World War I

The assassination was perceived not only as a security crisis but also as a matter of honor and prestige. State leaders interpreted the event through the lens of fear of reputational damage and humiliation, which rapidly escalated diplomatic tensions.

The escalation of conflict is seen as a balance of power reflex; great powers believe that a rival state establishing regional or continental hegemony would weaken their own security. Therefore, interventions are aimed more at preventive balancing and power equilibrium maintenance than aggression. In the neorealist perspective, states act not ideologically, but based on relative power position and long-term security calculations; the resulting picture is interpreted as systemic balancing behavior.

Gallipoli is regarded as an elite decision failure resulting from leaders’ misperception, hubris, and overconfidence; in other words, human nature and prestige politics lead to strategic error.

The Battle of the Somme exemplifies a large-scale offensive assessed within elite decision-making and politics. Leaders considered prestige, reputation, and willpower, with decisions influenced by perception, cost-benefit analysis, and prudence.

It is regarded as a strategic choice by states that acknowledged the material costs and power limitations of continuous warfare. This move stemmed from national interests and the priority of state survival over ideology.

The assassination is a trigger event. The root cause of the war is not a single crisis, but rather the multipolar structure of Europe, rising systemic tensions, and mutual distrust. The event plays a role in accelerating an already fragile security dilemma.

The escalation of conflict is seen as a balance of power reflex; great powers believe that a rival state establishing regional or continental hegemony would weaken their own security. Therefore, interventions are aimed more at preventive balancing and power equilibrium maintenance than aggression. In the neorealist perspective, states act not ideologically, but based on relative power position and long-term security calculations; the resulting picture is interpreted as systemic balancing behavior.

The goal of the operation is not to gain territory, but to weaken the opponent's logistics and strengthen one's own relative power position by achieving geostrategic control. Failure is explained more by material constraints, defensive advantage, and power projection limits than by leadership error.

The classical liberal perspective is not very strong in directly explaining the "cause" of the assassination itself, because the theory is more concerned with domestic political conditions and societal tensions than with individual violence. Nevertheless, the event is attributed to weak political representation, limited civil liberties and the activities of nationalist groups operating outside democratic channels.

The escalation of the war is linked to insufficient economic interdependence and weak commercial ties. Intensive trade relations could have acted as a deterrent by increasing the cost of war.

The Gallipoli Campaign is evaluated less in terms of military tactics and more in terms of public accountability, representative governance, and economic interdependence. The decision-making process for foreign policy was concentrated within a small elite group rather than involving parliamentary oversight and extensive public discussion, thereby increasing the risk of military risks.

The revolution is interpreted as an internal crisis resulting from deep social inequality, economic hardship, and a deficit in political representation. The weakness of internal freedoms and inclusive governance mechanisms also undermines the stability of the state's foreign policy.

It is explained not only by weak peaceful alternatives, limited economic interdependence, and narrowed diplomatic channels. In the absence of strong and sustainable commercial ties, non-military solutions appear less politically attractive. Thus, it is seen as a combination of the weakness of diplomatic and economic cooperation channels and the inadequacy of democratic checks and balances that limit leaders domestically.

The Treaty of Versailles is seen as a significant opportunity to establish a sustainable post-war peace. However, the resulting arrangement failed to provide long-term political stability because it did not produce a fair and inclusive settlement. The treaty's inclusion of harsh reparations, restrictive conditions, and perceived one-sided provisions undermined the process of mutual trust-building and reconciliation. The classical liberal perspective argues that for peace to be sustainable, mutual economic incentives and norm-based cooperation are necessary.

The transformation of the assassination into a crisis is due to the lack of effective conflict-resolution mechanisms and strong international institutions. As institutional channels for crisis management were weak, information sharing and diplomatic coordination were insufficient.

The absence of reliable diplomatic mediation and information-sharing channels during the crisis caused a breakdown in cooperation between the parties. If stronger multilateral institutions and collective security arrangements had been in place, a diplomatic solution might have been more probable than a declaration of war.

