42 International Relations Theory of War
that certain polarity models prevent some players constituting them from
acting to expand or suppress their constant expansionist aspirations.
Analysis of the basic assumptions of the international relations theory of
war may catalog it near offensive realism, inasmuch as according to the
theory the aim of polar powers is to maximize their relative power in order
to realize their constant aspiration of achieving hegemony in the system.
The theory argues that the anarchic structure of the international system is
what dictates the constant aggressiveness of polar powers, but the theory
also argues that the degree of aggressiveness or revisionist tendency of
countries is a result of the polarity model in the system. As stated above,
each of the three polarity models will dictate a different degree of aggres-
siveness to their constituent polar powers. Multipolar systems will increase
the inherent revisionism of the three or more great powers constituting
them. Bipolar systems will suppress the revisionism inherent in the two con-
stituent superpowers. Unipolar systems will allow the inherent revisionism
of the sole hyperpower constituting them. In conclusion, according to the
international relations theory of war, the polarity of the system prevents inter-
national relations from being in a state of constant war, but the international
system is a scene in which the war option is always in the background.
HOMEOSTASIS AND PRESERVATION OF THE SYSTEM
According to the international relations theory of war, the second principle
of transhistoric order, homeostasis, has always existed in the modern inter-
national system from the time of its formation after the Peace of Westpha-
lia in 1648 to this day. Homeostasis, in the sense of a property of the system
that resists change, leads to the international system tending to preser-
vation of equilibrium. Homeostasis will therefore dictate to each of the
polar powers constituting each of the three possible international systems
to tend always to stagnation (i.e., take actions that will lead to preservation
of the system in its existing state or preservation of the existing polarity
model). The aim of this tendency is restoration of the system to its previ-
ous state or its state preceding the change (status quo ante) because the
players cannot predict the character of the change that will occur with a
high degree of certainty, which may harm them instead of improving their
standing or security in the international system, and they cannot control
or influence it.
The tendency to homeostasis or preservation of the existing state stems
from two conditions that always occur in the international system and that
characterize it relative to other systems. The interdependence principle leads
to any action of one of the players inevitably affecting all other players
in the system. This fact applies particularly to the polar powers consti-
tuting each of the three possible systems. For example, a local conflict in
the Middle East, such as the conflict between Israel and the Hezbollah