The neo‐functionalist explanation of world wars: A critique and an alternative

In this article we criticize explanations ofworldwar at the level of the international system: the hegemony‐stability theory developed by Gilpin and the world leadership model developed by Modelski and Thompson. In our view, (a) their statements are of a definitional nature instead of being empirically refutable propositions, (b) their statement that global war periods are more severe than hegemonic intervals is empirically incorrect, and (c) their conviction that global wars are functional, unjustifiably neglects the possibility that world wars are mere senseless slaughters. As an alternative explanation of the outbreak of world wars we propose a three‐level approach, starting with the war‐instigating effect of power transitions in dyads of major powers. Wars in dyads of contending nations are specifically prone to escalate during periods of capability deconcentration at the systemic level. In addition, the rise of democracy and the trading‐state may signal the abolition of a strategy of ‘conquest’ to attain leadership positions: even in periods of systemic deconcentration, power transitions only escalate to world war if one major power has an authoritarian or totalitarian political system and an autarchic economic policy.