The concept of war has been an important topic of analysis throughout the ages. However, there is no single definition that is applicable to all instances of violence. There are several factors that contribute to this phenomenon. For instance, it is the nature of the means that distinguishes it from other forms of political action. These methods can be distinguished by their philosophical, economic, legal, and social approaches. This distinction can also be made in terms of the historical context of a war.
One school of thought attributes war to innate biological or psychological factors. Another school of thought attributes it to social relations. Regardless of which approach is taken, it is clear that the nature of a war has been influenced by its historical and cultural context.
War is an event that occurs when leaders with abnormal disregard for the human life are placed in power. While there have been some exceptions, most wars have been fought for the interests of individual sovereigns. After the wars of religion, the goals of warfare changed to include revolution and ideals of freedom.
The art of war depends on its ability to accommodate the various means and political views that constitute its context. For example, one country may send forces to another country in order to prevent crimes against humanity. At the same time, the general population has been drawn into the fight by the rulers. Thus, policy must continuously influence the course of the war.
Another theory proposes that all wars are based on a common set of factors. These factors are referred to as contextual common denominators. They are:
A working definition of war would allow a study of all wars, including highly organized and politically controlled wars, guerrilla uprisings, and conflicts between non-state peoples. It allows a more flexible approach than the OED definition. In addition, this definition enables a more detailed examination of smaller armed conflicts, such as riots, coups, and rebellions.
In fact, there are many different definitions of war. As a result, it is important to be careful in studying these concepts. Because of the diverse ways in which the word has been used, it is possible to unwittingly apply the conceptions of a certain political school to a particular case.
If we take a more atomistic conception of humanity, we see that the original motive for waging war remains fear of threats. Even if a person does not realize it, the fact that he is involved in fighting between two countries is an indication that he is in war. Therefore, the motives for action are more likely to be stopped by experience than to be strengthened by powerful motives.
The reason for this is that the state of feeling is a strong factor in the product of force. This is because a sense of danger is checked by the possibility of a standstill. Furthermore, the difference between attack and defense brings the extreme tendencies of feelings down to a limited scale.