Conflict in the International Arena through the three images lens
Man, the State and War canalizes causes of conflicts in the international arena through the lenses of the three images. The three images are philosophical, psychological and theoretical approaches to understand the reasons of conflict and the eruption of wars in the international field. The first image tries to explain the reasons of war by focusing on the relevance of human nature or human-tendencies as the main instigator of violent responses between nations. The second image suggests that the main causes of war lies on the domestic characteristics of the internal structure of states.And lastly, the third image describes the appearance of conflict between nations through the …show more content…
“The most important causes of political arrangements and acts are found in the nature and behavior of man… the minimum agreement that first-image analysts hold in common." (Waltz2001, 42)Taking in consideration that these exact men are the ones responsible for the state’s participation on foreign affairs one can agree that certainly psychological and social-cultural norms can greatly influence in their decision to go or not to war. Conversely, to blame the break out of conflict based only on “human imperfection” can be debated. Waltz dismisses such allegations based on the uselessness of such theory, he explains that if we were to blame human nature for the acts of men then the nature of men would have to be turned around in order to “change men” and make them good. “To control rapacious men requires more force than exhortation. The simple idea of a fixed human nature says Waltz, in terms of which all else must be understood, itself helps to shift attention away from human nature- because human nature, by the terms of the assumption, cannot be changed, whereas social-political institutions can be” (Waltz2001, 41). One can agree that the theory which associates men’s actions directly with their background and violent tendencies can play an important role in the settlement of conflicts; however, as Waltz concluded on his chapter 1, …show more content…
Some believe that “through the reform of states wars can be reduced or forever eliminated.” Though, there are different views in the “how to” approach these reforms. From a liberal’s point of view, the economy is a major focal point in which the decentralization and freedom of the market from the government regulations will lead to a well-balanced and self-regulated market. However, Waltz challenges this assumption by making emphasis on the need for a self-regulated society in order for a self-regulated market to function properly which reminds us of what we learned from the first image that concludes in the acceptance that human nature is imperfect and cannot be changed. Therefore, we cannot expect for a society to successfully regulate itself. After realizing this, liberals have taken a different approach to the issue by moving internally from “laissez-faire liberalism” to “liberal revisionism” concluding that the application of force to internally organize states is the answer to settle disputes. This can be applied to the domestic affairs, but what about the international affairs? Liberals believe that while force plus reasoning is needed to internally fix the defects of governments, reasoning only will lead international field. As Waltz expresses “In international affairs they would have reason prevail over force, whereas domestically
Man, the State and War canalizes causes of conflicts in the international arena through the lenses of the three images. The three images are philosophical, psychological and theoretical approaches to understand the reasons of conflict and the eruption of wars in the international field. The first image tries to explain the reasons of war by focusing on the relevance of human nature or human-tendencies as the main instigator of violent responses between nations. The second image suggests that the main causes of war lies on the domestic characteristics of the internal structure of states.And lastly, the third image describes the appearance of conflict between nations through the …show more content…
“The most important causes of political arrangements and acts are found in the nature and behavior of man… the minimum agreement that first-image analysts hold in common." (Waltz2001, 42)Taking in consideration that these exact men are the ones responsible for the state’s participation on foreign affairs one can agree that certainly psychological and social-cultural norms can greatly influence in their decision to go or not to war. Conversely, to blame the break out of conflict based only on “human imperfection” can be debated. Waltz dismisses such allegations based on the uselessness of such theory, he explains that if we were to blame human nature for the acts of men then the nature of men would have to be turned around in order to “change men” and make them good. “To control rapacious men requires more force than exhortation. The simple idea of a fixed human nature says Waltz, in terms of which all else must be understood, itself helps to shift attention away from human nature- because human nature, by the terms of the assumption, cannot be changed, whereas social-political institutions can be” (Waltz2001, 41). One can agree that the theory which associates men’s actions directly with their background and violent tendencies can play an important role in the settlement of conflicts; however, as Waltz concluded on his chapter 1, …show more content…
Some believe that “through the reform of states wars can be reduced or forever eliminated.” Though, there are different views in the “how to” approach these reforms. From a liberal’s point of view, the economy is a major focal point in which the decentralization and freedom of the market from the government regulations will lead to a well-balanced and self-regulated market. However, Waltz challenges this assumption by making emphasis on the need for a self-regulated society in order for a self-regulated market to function properly which reminds us of what we learned from the first image that concludes in the acceptance that human nature is imperfect and cannot be changed. Therefore, we cannot expect for a society to successfully regulate itself. After realizing this, liberals have taken a different approach to the issue by moving internally from “laissez-faire liberalism” to “liberal revisionism” concluding that the application of force to internally organize states is the answer to settle disputes. This can be applied to the domestic affairs, but what about the international affairs? Liberals believe that while force plus reasoning is needed to internally fix the defects of governments, reasoning only will lead international field. As Waltz expresses “In international affairs they would have reason prevail over force, whereas domestically