Int Rel Theo War

When the powers will act to expand

All the time.The only variable at the state level, the lust for power inherent to the powers, causes the powers to act to expand constantly

Only under certain conditions.The sole variable at the system level, anarchy in the international system, causes the powers to act to maintain the status quo

All the time.The sole variable at the system level, anarchy in the international system, causes the powers to act to expand continuously

Only under certain conditions.The only variable at the system level, polarity of the system, affects the inherent aspiration of the powers to expand:• Bipolarity will

suppress

expansion

•

Unipolarity will

allow

it

•

Multipolarity will

increase

it

Summary

Traditional realism

is

not a systemic theory, but a theory at the state level

Defensive realism

does

not present a satisfactory explanation for the periods in which powers do not act as status quo powers, according to the theory’s expectation

Offensive realism

does not

present a satisfactory explanation for the periods in which powers do not act as revisionist powers, according to the theory’s expectation

The

international relations theory of war

provides satisfactory explanations:

A.

For the different behavior—revisionism or status quo—of those powers, in different periods

B.

For the difference in international, systemic, and intrasystemic outcomes, in the different periods

1 Offensive realism disputes defensive realism concerning the degree of power that countries are seeking. For defensive realism, the international structure provides countries a limited degree of encouragement for increasing their power. Conversely, it pushes them to maintain the existing bal

ance of power. The use of power, more than increasing it, is the main goal of countries, according to this theory. Offensive realism believes that status quo powers do not occur in international politics because the international system forms a very strong ambition for countries to achieve power by expansion at the expense of their adversaries and by acquiring advantages in cases in which the benefit exceeds the cost. The ultimate goal of coun

tries, according to offensive realism, is being the hegemon of the system. Mearsheimer,

The Tragedy of Great Power Politics

, p. 21.

2 Both traditional realism and offensive realism argue that great powers demand power constantly. The main difference between these two theories is that the first argues that countries have an inherent offensive personality, whereas the latter argues that the international system encourages the great powers to maximize their relative power because that is the optimal way of maximizing their security. According to this approach, great powers behave aggressively not because they want to do so or have multiple inherent motivations to control, but because they must seek greater power if they want to maximize their survival odds.