rgues that the international system provides the most convincing theoretical explanation

as a source of international conflict compared to human nature and the organization of

states. See Gourevitch for a discussion of the impact of the system on the internal
organization of states - the second image reversed.

First Image: Human Behavior

1. Wars result from selfishness, from misdirected aggressive impulses, from stupidity.
If these are the primary causes, the elimination of war must come through uplifting
and enlightening men (p.16).
2. For pessimists, peace is at once a goal and a utopian dream, while optimists take
seriously the proposition to reform the individual. Pessimists (Niebuhr,
Morgenthau) have countered the theory of politics built on an optimistic definition
of man but also expose the important error of exaggerating the causal importance
of human nature. Since this nature is very complex, it can justify any hypothesis
we may entertain. If men can be made good, then one must discover how to alter
human nature. This expectation is often buried under the conviction that individual
behavior is determined more by religious and spiritual inspiration rather than
material circumstance. If man's evil qualities lead to wars, then one must worry
about ways to repress them or compensate for them. Control rather than
exhortation is needed, tends to assume a fixed human nature, which shifts the
focus away from it, toward social and political institutions that can be changed
(p.41).
3. Not every contribution the behavioral scientist can make has been made before
and found wanting, but rather, the proffered contributions of many of them have
been rendered ineffective by a failure to comprehend the significance of the political
framework of international action. Social and psychological realism has produced
political utopianism (p.77).

Second Image: Internal Structure of States

1. The internal organization of states is the key to understanding war and peace.
Removing the defects of states would establish the basis for peace. Definition of a
``good'' state: (a) Marx - according to the means of production, (b) Kant -
according to abstract principles of right, (c) Wilson - according to national self-
determination and democracy. Hobbes, Mill, Adam Smith.
2. The use of internal defects to explain external acts of a state can take many forms:
(i) type of government generally bad - deprivations imposed by despots upon their
subjects produce tensions that find their expression in foreign adventure; (ii)
defects in governments not inherently bad - restrictions placed on the state in order
to protect the rights of its citizens interfere with executing foreign policy; and (iii)
geographic or economic deprivations - state has not attained its ``natural''
frontiers, or ``deprived'' countries undertake war to urge the satisfied ones to
make the necessary compensatory adjustments (p.83).
3. Liberal thought has moved from reliance upon improvement within separate states
to acceptance of the need for organization among them. Rigorous application of
this logic leads to asking to what extent organized force must be applied in order
to secure the desired peaceful world. Arguing for a world government and settling
for balance of power as an unhappy alternative reveals the limits of the second
image analysis. Even though bad states may lead to war, the obverse that good
states mean peace is doubtful. Just like societies they live in make men, the
international environment makes states (p.122).

Third Image: International Anarchy

 1. With many sovereign states, with no system of law enforceable among them, with
each state judging its grievances and ambitions according to the dictates of its own
reason or desire - conflict, sometimes leading to war, is bound to occur. To achieve
a favorable outcome from such a conflict, a state has to rely on its own devices,
the relative efficiency of which must be its constant concern (p.159). Machiavelli,
Rousseau, Thucydides, Clausewitz.
2. In anarchy, there is no automatic harmony. Because some countries may be willing
to use force to achieve their ends, and because there is no authority to prevent
them from doing so, even peacefully inclined states must arms themselves.
Goodness and evil, agreement and disagreement, may or may not lead to war. War
occurs because there is nothing to prevent it: there is no automatic adjustment of
interests among states and there is a constant possibility that conflicts will be
settled by force (p.188).
3. A balance of power may exist because some countries consciously make it the end
of their policies, or it may exist because of the quasi-autonomous reactions of some
states to the drive for ascendancy of others. It is not so much imposed by
statesmen on events as it is imposed by events on statesmen (p.209).

Conclusion
The third image describes the framework of world politics, but without the first and the
second images there can be no knowledge of the forces that determine policy; the first
and second images describe the forces in world politics, but without the third image it is
impossible to assess their importance or predict their results (p.238).