26 International Relations Theory of War
second part presents the hypotheses of the theory concerning the two
international outcomes—the stability of the various international systems
and the degree of territorial expansion of polar powers at the end of the
wars in which they have participated. The third part develops the two
transhistorical order principles of anarchy and homeostasis and the way
in which they affect the two phenomena explained in the book. The fourth
part deals with the influence of the polarity of the system over the two
phenomena explained in the book. The end of the chapter summarizes the
key assumptions of the theory and shows its main conclusions concerning
the international scene in general and the values of the two international
outcomes in particular.
BASIC ASSUMPTIONS OF THE THEORY
According to the international relations theory of war, in an international sys-
tem, everything is permissible but the key outcomes are known. Everything is
permissible means that the principle of anarchy and sovereignty of states
stemming from it allow each of the individual players to act as it sees fit,
theoretically at least, and choose various strategies such as balancing,
bandwagoning, buck-passing, or catching the buck. The key outcomes are
known means that the homeostasis principle that dictates the preservation
of the existing state leads to the overall outcomes of the behavior of coun-
tries, and primarily the stability of the various international systems or the
degree of territorial expansion of polar powers at the end of the wars in
which they participated, to be largely known and predetermined, being a
result of the polarity model of the system.
Each of the three models of the possible international systems will dic-
tate certain patterns of the two international outcomes: systems of the same
type will dictate similar outcomes and systems of different types will dic-
tate different ones. From this one may conclude that identical behavior of
the same players in different models of international systems will lead to
different outcomes and different behavior of different players in the same
international system will lead to identical outcomes. Therefore, the two
international outcomes may be predicted despite, and possibly because of,
the complexity of the international system and the existing interrelations
between the players constituting it. The theory shows that owing to the
great importance of the two subject outcomes, the system will influence
them according to the polarity model existing in the system at any time.
The polarity of the system manifests in three main states—multipolarity,
bipolarity, and unipolarity. The system determines the values of the two
outcomes according to the relationship between the transhistorical order
principles of anarchy and homeostasis.