50 International Relations Theory of War
that serve as poles in each of the three possible polarity models. The the-
ory distinguishes the term polar powers from the term great powers that is
common in international relations literature and argues that under that
system both polar and great powers or minor powers may act at the same
time. According to the theory, each polar power is also a great power, but
not every great power is a polar power. For example, in unipolar systems,
there is just one polar power—the sole hyperpower constituting the sys-
tem—but in parallel to it there may be other great powers. According to
the theory, to be defined as polar powers in the system, the powers should
have two families of power that have three key sources, whose importance
is greater than that of the other power components that countries possess.
The first family, material power, has two components: economic power—the
polar power must have significantly greater economic power than those of
the other powers, which are not polar powers, operating in the system; mil-
itary power—the polar power must have significantly greater power than
those of other powers that are not polar powers operating in the system.^74
The second family is land power. The polar power must have significant
land power, which is defined in the research as direct or indirect control of
territories of geostrategic importance for their times.^75 An example of this
is the Eurasia continent of the 19th and 20th centuries, the Persian Gulf
region today, and probably the East Asia region in the future.
According to the theory, holding only these power components—mate-
rial, economic, and military power combined, and land power—will raise
a country from great power status to polar power position in the system.
Economic power and military power are quantitative components that
may be assessed by comparing the material data of countries. In contrast,
the third component, land power, is qualitative and may be understood
through the age-long argument between the supporters of sea power and
those supporting land power.
Between Sea Power and Land PowerThe years around 1900 are perceived as “the age of seas.” The most influ-
ential study on this subject in those years was written by Alfred Mahan,
who believed that control of the sea was essential for every country that
was aspiring for global leadership: “Without sea power, a country can only
be a second-rate nation.”^76 A number of West European countries, such
as Portugal and Spain initially, followed by the Netherlands, France, and
particularly Great Britain, effectively adopted the support of sea power.
These countries discovered the Americas and increased their control of the
Mediterranean Basin, India, and later the Far East. The British Empire, for
example, conquered Southeast Asia, Egypt, Cyprus, Singapore, and Hong
Kong, and also pushed its informal control into the Ottoman Empire, the
Persian Gulf states, and upstream in China’s great rivers.^77