Nick Dixson
Abstract: The 1879-1883 War of the Pacific between Bolivia and Peru against Chile it is best understood through the theory of liberalism. While both realism and constructivism also explain the War of the Pacific extremely well, there are unresolved issues in both disciplines. Realism offers a very sparse, laconic view of why the War of the Pacific occurred and what interests were of great concern. It does not show, as liberalism does, that the lack of a neutral forum to engage the involved countries in peaceful discussion and the lack of democratic governments in Peru and Bolivia made war in the region more likely. Furthermore, like realism, constructivism does not acknowledge the power of institutions. Institutions have “sticky power,” and few identity conflicts, as constructivists would portray the War of the Pacific, are strong enough to overcome the constraints established by institutions. While realism may explain the power aspect of the War and constructivism may explain an exacerbating factor, only liberalism reveals the background conditions that made it more possible for political disputes to escalate to war. While each theory of international relations helps to understand a certain aspect of the War of the Pacific, only through liberalism, in concert with realism and constructivism, can the full nature of the conflict be understood.
Key Terms: International Relations Theory, liberalism, realism, constructivism, War of the Pacific, Chile, Peru, Bolivia
Click here for full article
