For the purpose of analyzing the subject of the study the author deems that neorealism or structural realism will provide the best analysis. In his book the Theory of International Politics (1979), Kenneth Waltz as mentioned by Jackson (2010) described that international system as a structure and its influence and consequences in relations among nations. The concept of structure is defined into the following:
• International system is anarchic, since there is no worldwide governance. Confirming realist perspective the anarchy would lead every actors will have to defend themselves in a “survival of the fittest” style of competition.
• International system is composed like units, with every state, regardless of size will perform autonomous and
In which states with no intention to initiate conflict may be compelled to conduct arms race drawn by their own insecurity over the perceived intention of other states.
In an anarchic world, states must ensure their survival through maintaining or increasing their power in a self-help world. With no authority above the state to come to its rescue in the event of an attack by dominant power, states attempt to prevent a potential new dominant power from arising by balancing against it. States satisfied with their place in the system are known as "status quo" states, while those seeking to alter or revise the balance of power in their favor are generally referred to as "revisionist states" and aspire to become dominant power.
Neorealists argue that there are three possible systems according to changes in the distribution of capabilities, defined by the number of great powers within the international system. A unipolar system contains only one great power, a bipolar system contains two great powers, and a multipolar system contains more than two great
Because there is only internal balancing in a bipolar system, rather than external balancing (formation of alliance), there is less opportunity for miscalculations and therefore less chance of great powers war.
On the other hand, multipolar system may also be seen as better create peace and stability than a bipolar system. Deterrence is accomplished easier in multipolarity, because there are more states that can join together to confront aggressive state with overwhelming force. Eventually the coalition forms and the aggressor is defeated, as in the case of Germany in the two World Wars in the previous century.
There is much less hostility among the great powers in multipolarity, because the amount of attention they pay to each other is less than in bipolarity. In multipolar system, states cannot afford to be too concerned with particular rival, their attention will have to be divided to all other great powers. The chance of an interdependence between great powers may also create disincentive for war among great power in a multipolar