The Battle Of Inter State War

1464 Words Feb 8th, 2016 6 Pages
Bull defines war as “organized violence carried on by political units against each other” (184). With respect to this broad definition, both he and Waltz posit models of conflict which can effectively be used to analyze the sources of modern violence. The warrior scholars employ the theories of multiple political philosophers including Kant and Rousseau in order to build theories that encapsulate the complex variables which lead to armed engagement. These theories can be extrapolated in order to explain the causes of inter-state war, and to provide explanations of violence in the modern global theatre. Overall, Waltz’s argument of the three images is extremely persuasive. The logical underpinnings of the models and the ways in which they collaborate are, for the most part, concrete and well thought-out. His theory provides for three basic ideas through which the origins of all conflict can be distilled. First, Waltz (1959) provides that thinkers such as Spinoza place the responsibility of violence at the feet of human imperfection and lack of reason. Secondly, he postulates that domestic policy of a state will lead to conflict (Waltz 1959). Finally, the theorist channels Rousseau’s The Social Contract to explain warfare as a symptom of international relations (Waltz 1959). The ways in which these three ideas correlate are what make Waltz’s explanation so compelling. The first two of these images, the man and the state, explain how a country behaves internally. The…
Open Document