DEFINITION

It seems only fitting that a scholarly work should begin with a definition of the subject at hand. Yet denning the subject of an inquiry is no light task. Although lilliputian scholars often get so bogged down in definition that they never get to the inquiry itself, poor definitions not only lead to confusion but often end up telling you more about the person who stipulated the definition than about the subject. Because the subject of definition and meaning is more complicated than appears, it needs to be analyzed before even attempting a definition of war. For this reason, I begin this chapter with a discussion of the nature of definition – how definitions are employed in and affect inquiry, the relationship between definitions and conceptualizations, and how adequate definitions and concepts can be distinguished from “flawed” ones. With this philosophical framework in mind, I argue that at the beginning of a scientific inquiry, it is best to begin with a simple working definition and to delineate the more interesting insights of complicated definitions and concepts of war as a set of theoretical assumptions separate from the definition itself.

In the second section, I select a working definition for the inquiry and elucidate some of its latent assumptions. Next, I identify the operational definition used by empirical researchers as the working definition of war in quantitative world politics discourse and analyze its latent assumptions. In the third section I turn to a review and assessment of various conceptions of war by analyzing some of the more important theoretical definitions that can be found in the history of international relations thinking and in other disciplines' study of war.