N/a

Consequently, Waltz’s systemic theory is only generating partial explanations.This Waltz’s systematic theory indicates how behavior is affected by structure. However, it does not indicate how other variables interact with structure to produce exact behavioral outcomes. This paper therefore draws on the theoretical writing of Waltz and his theory of applications to empirical subjects (the role of NATO after Cord War, superpower relations occurred during the war and soviet socialization in the international society), and on the theoretical literature. The paper explores the tension implications in the approach that Waltz took for his theory of explanatory in international relations. This is an indication that the earlier theories by Waltz offer no substantive argument and therefore a misunderstanding between the realists and the conservatives in attempting to offer a casual generalization in a complex system (Waltz 78-9).According to Waltz’s theory, international relations in a complex system or structure are not adequately addressed using explanatory theory since there is no mutual agreement that is consistent to all parties. Out of all realism theories advanced to explain international relations and conflicts, Waltz’s neorealism approach to international relations is in generally accepted by many scholars as an intellectual hegemony because this theory is the most influential and uncontroversial. Ruggie and Brown reacts to this Waltz’s theory by saying that is, justly, the most influential book on International Reations theory of its generation and they allude that international relations are founded on the realism theory as described by Waltz. According to Keohane, the effectiveness of realism theory as proposed by Waltz lies on the power of the international community to be autonomous and remain active if there exist any causal autonomous force. This theory further asserts