40 International Relations Theory of War
Morgenthau argues that countries wage an incessant struggle stemming
from their innate animalistic dominance and the struggle reflects the
human urge to control others.^28 Revisionism or status quo—Morgenthau,
like early realist researchers who worked after the Second World War,
makes a differentiation between imperialist powers and status quo pow-
ers. Realists consider revisionist countries to be the main motive forces of
the international system. Status quo countries in contrast are perceived
by them as responding and as having a secondary function in theory. A
sequence between status quo countries and revisionist countries—Schweller’s
balance of interests theory makes a distinction between four types of coun-
tries: lions, lambs, jackals, and wolves. They are on the sequence between
status quo countries, which he refers to as satisfied countries, and revi-
sionist countries, which he refers to as hungry countries. Each of them will
be willing to pay different prices for increasing its values in accordance
with its degree of revisionism or status quo.^29
The second group indicates international anarchy as being the factor
affecting the preferences of countries. The harsh dispute between neoreal-
ism and offensive realism concerning the logical conclusions of anarchy is
the strongest factor representing this group.^30
According to Waltz’s neorealism, the security motivation of countries is
based on structural causality.^31 Countries will tend to a moderate strat-
egy as a means of achieving security, and in most cases, a strong country
in international relations will in turn adopt a restrained foreign policy—
military, diplomatic, or economic.^32 According to Waltz, the search for
power and security is limited. In the anarchic international system, secu-
rity is the supreme goal. If survival is guaranteed, countries will be able to
attempt to achieve goals such as quiet, gain, and power in a safe manner.
The primary concern of countries is not maximizing their power but main-
taining their status in the system.^33 Neorealism represents an optimistic
view regarding international politics, whereby countries act to maximize
their relative security and not their relative power, and the international
system provides incentives for expansion and aggressive strategies only
under very restrictive conditions.^34
According to Mearsheimer’s offensive realism, the security motiva-
tion of countries is based on structural causality, but unlike neorealism,
the search for power and security is never-ending.^35 According to him,
anarchy encourages expansion. Powers maximize their relative power
and are constantly contending for power.^36 However, unlike Morgen-
thau, Mearsheimer claims that the motive for this contention is not the
lust for power inherent to human nature but the quest for security and
the anarchic structure of the international system is what causes it.^37 This
model assumes that all countries aim to maximize their power relative to
other countries because only the strongest country can ensure its survival.
According to him, countries will pursue an expansion policy when the