Notes 185
considers it a distribution of material capabilities, because of its material attitude
to objects. Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics, p. 5.
- A discussion of a system containing five players does not have to lead to
the conclusion that the system contains just five independent countries. However,
it is not always clear what the distinguishing characteristics of polar powers are
from countries that are not considered as players in the balance of power system.
In the dispute concerning the relative stability of bipolar or multipolar systems, it
is not always clear whether the distinction is between a world of two great powers
only or a world of multiple great powers, or between a world of multiple great
powers in which two are much stronger than the others, and a world of multiple
great powers in which power is divided more equally. According to Wagner, this
distinction may also be attributed to the structure of alliances that characterizes the
international system. Wagner, “The Theory of Games and the Balance of Power.” - Waltz, for example, argues that the question of which nations are great
powers is an empiric question and one that may be answered using common
sense. Waltz, Theory of International Politics, p. 131. - Edward D. Mansfield, “Concentration, Polarity, and the Distribution of
Power,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 1 (March 1993), pp. 105–128, at
pp. 108–109. - Waltz, Theory of International Politics, pp. 90–91.
- Waltz, Theory of International Politics, pp. 98–99.
- Legro and Moravcsik, “Is Anybody Still a Realist?” pp. 12–18.
- Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics, p. 11 fn. 31.
- The other paradigm is the behavioral paradigm that includes early real-
ists that argue that the behavior of countries is what determines their outcomes in
international politics. Waltz, “Evaluating Theories,” p. 913. - Wendt, “The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory.”
- Kenneth N. Waltz, “The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory,” Journal of
Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 18, No. 4 (Spring 1988), pp. 615–628, at p. 618. - Andrew Moravcsik, “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of
International Politics,” International Organization, Vol. 51, No. 4 (Autumn 1997),
pp. 513–553. - Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: The Uni-
versity of Chicago Press, 1962). - Among the earlier and the prominent supporters of the realist theory we
can mark Edward H. Carr, The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919–1939: An Introduction to
the Study of International Relations (London: Macmillan, 1939); Morgenthau, Poli-
tics Among Nations; John H. Hertz, Political Realism and Political Idealism: A Study
in Theories and Realities (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1951); George F. Ken-
nan, Realities of American Foreign Policy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
1954); Reinhold Niebuhr, Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Poli-
tics (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1932); George Schwarzenberger, Power
Politics: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations and Post-War Planning
(London: J. Cape, 1941); Spykman, America’s Strategy in World Politics; Arnold Wolf-
ers, Discord and Collaboration: Essays on International Politics (Baltimore: Johns Hop-
kins University Press, 1962). - One may conclude from Waltz’s statements that the smallest possible
number of powers in a self-help system is two powers and that a unipolar system
cannot exist, in his opinion. Waltz, Theory of International Politics, p. 136.