INTRODUCTIONKenneth Waltz is a neorealist who, through his various contributions, has left an indelible mark in the field of international relations. This article will begin by examining his three analytical images, then move on to a general overview of how his theory of international relations is informed by his adherence to the third image in particular, and then conclude by examining some of the criticisms that have been made . raised against this. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essay THREE PICTURES FROM NEOREALIST ANALYSIS AND THEORY In his book “Man, the State and War” , Waltz writes about three analytical images through which he highlights the causes of war seen from three different points of view: the first image posits that the root cause of war is the imperfection of humans, the second image asserts that wars/war conditions are made possible through the internal structure of individual states, and finally the third image brings out the point of view or image that Waltz himself seems to most align with, according to in which war is caused by the system of which states are a part, thus countering the emphasis on unit-level analyzes of the first and second images. pictures. (Waltz, 2001) The best summary of the first image is found in the opening lines of Waltz's chapter on this subject: "Wars result from selfishness, from misdirected aggressive impulses, from stupidity" (Waltz, 2001 ). He furthers this line of thinking by differentiating different types of adherents to this image, then comparing and critically analyzing the works of other political philosophers who agree with this image and use it as a point of reference. entry by which they arrive at what they think are the main causes of war as well as the measures necessary to eliminate or reduce its occurrence. He begins by laying out the fundamental assumption of this picture, that humans are imperfect. He then differentiates between a pessimistic and optimistic approach to this image. The difference between the two is seen primarily in terms of their approach to solutions to the problem of wars caused by human imperfection. Optimists believe that humans can be changed for the better and, in doing so, the number of wars will decrease significantly. or stop altogether, while pessimists believe that little or nothing can be done about human nature and they give the balance of power a position of great importance, because according to them it prevents the great powers from completely destroy each other. people with them. (Waltz, 2001) He then explains the arguments of prominent political philosophers, focusing on Spinoza and Saint Augustine to bring out the reasoning behind their arguments. While Saint Augustine focused on nature's instinct for self-preservation and used original sin to explain humanity's imperfection, Spinoza bases his explanation on the conflict between reason and passion; he says that if all actions were based on reason, harmony would prevail, but men, trained to act according to their passions, are drawn into conflict. (Waltz, 2001) The main criticisms against this image are that although humans are imperfect, crimes are relatively rare and periods of peace persist. The imperfection of man is used as a general explanation of events whenever a conflict arises, thus suggesting that the acceptance or refutation of the first image rests more on the mood and temperament of the man.reader only on theoretical rigor. (Waltz, 2001) The second image deals with the internal structure of individual states and how it affects the climate of international relations. Slightly inclined towards a liberal analysis, Waltz begins with a brief introduction to the liberal view of the organization of states and then applies it to the context of international relations. The main argument here is that flaws within states cause wars, and democratic states are less likely to go to war than authoritarian states because they are more attuned to the wishes of their citizens and are therefore also more likely to cooperate for mutual benefit. (Waltz, 2001) One of the major criticisms leveled against this image by Waltz in his book is that most analyzes are vague when it comes to replacing war as a system of dispute resolution and most of they seem to suggest a somewhat arbitrary method. to resolve disputes. Waltz also says that if liberals expanded their logic further, they would see that their analysis and resulting peace proposals are rather impractical and far-fetched. It's almost as if for world peace we just need to wait for more states to adopt democracy. This brings us to the third criticism, namely that this analysis is an insufficiently supported generalization because it expects a single mode of state organization to result. world peace does not take into account the complexity of relations between the states of the world. (Waltz, 2001) The third image is based on the anarchy hypothesis and that “in anarchy there is no automatic harmony”. (Valse, 2001) He begins the chapter by comparing the thoughts of Rousseau, who seems to have influenced him the most, with those of Spinoza and Kant. Although both Kant and Rousseau start from an agreement that civil government is necessary to keep people's behavior consistent with the interests of the population, Kant does not allow himself to be led to the conclusion that a world government is necessary, primarily because of the need for civil government. to the fear that it would end up becoming a despotism and stifling the freedoms of its subjects. The criticism addressed to Kant in this regard becomes obvious; there is an obvious inconsistency here, it recognizes that a government is necessary to maintain peace within the state, but it also tries to establish that states will learn from previous miscalculations and begin to cooperate on their own graciously. (Waltz, 2001) Waltz then examines Rousseau in more detail before applying him to international relations, thus leading to his neorealist theory. Rousseau distinguishes two cases; States as they are and as they should be. Concerning the latter, Rousseau says that they will represent the will of the population and that the State will be considered as a single unit. This allows him to extend his analysis from humans to states. He disagrees with Kant on this point and asserts that although the actions of the state are in accordance with the will of its population and are intended to be just, they could not be completely acceptable to the people. other states, thus leaving wide open the possibility of a just state entering into an unjust war. This brings us to the most important point of contention between Rousseau and Kant; where Kant does not take his reasoning to its logical conclusion, Rousseau does and asserts that voluntary organization is indeed necessary to bind the states of the world if peace is to be maintained. In a word, Rousseau seems to say that “war happens because nothing prevents it”. (Waltz, 2001) From there, Waltz moves on to international relations theory in..