58 International Relations Theory of War
assessed—the degree of territorial expansion of polar powers at the end of
wars in which they will participate—treats the international system as an
independent variable. Based on Wendt’s argument that theory will be con-
sidered as systemic when it treats the international system as a dependent
or independent variable,^96 the international relations theory of war belongs to
the systemic paradigm in international relations theory.
Contemporary realists who argue that countries form a structure through
the interaction between them also support the systemic paradigm.^97 The
international relations theory of war considers the system of countries not
only a system that reflects the individual countries and their properties
but also a reality with properties and rules of its own. It argues that the
international system as an aggregate is suitable for analyzing cognitive
phenomena and that through the polarity of the system the behavior out-
comes of the individual countries operating in it should be analyzed. The
theory differs from other theories because it makes a distinction between
the behavior of powers and the outcomes of their behavior. Some sys-
temic realist theories argue that the behavior of powers—such as balanc-
ing, bandwagoning, buck-passing, or catching the buck—is the factor that
affects international outcomes. According to the international relations the-
ory of war, the individual manner of conduct of individual countries does
not necessarily have an effect on the systemic international outcome or
the intrasystemic international outcome, but to a great extent, the various
systemic constraints imposed on countries in each of the three polarity
models are the factors that influence the polar powers constituting them to
act differently, and in a manner that the theory anticipates.
Great criticism has been voiced against systemic theories that deal with
international politics.^98 They contend with forces at the international level
and national level^99 and explain international politics according to the
structure of the international system. Reductionist theories explain inter-
national politics according to the properties of the states or agents and
the interaction between them. The relations between these two families of
theories are competitive.^100
Waltz’s Theory of International Politics and Mearsheimer’s Theory of Great
Power Politics are individualist theories to a great extent. Waltz’s theory
attributes great importance to players and their balancing actions in deter-
mining international outcomes, whereas Mearsheimer’s theory attributes
great importance to players and the pattern of buck-passing in determin-
ing international outcomes. Another plea will be aimed at the assumption
that the behavior of states is constant in both these theories. Waltz argues
that countries will always aspire to maximize their security, whereas
Mearsheimer argues that states will always aim to maximize their power.
These constant assumptions of the two theories concerning the aspirations
of the countries indicate that neither assumes that the system structures the
behavior of the players.