International Relations Theory of War 55
A multipolar world consists of three or more polar powers of similar
strength. It allows for change in alliances and a transition between coali-
tions that usually lead to preservation of the system’s equilibrium. How-
ever, the multiple options for countries to link up sometimes imbalances
the system. This world does not cause constant hostility toward any of the
great powers constituting it. A bipolar world consists of two polar powers
of similar strength. It does not allow for a change of alliances and a transi-
tion between coalitions between the parties and usually leads to a balance
of power in the system. This world tends to focus the fears and hostility in
the system on the two superpowers constituting it. A unipolar world con-
sists of a single polar power that is much stronger than the other powers
in the system. It reduces the possibility of formation of effective military
alliances against the sole hyperpower constituting it but tends to focus the
fears and hostility of the world against the hyperpower.
Polar powers can disrupt and also destroy the existing polarity model
actively by waging a broad war, or passively, by their economic decay.
However, the polar powers have almost no ability to influence the polar-
ity model that will form after the crumbling of the existing polarity
model. However, the theory argues that once the polarity of the system
stabilizes, the two order principles that always act in the system—anarchy
and homeostasis—cause the three polarity models to affect the behavior of
polar powers acting in them in the following manner: multipolar systems in
which three or more polar powers operate will increase the lust for power
of the great powers constituting them; bipolar systems in which two polar
powers operate will suppress the lust for power among the superpowers
constituting them; unipolar systems in which one polar power operates will
allow the lust for power of the sole hyperpower constituting them.
According to the theory in the three possible polarity models, the polar
powers constituting the system will act based on two constraints. The sys-
temic dictate that is imposed on polar powers to achieve hegemony in
the system will lead them not to suffice with their current status and tend
always to expand by investing great economic resources in increasing their
military power and by exploiting opportunities for territorial expansion.
The systemic dictate that is imposed on polar powers for homeostasis will
lead them to act to preserve the system by initiation of actions for preserv-
ing the existing polarity model and through actions for reacting against
changing the existing polarity model.
According to the theory, each of the three possible polarity models
imposes on the powers constituting it constraints that distinguish and
differentiate it from the two other polarity models that affect the way in
which the polar powers behave. For example, the theory expects that each
hyperpower that will act in a unipolar system will be forced by the system
to respond to extreme threats or risky provocations made against it. In the
unipolar system of 1992–2016, the United States could not fail to respond