International Relations Theory of War 57
France, and Germany, which acted energetically to restrain the steps of the
sole hyperpower in the system, the United States, and prevent its instiga-
tion of the Iraq War (2003).
SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPLE OF THE MODEL
Models, owing to their simplicity, allow for differentiation of certain factors
from other factors while keeping the other factors constant. They allow for
isolation of the influence of certain factors in a manner that historical events
allow only rarely. The international relations theory of war isolates the effect
of the two transhistorical order principles that constantly exist in its view
in the international system, anarchy and homeostasis, on the two variables
assessed on the study. The theory does so by differentiating the independent
variable of the study, the polarity of the system, which may assume three
different values—multipolarity, bipolarity, and unipolarity—a variable
that affects the values of the two independent variables that it assesses—
systemic international outcome, or international systems stability; and the
intrasystemic international outcome, or the territorial expansion of polar
powers at the end of wars in which they participate.
Based on Jeffrey Legro and Andrew Moravcsik,^95 it may be determined
that the international relations theory of war that was presented in the current
chapter is a realistic theory. Firstly, because it assumes that countries are
individual political units operating under conditions of anarchy. Secondly,
because it assumes that the character of the preferences of countries is con-
stant and tends to conflict. Thirdly, because it assumes that the structure of
the international system, or the polarity of the system, is the variable that
determines the two international outcomes assessed in the study.
From the two basic assumptions that the international relations theory of war
has adopted, anarchy and homeostasis, one may conclude a very broad range
of expectations concerning international political life. However, the distinc-
tion that the theory makes between the three different polarity models of
the international system, all of which exist in an anarchic environment—
multipolar, bipolar, or unipolar systems—allows the theory to present
expectations that are much more exact than those of other realistic theories
on the matter of the two international outcomes in each of the three different
system models, and indicate different expectations in the values of each of
these two international outcomes in the three different system models.
THE SYSTEMIC STATUS OF THE INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS THEORY OF WAR
In the international relations theory of war, the systemic outcome being
assessed—stability of international systems—considers the international
system to be a dependent variable. The intrasystemic outcome that is being