INTRODUCTIONKenneth Waltz is a neorealist who, through his many contributions, has left an indelible mark in the field of international relations. This article will begin by examining his three images of analysis, then move to a general overview of how his theory of international relations is informed by his commitment to the third image in particular, and then conclude by examining some of the criticisms that have been made. raised against it. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on 'Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned'? Get an original essay THREE IMAGES OF ANALYSIS AND NEOREALIST THEORY In his book “Man, the State and War”, Waltz writes about three images of analysis through which he highlights the causes of war seen from three different points of view: the first image assumes that the main cause of war is the imperfection of human beings, the second image states that wars/war conditions are made possible by the internal structure of individual states, and finally the third image brings out the point of view or the image with which Waltz himself seems to align most, namely that war is caused by the system of which states are a part, thus counteracting the importance given to unit-level analyzes of the first and second images. Images. (Waltz, 2001) The best summary of the first image can be found in the first lines of Waltz's chapter on it: "Wars arise from selfishness, from misdirected aggressive impulses, from stupidity" (Waltz, 2001). He delves into this line of thought by distinguishing between the various types of adherents of this image and then comparing and critically analyzing the work of other political philosophers who agree with this image and use it as an entry point through which they arrive at what they believe are the main causes of war as well as the provisions necessary to eliminate or reduce their occurrence. He begins by laying out the basic assumption of this image, which is that humans are imperfect. He then distinguishes between a pessimistic and optimistic approach to this image. The difference between the two is seen primarily in terms of their approach to the solutions they give to the problem of wars resulting from human imperfection. Optimists believe that humans can be changed for the better and by doing so the occurrence of wars will greatly decrease. or stop altogether, while pessimists believe that little or nothing can be done about human nature and give the balance of power a position of great importance, since in their opinion it prevents the great powers from completely destroying each other and with the rest. of the world with them. (Waltz, 2001) He then explains the arguments of prominent political philosophers, focusing on Spinoza and St. 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, drawn to act according to their passions, are drawn into conflict. (Waltz, 2001) The main criticism against this image is that, although humans are imperfect, crimes occur relatively rarely and periods of peace persist. The imperfection of man is used as a general explanation of events every time conflict rears its head, thus suggesting that the acceptance or refutation of the first image is based more on the reader's state of mind and temperament than on the theoretical rigor. (Waltz, 2001) The second image concerns theinternal structure of individual states and how it affects the climate of international relations. Since he is slightly inclined towards a liberal analysis, Waltz begins with a brief introduction of the liberal view on 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 since they are more attuned to citizens' desires 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 them seem to suggest a method somewhat arbitrary. to resolve disputes. Waltz also says that if liberals extended their logic further, they would see that their analysis and resulting recipe for peace are quite impractical and far-fetched. It's almost as if what should be done for world peace is to simply wait for more states to embrace democracy. This brings us to the third criticism, which is that this analysis is an inadequately supported generalization since a single mode of state organization is expected to result. in world peace it does not take into account the complexity of relations between the states of the world. (Waltz, 2001) The third image is based on the assumption of anarchy and that “in anarchy there is no automatic harmony”. (Waltz, 2001) He begins the chapter by comparing the thought of Rousseau, who seems to have influenced him the most, with that of Spinoza and Kant. Although both Kant and Rousseau begin by agreeing that a civil government is what is necessary to keep people's behavior in line with the interests of the population, Kant does not allow himself to be led to the conclusion that a world government is necessary, mainly due to fear that it ends up becoming a despotism and suffocating the freedoms of its subjects. The criticism leveled at Kant in this regard becomes obvious; there is a clear inconsistency here, agrees that a government is necessary to maintain peace within the state, but also tries to establish that states will learn from previous miscalculations and begin to cooperate on their own initiative. (Waltz, 2001) Waltz then examines Rousseau in more detail before applying him to international relations, thus leading to his neorealist theory. Rousseau distinguishes between two cases; States as they are and states as they should be. Regarding the latter, Rousseau states that they will represent the will of the population and the State will be considered a single unit. This allows him to extend his analysis of humans to states. At this point he disagrees with Kant and states that, although the state's actions conform to the will of its population and are intended to be just, they may not be entirely agreeable to other states, thus leaving ample possibility for a just state that enters an unjust war. This brings us to Rousseau's most important area of ​​contention with Kant; where Kant does not take his reasoning to its logical conclusion, Rousseau does and claims that a voluntary organization is indeed necessary to bind the states of the world if peace is to be maintained. In short, Rousseau seems to say that “war happens because there is nothing to prevent it”. (Waltz, 2001) From here, Waltz moves on to international relations theory in the penultimate chapter of the book. It begins with his views on the balance of power. He raises questions about the legitimacy of the balance of power approach and states that “these questions can only be answered..