I would have to say no to that. The answer for me would be globalism and trade, also the introduction of WMD. The phrase was coined before these two remedies for world peace.

Thank you Kelvin for your response. But how do we explain nuclear deterrence? It resonates to those classical realist expression

I would say yes and no. It depends on the situations. And the best strategy has so far been hedging. Simply put, it is the utilization of peaceful cooperative opportunities and, at the same time, being prepared for threats. If it is the case among OECD countries, hedging is more toward bandwagoning than balancing, but if it is between China and US, for example, hedging is better off toward balancing.

I think realism in itself is a limited and dated way of viewing the world. Similarly, liberalism too does not prevent war. If it did, there would be no war today. Most states have ties with other states in the form of trade and yet they go to war or are invaded. Nuclear deterrence itself might prevent an all out full scale war but you will still have small battles (Pakistan and India are prime examples of nuclear states that still have battles despite being nuclear armed states). International balance of power obviously does depend on economic and military capability, but it equally depends on the securitisation norms of the state. If the socially constructed norms of a state allow for it to use security as an excuse to go to war, it will be a state that goes to war. The key terms here are social constructivism and securitisation. I believe these two terms can adequately explain state clashes better than traditional positivist theories such as liberalism and realism.

Thanks for your insight Hao. Appreciate it.

Faisal, yes agree with you. Thank you for your response.

Yes it is still relevant as long as nations will remain the main actors in international relations that are characterised with anarchy.

Agreed with the above. If you are from the Calsewitz school of thought; i.e. 'war is a continuation of politics by other means', war as an alternate route to conflict resolution. Parties go to war because negotiations have failed, conversely one needs the military capacity to force a party back to the negotiating table.

The democratic peace theory is an important thought to consider when attacking the issue of whether or not global peace is a reality. Given that most countries that wield the most power in the world have some form of democracy, the war aspect is usually not an issue. However there are countries such as China and Russia with less democratic structures that we still maintain some degree of peace with, peace meaning not within the immediate reach of wartime. What causes this? Well when you get down to it, you can consider the extension of military power. WMD and the concept of the MAD are at the forefront of creating militaristic "peace" and the logistics of defense expenditure in either money or bodies available (that are ready to fight immediately), with the United States dominating both of those elements at the moment, prevents wars. The issue of economic interdependence in the global political landscape and the enactments of global agreements via NGOs are important considerations as well. It seems more like in this time period that political tensions would be pursued with trade wars or limitations, like the U.S. has faced with China.

I suppose I am being quite centric of the theory of peace when discussing the larger powers of the world, though things get messier when dealing with civil and ethnic conflict in some of the developing countries around the world. But I guess your inquiry would not apply to those countries as they would not be preparing for another war, just in the midst of a civil one.

ETA: so to explicitly answer your question, I believe the expression you are addressing is no longer relevant to today given the evolving global landscape.

Partially. It depends of the case considered and of the mutual perceptions between the different actors involved in the case. You can still have political conflicts between EU States members for exemple but the risk of war is near to zero in this case. If you consider India and Pakistan or Japan and China, the frame of reference are different and military capacities are still a relevant tool in foreign policy even if not the only one. To be prepared for war doesn't exclude the use of diplomacy as the firt way to resolve conflicts and crisis.

Thanks all for your responses. Much appreciated.

Dear all,

I fear Donald Trump would sign that sentence with his bold negotiation approaches.

Preparations are alway good, but I think that economic and cultural exchange and fair chances to all participating societies are the keys for a peaceful coexistance (Win-win-situations and co-development).

Thank you.

Best, Carsten

Power is the only way to have peace.