16 International Relations Theory of War
constraints that are always imposed on the powers constituting interna-
tional systems.
The first transhistoric systemic principle is anarchy, which causes the
international system to spur the polar powers constituting it to tend always
to form hegemonies that they will head. The systemic dictate that is per-
sistently imposed on polar powers to form their own hegemony because
of the existence of anarchy leads them to take the main course of action,
which may lead to replacement of the existing polarity model.
One model of action is a gain of economic strength by medium powers
to the point of rising to polar power status in the system. Two medium
powers of their times whose economic gain led them to polar power sta-
tus, resulting in the changing of one polar arrangement to another, may
be mentioned. The economic gain of Germany in the mid-19th century led
to strengthening of its military, which helped it win three wars—the Sec-
ond Schleswig-Holstein War (1864), the Seven Weeks’ War (1866), and the
Franco-Prussian War (1870–1871). The last war was one of the causes of
the change of the multipolar order of 1849–1870 to a bipolar order of 1871–
- Another example is the rise in the United States’ economic strength
in the early 20th century, which was one of the causes of the replacement
of the bipolar order of 1871–1909 to a multipolar order of 1910–1945.
Another model of action is exploitation of opportunities and waging a
war that may develop into a change in the polarity of the system.
These two patterns of action may lead to the economic or military col-
lapse of the polar powers. Two wars that led to a replacement of one polar
order by another may be mentioned. The Franco-Prussian War (1870–
- led to the replacement of the multipolar order of 1849–1870 by the
bipolar order that formed in its wake of 1871–1909; and the Second World
War (1939–1945), which led to the replacement of the multipolar order of
1910–1945 to the bipolar order that followed it in 1946–1991.^9
The other transhistoric systemic principle is homeostasis. It leads the sys-
tem to dictate to the polar powers to act persistently to preserve the exist-
ing polarity model through two main courses of action, which may lead to
the replacement of the existing polarity model with another.
One course of action is taking negative and positive feedback actions
to maintain their standing in the system. This course may lead them to
exhaust their economic resources, a move that could lead to their fall and
replacement of the existing polarity model with another one. One example
of this is the collapse of the Soviet Union. The realistic argument states that
the collapse of the Soviet Union was a result of its faltering economy and
inability to contend with the United States’ technological developments.^10
One may therefore conclude that its collapse stemmed from the systemic
dictate that was applied to it to preserve its standing in the system. That
dictate caused it to exhaust its economic resources to the point of loss of its
standing as a polar power in the system. The fall of the Soviet Union led