2 International Relations Theory of War
other wars end in their contraction or maintaining their territorial status.
In conclusion, it is asked whether the polarity of the system affects these
two outcomes and, if so, how.
The book attempts to make good the dearth of structural theory of inter-
national political systems that focuses on an explanation and outcomes
expectation, while expanding existing knowledge about the war institu-
tion and developing tools that may reduce its damage.^2 Even 2,400 years
after the Thucydides’s study of war, the war institution remains a signifi-
cant man-made threat to human well-being,^3 and for more than 300 years,
international history has been woven with the rise and fall of great powers
and the formation of international systems on the ruins of their predeces-
sors.^4 In view of the foregoing, the importance of structural theoretical
research about the war institute is perfectly understandable. Studies of
wars and their results still pose a significant scientific challenge that may
help reduce and even prevent them in the future.^5
The study presented in this book is primarily a practice of international
relations theory. It is not a historical study that describes the events with
which it deals in detail. It is not an attempt to present an exact descrip-
tion of diplomatic history and of the bilateral and multilateral rela-
tions between the polar powers in the 200 years that the study covers,
1816–2016.
The study analyzes two key international outcomes. The systemic inter-
national outcome deals with the stability of the three possible international
system models and may assume three main values: a destabilized, stable,
or partly destabilized system; the intrasystemic international outcome
deals with the degree of territorial expansion of the polar powers at the
end of wars in which they participated. This outcome may assume three
main values: territorial expansion, territorial contraction, or maintaining
the territorial status quo ante bellum.
The theory explains the two international outcomes resulting from one
of the three system polarity models, which are defined according to the
number of polar powers operating in the system at any point in time.
These are multipolar systems, in which there are three or more great pow-
ers; bipolar systems, in which there are just two superpowers; and unipo-
lar systems, in which there is a single hyperpower.
In the three possible polarity models, the polar powers constituting the
system have a similar degree of power, which will be significantly greater
than the power that the remaining actors in the system would possess.
In order for a country to be defined as a polar power, it must have mate-
rial power consisting of military and economic power and long territorial
power, meaning control of areas of geostrategic importance for their time.
These would include trade route regions in the Eurasian continent in the
19th and 20th centuries, areas in the Persian Gulf region today, and prob-
ably areas in Southeast Asia in the future.