Machiavelli– observes what really happens. He wants to harness the desire to conquer in
the formulation of his political teachings. No consideration of morality, just skill and
cleverness. Ends justify the means according to him. Peace is impossible.
Hobbes– Human life is nasty, brutish and short. Fear and greed are what drive human
actions. Civil wars are the absolute worse things. His objective is to find a solution to
keep people from killing each other. Total peace and survival can only happen if there is
total control of the State over the people (give up freedom). The State must save its
population from killing each other. Solution: peace at home
Rousseau– Aggression and violence are developed in civilization, through social
interaction. Once people become civilized, they can never go back. Rousseau wants to
use education to change this aggression (social engineering). He believes children should
be taught patriotism, solidarity so that they will treat others well, with love. We can teach
people to love each other on the basis of an artificial kinship. Human beings, left
unchecked, will hurt each other. Solution: Asabiyyah (Ibn Khaldun) to assure peace. Can
we expand the “we” feeling to the point where everyone is included? This feeling usually
comes from a common enemy… The more patriotic you are, the more hostile you are
CRITIQUE: There is a right and wrong. The ends do not always justify the means. We do
not live in anarchy, we live under law and religion.
Grotius (idea)– Argued that there is a “natural law” (we all feel right and wrong). Peace
can be secured by developing this natural truth that humans have inside them. There are
rules and constraints during war.
Kant (liber)– Human reason can lead to global interaction and peace. Type of govt + trade
and commerce = can have peace. Monarchies are more inclined to go to war.
Kenneth Waltz’s “Three Images”
Assumptions + hypotheses
3 categories of answers (what causes wars) that he calls images:
*1 image: psychological state of man (fear, deceit…) leads to war (Freud)
* Human nature cannot be changed
* Humans can be taught to be less aggressive Freud: sublimation– civilization has ways to channel this aggressive energy (ex: art,
Waltz criticizes the theory that war happens because it is human nature. You could say
anything is human nature (vague).
*2 image: internal organization of States can lead to war (Kissinger and Doyle)
Kissinger: He is viewed as a Machiavellian practitioner of internal relations. He
encourages Nixon to develop relations with China in order to strengthen the US against
the Russians. He categorizes Π systems:
* Bureaucratic pragmatic (high competence in dealing with technical problems)–
Ex: USA and western countries
* Charismatic revolutionary (use a common enemy to bring people together and
keep the attention off internal problems)– Ex: Cuba, Egypt and nonwestern
* Russia has its own category because it fits in neither of those
Importance of culture
Critique of Kissinger Culture is significant but individual personality and action matter as
“Non west” is so vague, not truly possible to act as if they are one.
Hard to look at what is at a moment in time and extrapolate that to create a rule or a
prediction for the rest of time. Concepts can be useful if they look at a long period of time
and conclude a general pattern, prediction.
Doyle: Liberal democracies do not go to war with each other. He looked at every war in
the entire world and in all history and realized that there was never a war between 2
democracies. He explains with 3 reasons:
• Constitutional law: If you have a non democratic leader anger, hatred,
revenge….will fester. Rotating leaders
• Cosmopolitan law: Economic interdependencies lead you to not want to wage
war against each other.
• International law: Liberal conception of rights ▯seems wrong to just take