Why Nations and Individuals Start Wars: Western and Non-Western Perspectives; Guided by Peace, Committed to Justice, and Determined to Create Lasting Positive Change

Abstract

War is rarely the product of a single decision, leader or isolated event. This article examines why nations and individuals initiate, support or participate in warfare through a comparative analysis of Western and non-Western perspectives. It adopts a multilevel framework in which armed conflict emerges from interactions among individual psychology, group processes, state interests, international structures, historical grievances and cultural narratives. At the individual and group levels, fear, ambition, trauma, humiliation, conformity, dehumanisation and cognitive bias may facilitate violence. At the state and international levels, insecurity, territorial ambitions, competition for resources, regime survival, alliances, arms races and institutional failure contribute to escalation. Historical processes such as colonialism, dispossession, imposed borders and structural inequality may further create conditions in which violence is perceived as necessary or legitimate. The article compares major Western traditions—including realism, liberalism, Marxist and critical theory, constructivism and just-war theory—with postcolonial, African and Ubuntu, Chinese, Islamic and Indigenous perspectives. Rather than treating Western and non-Western approaches as opposing intellectual systems, it argues that they are complementary. Western theories contribute detailed analyses of state power, security dilemmas, institutions and strategic decision-making, while non-Western and postcolonial approaches draw attention to colonial domination, structural violence, land, relational responsibility, dignity and historical injustice. Contemporary conflicts involving Israel and Palestine, Israel and Iran, the United States, Russia and Ukraine, and India and Pakistan illustrate how these mechanisms operate in practice. The analysis also distinguishes state war leaders from warlords and emphasises that explanation must not be confused with moral or legal justification. Understanding the causes of violence does not legitimise attacks on civilians or remove obligations under international humanitarian law. The central argument is that no civilisation possesses a monopoly on either warfare or peace. Organised violence becomes more likely when insecurity, inequality, ambition and historical grievance are transformed into narratives in which war appears necessary, profitable, honourable or unavoidable. Sustainable peace therefore requires more than military victory or temporary ceasefires. It depends upon credible security, accountable political institutions, material justice, recognition of historical grievances, protection of civilians and the reconstruction of relationships capable of managing political conflict without organised violence.