Shop now Shop now Shop now See more Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now DIYED Shop now Shop Fire Shop now Shop now Shop now

Customer Reviews

4.0 out of 5 stars
3
4.0 out of 5 stars
5 star
1
4 star
1
3 star
1
2 star
0
1 star
0

Your rating(Clear)Rate this item
Share your thoughts with other customers

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on 1 November 2005
I read this book for a course in international relations.
I found it a fascinating history and analysis of different theories of the causes of war.
This book should not be described as either 'neo-realist' or simplistic. I believe it's more similar to classical realism or the 'English school'
I think those reviewers who described it as simplistic or neo-realist are confusing it with Waltz's later work. It was his 'Theory of International relations' that became more reductionist and simplistic and claimed that domestic politics was irrelevant to foreign policy.
In 'Man, the State and War' by contrast he provides a history of different views on the causes of war - human nature , the form of government (e.g democracies/republics thought to be less likely to start wars than dictatorships/monarchies) , or the nature of the international system (anarchic in the sense that there is no authority or power above states to judge which is the aggressor and punish aggressors).
He clearly states in the conclusion that while he thinks the last of the three is the major cause the firt and second also play a role.
I may disagree with this conclusion (I believe the second factor and especially culture and assumptions about war to be at least as important) Waltz never claims - at least in this book - that the international system is the sole cause of war.
0Comment| 6 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 12 May 2003
This book was written when International Relations was in its infancy and I find myself hoping that such a book is a relic of past times and not representative of current standards of IR scholarship - as a philosophy masters student who takes in interest in IR theory, I found myself tripping over bad theorising/argumentation on almost every page. Statements instead of arguments. Conclusions plucked out of thin air. It's interesting, but doesn't deserve its reputation as a classic. If anything, it's success demonstrates the lack of quality literature to act as competition. A museum piece - worth reading to see 'how we used to live'/'what doctoral students used to be able to get away with'...
0Comment| 6 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 15 July 2014
My daughter needed this for A levels. She was reasonably happy with it.
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

Sponsored Links

  (What is this?)