International Relations Theory of War 41
benefit from such action will exceed its cost. Countries under anarchy face
the constant threat of other countries using force to attack or conquer them
and have to increase their relative power.^38 Offensive realism also assumes
that anarchy encourages countries to look for opportunities for weakening
potential enemies and thus prove their relative power standing.^39
The book argument that international politics has order does not deny
the assumed existence of anarchy in the international system in the sense
of a lack of a central government, since its formation in 1648 to date. This
argument is broadly supported by theoretical research in the field.^40
According to neorealism and offensive realism, the existence of anarchy
in the system does not lead to the conclusion that the system is devoid of
order. However, their assumptions concerning the existing order principle
differ. According to neorealism, the balance principle causes countries to
tend always to prevention of hegemonies,^41 whereas according to offensive
realism countries always aim to form and head hegemonies.^42 The current
study rules out this possibility and argues that realism, as a systemic theory
of international politics, must make a few general assumptions concerning
the preferences of countries, otherwise it will be impossible to assess the
degree to which the international system shapes, pushes, or compels coun-
tries and the outcomes that realists are trying to explain. Therefore, the
international relations theory of war rules out the possibility of the existence
of status quo countries or revisionist countries in the international system.
Because of the anarchic state that always prevails in the system, the the-
ory differentiates between priorities of countries, which remain constant,
and the action strategies of countries, which change with circumstances.
Therefore, the theory states that the preference of all polar powers acting
in the system remains constant and is always revisionist. It is not possible
to tell apart less aggressive and more aggressive ones. In effect, there is no
room in the theory for status quo countries.
In addition to this, the theory states that while revisionism of polar pow-
ers will always occur, the action strategies that the polar countries choose
will be influenced by the system’s polarity. Unlike anarchy, which remains
constant, the theory states that each of the three different polarity models
will have a different effect on the degree of revisionism of the polar pow-
ers. Multipolar systems will increase the revisionism of the three or more
great powers constituting them. Bipolar systems will suppress the revision-
ism of their two constituent superpowers. Unipolar systems will permit the
revisionism of the sole hyperpower constituting them.
According to the international relations theory of war, all polar powers
are inherently revisionist and capabilities shape intentions.^43 Therefore, a
country whose capabilities increase significantly will inevitably adopt a
policy of expansion, irrespective of its political structure. Its abilities, and
not just its regime model, are what will shape its intentions.^44 However,
the reason that we do not observe a constant expansion spree of powers is