Abstract

Two claims about the nature and scope of theories in International Relations can be found in Kenneth Waltz's work. The first claim is that it is possible to develop a theory of international politics, i.e. a theory that is capable to predict the outcomes of interactions among states without necessarily predicting their foreign policy behaviour. The second claim is that it is possible to develop a structural theory of politics, i.e. a theory that rigorously separates structural and unit-level causes and only considers the former. This note argues the following: (i) the two claims are distinct; (ii) Waltz does not separate them consistently; (iii) he defends the first claim by using arguments that support the second claim; (iv) the first claim is not plausible; (iv) the second claim is plausible, but it needs to be qualified.