And war is considered also as a paroxysm of this rivalry.
The rivalry is lasting but when it is at its peak,
we are in a war situation, that's why in our European
history war is consider as normal in an international arena.
And we know now why, if we take into account what Thomas Hobbes said,
he explained to her that states were like gladiators in the international arena.
That's to say they are permitted to use all the means for dominating their rivals.
All the means including force, every kind of force.
That's why in this region, peace is only an interwar.
Peace doesn't exist by itself and it is probably one of the most
pessimistic feature of our western vision of international relations.
War it has to center at the core of international
relation when piece is consider as a no war,
a situation between two wars.
This pessimistic vision is important to take into account.
Because in this ops construction, we mean we understand
that war is synonymous of international relations,
the science of international relations is considered as a science of war.
No room for peace and this is probably one of the most
pessimistic vision that we can have on our international relation studies.
But behind this pessimistic vision there's something very important for us.
That's to say to consider that war is functional.
War is functional for several reasons.
The first one in that war is considered as an instrument for
achieving a competition amongst states.
War is the only way for overcoming the disputes among
states as such it's considered, as functional.
But war is also functional for reassessing power of states,
for redistributing powers, for
redefining the condition of balancing powers among states.