On the Etiology of Internal Wars

Abstract

The term denotes any resort to violence within a political order to change its constitution, rulers, or policies.' It is not a new concept; distinctions between external and internal war (guerre exterieure and guerre interieure) were made already in the nineteenth century by writers on political violence.2 Nor does it mean quite the same thing as certain more commonly used terms, such as revolution, civil war, revolt, rebellion, uprising, guerrilla warfare, mutiny, jacquerie, coup d'etat, terrorism, or insurrection. It stands for the genus of which the others are species. Using the generic concept alongside, or even in place of, the more specific terms is justifiable on several grounds. Most obviously, all cases of internal war do have common features, however much they differ in detail. All involve the use of violence to achieve purposes which can also be achieved without violence. All indicate a breakdown of some dimension in legitimate political order as well as the existence of collective frustration and aggression in a population. All presuppose certain capabilities for violence by those who make the internal war and a certain incapacity for preventing violence among