For societies of Western civilization, clashes in religion, for several centuries the primary cause of destructive wars, have stopped to be a peril that we have to take into account. In societies of the Orient, there remain circumstances in which religious conflicts could intimidate peace (World Conference for International Peace Through Religion 1932). In general, it could reasonably be assumed that, at this historical period, the usual function of the religious forces is to facilitate peace cause, not to endanger it.
Dynastic causes, on the other hand, could be momentarily discounted. However, the political causes apparently cannot be equally discarded. The outbursts that occur from suspected insults to national pride and integrity, the accusations of Irredentist minorities, national movements are situated under this category (Suganami 1996). It is probably accurate that at this time causes of this type demonstrate the most evident, direct, and urgent peril to diplomatic relations.
The economic and political intentions are interlocked beyond the possibility of separating. In current situations in Europe, society is improbable to instigate or threaten war to obtain an economic outcome, but a continuing presence of economic unrest could agitate a wide-ranging national resistance to the point of potential danger. It is quite simple but incredibly foolish, to ignore the more entrenched and continuing grounds for the one which, particularly when there is an imminent danger, is the more evident (Spanier 1987).
Political forces are probably more central than economic factors. In the threats to a breaking of the peace, hence, political forces are at this point most important and are possible to be so for several years to come.
Prospective peace relies not merely upon the nature of the preventive mechanisms, but as well as upon whether the common existence of humanity is, or is not, in itself as to generate profound and strongly felt discrepancies of policy and motive (Robbins 1939).