Int Rel Theo War

108 International Relations Theory of War

and an enormous distance from the United States, which should have led
to an opposite result. In the same manner, the United States’ war against
Iraq in the bipolar system (the Gulf War, 1991) ended with maintaining of
the territorial status quo, whereas the United States’ war against the same
country about a decade later in the unipolar system (the Iraq War, 2003)
ended in the territorial expansion of the polar power. The objective capa-
bilities of polar powers to expand territorially at the end of wars in which
they participate are well known, but the territorial outcomes of these wars
are not constant, inasmuch as each of the three polarity models dictates
different territorial outcomes.
The theoretical discussion of international relations research concerning
territorial expansion at the end of the wars of the polar powers is limited.
The international relations theory of war offers its assumptions concerning all
three possible polarity models. Anarchy alone cannot explain why wars
of polar powers sometimes end in territorial expansion and sometimes
do not, because anarchy is constant whereas the patterns of the territo-
rial outcomes vary. To explain this significant difference in the territorial
outcomes of the wars of polar powers the theory adds a systemic variable:
distribution of the power between the polar powers, or the polarity of the
system. To examine the effect of the distribution of power over the ter-
ritorial outcomes of wars, we must identify the polarity of the system at
each point in time, and in other words, determine whether the system is
multipolar, bipolar, or unipolar.
Confirmation of the argument that the polarity of the system is the fac-
tor that affects the territorial outcomes of wars of polar powers is possible
through reliance on studies in which broad databases have been devel-
oped and various aspects of wars discussed. Only through empiric studies
is it possible to identify possible patterns, trends, or causes that lead to the
different territorial outcomes of the wars of polar powers.

Table 4.9

Stability of International Systems According to Various Realist Theories

Multipolarity Bipolarity Unipolarity

Morgenthau The most stable Less stable than
multipolar

**

Waltz The most destabilized The most stable Nonexistent

Mearsheimer Balanced Unbalanced The most stable Nonexistent

Partly

destabilized

The most

destabilized

Wohlforth ** ** The most stable

Israeli The most destabilized The most stable Partly
destabilized