In international relations theory, one of the most important fault lines between realists and liberals is over the relationship between economic interdependence and military conflict. From Norman Angell onward, liberals have argued that cross-border trade and economic exchange are engines for peace. According to the liberal logic, great powers refrain from using force to extract resources when trade is far more cost-effective. As trade and economic interdependence increase, going to war becomes an exercise in mutually assured economic destruction. Realists from E. H. Carr onward have argued precisely the opposite. The realist logic is premised on the notion that cross-border economic exchange can foster more insecurity than security. Interdependence is rarely mutual; the more asymmetrically dependent actor usually fears a loss of autonomy and acts accordingly.
This debate has raged for more than a century, but Dale Copeland argues in Economic Interdependence and War that the truth is more complicated...