The international system of that era had not produced strong multilateral frameworks and monitoring mechanisms through which states could manage crises. Therefore, while states focused on protecting their short-term interests, they turned to conflict rather than pursuing absolute gains from cooperation, and the crisis rapidly escalated into war.

The disruption of trade during the war decreased cooperation incentives between nations by breaking existing networks of economic interdependence. Stronger international economic regimes and trade governance mechanisms could have limited the use of economic tools as conflict instruments in this way.

The Ottoman Empire's entry into the war is linked to limited institutional ties and weak economic dependencies. If stronger institutional connections, economic reliance, and dependable international cooperation frameworks had existed, neutrality or other diplomatic options might have been more appealing and sustainable.

The Gallipoli Campaign is explained by a lack of coordination among the allies and inadequate multilateral planning. Additionally, information asymmetry and limited institutional coordination among the allies led to inefficiencies in logistics and military planning.

The long and exhausting conflict at Verdun is explained by the lack of institutionalized channels for negotiation and conflict management between the parties. Because there were no strong international institutions to manage the crisis or to maintain continuous diplomatic mediation, the parties were unable to establish a cooperative arrangement to jointly reduce the costs of the war. Furthermore, low institutional trust and limited information transparency made it difficult for the parties to obtain reliable information about the other side's intentions. This weakened incentives for cooperation and led to the continuation of the conflict rather than a diplomatic resolution.

The Battle of the Somme is explained by problems in coordinating collective strategy among the Allies and by the high transaction costs of cooperation. Military planning could not be carried out in a fully coordinated manner because strong institutional coordination mechanisms and regular information-sharing channels were lacking to develop a common strategy.

This event is explained by the breakdown of domestic institutions within the state. Economic crisis and political instability have weakened both the state's domestic governance capacity and its international regime commitments. From this perspective, strong domestic institutions are seen as critical for maintaining international cooperation. When domestic institutions collapse, the state's capacity for international cooperation decreases, and existing institutional commitments (e.g., war alliances) become unsustainable.

The US entry into the war is seen not only as a military intervention but also as an attempt to preserve existing and future international cooperation structures. The increasing financial interdependence, credit relationships, and trade ties between the US and the Allied Powers demonstrated that the outcome of the war was crucial for the stability of these economic networks. From this perspective, the US role is also explained by its goal of creating a more orderly, rule-based international order, stronger international institutions, and more institutionalized multilateral cooperation in the post-war period. The neoliberal view interprets US involvement not only in terms of the balance of power but also within the framework of international institution-building efforts and long-term cooperation incentives.

Without reliable communication channels and institutional mediation, states are more likely to resort to military solutions. This is an example of a breakdown in cooperation. Stronger multilateral negotiation frameworks would have made a diplomatic solution more likely than a conflict.

The ceasefire was made possible when the parties recognized the mutual gains from cooperation and accepted the high cost of the war. When diplomatic channels reopened, negotiation mechanisms began functioning, enabling the parties to halt the conflict. Lower transaction costs and increased institutional communication laid the groundwork for a negotiated settlement.

The Treaty of Versailles is seen as an institution-building attempt. However, because it did not create sufficiently inclusive international regimes and strong monitoring mechanisms, it could not provide long-term cooperation stability. Peace could have been more lasting if stronger international institutions and sustainable multilateral cooperation frameworks had been established.

The assassination is not merely a security crisis, but is linked to strong national identity narratives and nationalist norms in the Balkans. Pan-Slavic identity and anti-imperial discourses have framed political violence as a legitimate tool for some groups.

The entry of great powers into war is more closely associated with identity alignment and shared political narratives than with alliances. States have positioned themselves within specific civilizational blocs or political values.

Gallipoli is not only a military operation, but is also associated with collective memory and national myth-making processes in different societies. This event has generated powerful narratives of national identity in many countries.

Verdun has become a powerful symbol of national resistance in France. The conflict gained meaning not only through strategy but also through narratives of national identity and collective sacrifice.

The Somme has created a shared trauma narrative that influences how societies perceive war. These experiences shape how war is collectively remembered.

The ceasefire is associated with shifts in public narratives about the meaning of war and the growing discourse of war-weariness. The legitimacy of peace has strengthened in societies.