54 International Relations Theory of War
the polarity of the system is defined and the way in which it is possible
to measure or operate it. Moreover, researchers who only enumerate the
number of poles for evaluating the division of power assume that great
powers that are not polar powers do not affect the system’s structure.
According to most neorealist criteria, the meaning of this is that we must
ignore for example the importance of China, France, and Great Britain in
any systemic study of international relations, from the end of the Second
World War to today, because these countries are not defined in this period
as polar powers.^92
POLARITY OF THE SYSTEM AND INTERNATIONAL OUTCOMES
The determinations of the two basic assumptions underlying the inter-
national relations theory of war—anarchy and homeostasis—may raise against
it the argument that it cannot explain the changes in the values of the two
outcomes that it tries to explain. Against this criticism, the theory argues
that the polarity of the system is what affects the values of the two interna-
tional outcomes: the systemic—stability of international systems; and, intra-
systemic—the degree of territorial expansion of polar powers at the end
of the wars in which they have participated. The polarity of the system is
represented by the division of the total power between the polar powers
constituting the system—multipolar, bipolar, or unipolar systems. Accord-
ing to the theory, this is the proportion of power in the international sys-
tem that each country controls, and this variable has a greater influence
on the likelihood of international conflicts or cooperation occurring than
structural restrictions on which defensive realism is based. Waltz argues
that once the international system is formed, like the market, it becomes
a force that units cannot control. It dictates their behavior and positions
itself between their intentions and the outcomes of their actions.^93 Just
as economic outcomes change when the market structure changes from
a duopoly to an oligopoly or perfect competition, argues Waltz, interna-
tional outcomes also change according to the degree of centralization or
decentralization of capabilities in the international system. In other words,
the international system is defined according to the question of whether
there are in the system multiple powers—multipolar system; two pow-
ers—bipolar system; or a single power—unipolar system. He argues that
the market structure is defined by counting economic companies, whereas
the international political structure is defined by counting countries,
and in this count, the distinction is made relative only to capabilities,^94
in a similar manner as far as the international relations theory of war goes
between the three possible polarity models. According to the theory, a
multipolar world that has a number of great powers is very different from
a bipolar world that has two superpowers, and both are different from a
unipolar world in which there is one hyperpower.