Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

The Spoils of Conquest

1993; The MIT Press; Volume: 18; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.2307/2539099

1531-4804

Peter Liberman,

International Relations and Foreign Policy

Does conquest pay in the modern era? Are industrial economies cumulative resources that can be mobilized by foreign conquerors? This question lies at the root of important international relations debates. Realists have claimed that conquest pays, especially the conquest of modern industrial societies, but liberals argue that the conquest of modern societies is economically futile. These opposing viewpoints represent different theories about the way the world works, and support divergent foreign policies. Since conquest pays, according to the realist view, the more you conquer, the more wealthy and powerful you become. Rulers have economic and security incentives to expand. Status-quo states must rely more heavily. on threats of war to contain expansionists, and on war itself if threats fail to deter. Unless they are contained, imperial rulers will swallow up weaker nations, growing stronger and more invincible with each new conquest. Realists conclude that only the vigilance of defensive coalitions stands in the way of an Orwellian nightmare of huge clashing despotisms, or even a single world empire. In the liberal view, we live in a more benign world. Since conquest is unprofitable, rulers have no economic incentive to expand and are thus less covetous of neighboring real estate. Expansionists would only weaken themselves by blundering into costly quagmires, falling behind more economically dynamic nation-states, and eventually collapsing from imperial deficits and rebellion. Since aggressors are rare and less dangerous, status-quo states can more safely afford disarmament and isolation. According to liberals, the unprofitability of conquest strengthens the harmony of interests among states, and thus strengthens international peace and cooperation.