil disorder and strife raise serious questions about the probability of nuclear accidents, about failing military command and control systems, unauthorized launches, difficulty of identification of sources of attacks, etc… When governments lose control (even partially) over WMD - or worse, consciously choose to do so - the probability of them being used will rise astronomically.     And, the thought of ‘apocalyptic’ terrorist groups getting their hands on such weapons of mass destruction should - but does it today in the West? – concentrate all serious minds.

If deterrence only holds between ‘responsible’ governments, then practical ways must be found to ensure that all governments are indeed ‘responsible’ and thus the internal conditions of countries cannot be ignored.   The UN has moved some ways in recent years with a formal recognition of a “duty to protect” (which has broken the previous taboo of state sovereignty).  But words are cheap, and several major veto-wielding Security Council players are obviously not yet ready to behave ‘responsibly’ as witnessed by, for example, the continuing obfuscation with regard to the Iranian nuclear program, or non-action with regard to the Sudan. 

Civil wars can also be threatening to outsiders in a number of other (mainly economic) respects, such as energy provision, tourism and travel, drugs and crime, etc… But these pale in comparison with the WMD issue. 

Perhaps the greatest threat today emanates from civil unrest in Pakistan, which now possesses a sizable number of nuclear weapons (over 50) and the infrastructure to make more.   Without going into the details of the horrendous internal conditions of that country (with its multiple insurgencies), it is worth noting that never in the history of Pakistan has an elected government been succeeded by another elected one.  And Pakistan is the only nuclear-armed state today ever to have experienced a successful coup.   One must hope that responsible European governments will be willing to take the necessary actions to prevent a second ‘Pakistan’ emerging in Iran.  Only dramatic economic sanctions can be a serious substitute for military action if a nuclear theocracy there is to be avoided.

Also, the prospects for civil unrest in Saudi Arabia, and even China in the medium term, should not be ignored.   Those are somewhat more distant, but also very serious threats.  Disaster-management teams better get to work now, or we will all be very sorry.