There are many factors that influence the events that happen in the world. Groups, classes and different levels of human organizations may highly influence the course of events. But, the state still remains the dominant factor that dictates the events as the others have to act upon the state to be of influence (Singer, 1960, p. 453).
And, according to the second image analysis of the cause of war by Kenneth Waltz, the key to understanding war and peace is the internal organization of states (Waltz, 1973, p. 81). In contrast to this political realist perspective of war is a concept right opposite called “complex interdependence” (Keohane and Nye, 2012, p. 19). Complex Interdependence has three main characteristics. First, there are multiple channels like interstate, transnational and trans governmental relations that connect societies.
Second, absence of hierarchy of issues in the agenda of interstate relationships. And third, there is no use of military force between the governments when complex interdependence prevails. The assumptions by political realists that dominated the post war period do not adequate to analyse the world today.
Historically nations active in the international system were actively and continuously preparing for war or were recovering from some war in the form of organized violence (Keohane and Nye, 2012, p. 19). War which had previously been as a power advancement is now seen as a dangerous drag (Keohane and Nye, 2012). According to Waltz, the political institutions of a state, the mode of production and distribution, and the characteristic of the people in it all determine if a state will be peaceful or not (Singer, 1960, p. 457). He further contends that the capitalist democracies around the world actively promote war, but in today’s’ context the margin of safety has broadened among the pluralist and industrialized nations (Keohane and Nye, 2012, p. 23). Waltz puts forward the concept of bad states and good states (Singer, 1960, p.
457). It is the bad states that go to war and the bad states can become good or peace loving by turning into liberal democracies (Singer, 1960, p. 23).
But the main problem is that the opposite of this statement that good states propagate and stand for peace is an extremely doubtful proposition (Waltz, 1973, p.123). The realist assumption that the states use force to achieve their goals also takes a back seat when it comes to complex interdependence. It puts forward the view that in order to achieve goals related to economic or ecological problems force is not the appropriate instrument. However, it proposes that military power can be used politically and does not completely negate the realist assumption of the use of military force (Keohane and Nye, 2012, p.
23). The influence of the internal structure of the state in relation to war and peace cannot be entirely determined until the significance of the international environment has been considered (Waltz, 1973, p. 123). Taking the assumptions of realism and complex interdependence it is complex interdependence that comes closer to explaining the reality of the current world.
