CHAPTER 5
The Distribution of Power
and International Outcomes:
Conclusions
By examining the range of theories in international relations, a number
of key assumptions have been identified that are often used for explain-
ing the systemic international outcome that the international relations theory
of war attempts to explain: the degree of stability of the three models of
possible international systems. None of the alternative theories in the
international relations field presents a satisfactory explanation for the fact
that the period covered by the study, 1816–2016, is alternatingly stable
and destabilized. In addition to this, the theoretical research in the inter-
national relations field barely deals with the intrasystemic international
outcome that is explained using the international relations theory of war—the
degree of territorial expansion of the polar powers at the end of the wars
in which they participate.
Most studies from the realistic paradigm in the international relations
field indicate that the international system encourages the players to act
in one of two key ways: in a revisionist manner, according to offensive
realism, or for preserving the status quo, according to neorealism and the
defensive branch of realism.
After reviewing all the wars between countries that involved the polar
powers of 1816–2016, the two outcomes were compared between the
various instances of the same polarity models and between the various
instances of the three polarity models. The last, summary chapter will deal
with two subjects: firstly, the summary of the empiric check of the two
variables that the theory examines for presenting its conclusions, and sec-
ondly, analysis of the international system from the end of the Cold War
to the present.