International Relations. A self-Study Guide to Theory

explanations of international politics, Kenneth Waltz claimed that there was 
a lack of a genuine international political theory within the discipline. Expla-
nations of international politics are not to be found at the state or individual 
level of political decision makers, but at the level of the international system. 
His theoretical project is basically the construction of a system level theory of 
IR. He developed early ideas about such a systemic theory of international 
politics in the 1950s with his Ph.D. dissertation on Man, the state and the 
state system in theories of the causes of war at Columbia University in New 
York (1954) and his book Man, the State and War: A Theoretical Analysis 
(1959). Waltz argues that, in order to study international conflict, we have to 
look at the systemic level of international politics. The causes are not to be 
found in human behavior or in the internal structures of the state. 
Subsequently, Waltz developed a comprehensive system-level theory of 
international politics, published in 1979 as Theory of International Politics. 
The core question for the construction of the theory is a theoretical explana-
tion of war and peace in international politics. As we know, questions of war 
and peace have been at the core of the discipline right from the beginning. 
What particularly interested Waltz was the following question: How can we 
explain that history shows phases of war and conflict while other periods 
proved to be stable and peaceful? His observation of these recurrent patterns 
of state behavior and repeated and enduring patterns in the history of interna-
tional politics awakened his interest in finding a theory to explain those re-

---

127 
current patterns: the cycles of war and peace in international politics. More 
precisely, it was the recurrent formation of balances of power by the great 
powers in international systems that interested him. 
The objective was to create a general theory of International Politics that 
could aid in discovering law-like regularities within the confined realm of in-
ternational politics. These regularities in turn help to explain the patterns ob-
served.
In Waltz’s eyes, such a general theory had to be both a system theory and 
a balance-of-power theory. The search for the “right” theory of international 
politics within the discipline of IR therefore forms the academic and intellec-
tual background for the construction of neorealist theory as a system theory. 
Neorealism’s further development as balance-of-power theory allows the sys-
tem-level theory to specify more clearly its implications for the conduct of 
real-world international politics. The bipolar system of the Cold War formed 
the political-historical context at the time the Theory of International Politics 
was written. From Waltz’s point of view, the Cold War proved to be an 
astonishingly stable period – at least in terms of the absence of major wars – 
despite phases of high-risk confrontation between the two superpowers. The 
central issues of neorealist theory are the implications for the prospects of 
peace and stability resulting from two major changes: first, from the previ-
ously multipolar international system to a post-1945 bipolar world with two 
superpowers; and, second, from the bipolar world to a new international sys-
tem with the end of the Cold War. In addition, the theory has to be interpret-
ed against the background of a declining American hegemony vis-à-vis the 
economic rise of Europe and Japan after the 1970s. 
Let us now take a closer look at the theoretical argument. 
Step 2: 
Assumptions about actors and structure 
Neorealist theory is built on a strict distinction between national and interna-
tional politics. International politics is considered to be a confined realm or 
domain separate from national politics. The starting point of neorealist theory 
is the international system. For the purpose of constructing a theory, the in-
ternational system is assumed to consist of two elements: the structure of the 
system and the states as acting and interacting “units” within the system. 
As we have learned in Part 1 of the book, theory in the social sciences is 
always based on assumptions about the most relevant actors, their properties 

---

128 
and their behavior. They are assumed, not explained by the theory. Assump-
tions play a central role for the construction of the theoretical argument and 
hence for its explanation. In this way, neorealism is based on the assumption 
that states are the most important, relevant actors in international politics. 
States are unitary actors. In regard to their motivations and interests, or in 
other words, the driving forces of their behavior, neorealist theory assumes 
that states are at a minimum seeking their own survival and preservation and 
at a maximum striving for universal domination within the international sys-
tem. Therefore, states seek to increase their military strength and economic 
capability (inside) and to strengthen and enlarge their alliances (outside). 
Power is assumed to be the most important political means in international 
politics, used to achieve the state’s aims. There is a clear hierarchy of state 
goals with security (high politics) on top.
Waltz does not deny that there are other actors in international politics in 
addition to states and he agrees on the importance of non-state actors and 
transnational activities (Waltz 1979: 93-94). However, for him, this does not 
mean that a state-centric view of international politics is obsolete. We will 
later see (Step 3), that the neorealist assumptions of states as unitary actors as 
well as the most relevant ones have a central function for the concept of 
structure. This function leads in turn to the “structural realist” explanation of 
international politics at the conclusion of the neorealist line of argument. 
Now recall what you have learned in the fourth unit of Part 1 about the 
social context of actors and their interactions. Social action and interaction 
occur in a structural context.
For neorealism, the structural context for states is the international sys-
tem. The basic structural feature of the international system is anarchy. Being 
the opposite of hierarchy, anarchy means the absence of any higher authority 
in the international system that sets the rules for state behavior and has the 
power monopoly to punish non-compliance with the rules and norms. For 
states, this poses a serious security dilemma.
In the words of John Herz in his famous book International Politics in the 
Atomic Age, a security dilemma
“is a social constellation in which units of power (such as states or nations in in-
ternational relations) find themselves whenever they exist side by side without 
higher authority that might impose standards of behavior upon them and thus pro-
tect them from attacking each other. In such a condition, a feeling of insecurity, 
deriving from mutual suspicion and mutual fear, compels these units to compete 
for ever more power in order to find more security, an effort which proves self-
defeating because complete security remains ultimately unobtainable.” (Herz 
1959: 231, emphasis mine) 

---

129 
Under conditions of anarchy, states must rely on themselves; they therefore 
coexist, act and interact in a self-help system. Self-help is the principle of ac-
tion within structures for which anarchy is the central feature: “A self-help 
system is one in which those who do not help themselves, or who do so less 
effectively than others, will fail to prosper, will lay themselves open to dan-
gers, will suffer.” (Waltz 1979: 118).