Citation

Lake DA. Int. Stud. Rev. 2003; 5(4): 81-90.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2003, John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1111/j.1079-1760.2003.00504008.x

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

The presumption that international relations theory can help explain internal conflict is widely shared and accounts for the hubris of many who came late to the topic of domestic violence and civil war from the study of international politics.1 There has been some useful arbitrage with theories of interstate war providing insights into the causes of intrastate war. But the belief that international relations theory has something uniquely important to contribute to the study of internal violence is wrongFor at least misstated. Rather, we are approaching a single, unified theory of political violence of which interstate and intrastate war may be particular forms. I emphasize approaching because this general theory has not yet been fully worked out and may because the particular forms of violence and the relationships between them have not yet been defined. Nonetheless, considerable progress has been made. The real question is what does this general theory tell us about violence? What are the commonalities between interstate and intrastate war? What are the differences? How can the study of one help inform our understanding of the other? If so far scholars have arbitraged from international relations to civil war, it is important to recognize that trade is a two-way process; we should seek to exploit opportunities for gain in both directions. Doing so highlights the irrelevance of some analytic boundaries long taken for granted in the field of political science and focuses our attention for future research on the role of extremists within both domestic groups and states.

Language: en