IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science (IOSR-JHSS) Volume 25, Issue 1, Series. 6 (January. 2020) 36-41 e-ISSN: 2279-0837, p-ISSN: 2279-0845. www.iosrjournals.org DOI: 10.9790/0837-2501063641 www.iosrjournals.org 36 |Page “Systemic Analysis in Geopolitics and IR Theory” Ioannis Th. Mazis 1 , Markos I. Troulis 2 and Xanthippi Domatioti 3 1 Dr d‟ État, Professor of Economic Geography and Geopolitical Theory, Head of the Department of Turkish Studies and Modern Asian Studies, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece. 2 Dr / Post Doc., Adjunct Lecturer of International Relations Theory, Geopolitics and Turkey‟s Foreign Policy, Department of Turkish Studies and Modern Asian Studies, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece. 3 Research Fellow of the Laboratory of „Geocultural Analyses of the Greater Middle East -Turkey‟ of the Department of Turkish Studies and Modern Asian Studies, University of Athens (Greece). ABSTRACT: The core aim of the current paper is to summarize the basic argumentation of the Waltzian program and re-examine it in comparison with the legacy of systemic geopolitics. Which is Waltz’s contribution, what is added by Mearsheimer and what does systemic geopolitical analysis offer in the margins of the relevant debate? Both of them focus on Great Powers, since these are considered without any doubt rational actors shaping international system. On this line of thought, their specific legacy is comparatively analyzed with systemic geopolitics and it is developed on the common basis of “system”. Systemic analysis is their common starting point towards analysis of international affairs and interstate distribution of power. Beyond their contradiction with reference to conclusions and epistemological issues, systemic analysis offers a common framework of understanding and conceptualizing systemic geopolitical analysis and structural realism. For this reason, system-level parameters are considered critical representing an epistemological and methodological prioritization far from blinkered analyses cited by other theoretical and philosophical traditions. KEYWORDS: Kenneth Waltz; IR theory; Systemic Geopolitical Analysis; John Mearsheimer; Structural Realism --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Submission: 08-01-2020 Date of Acceptance: 23-01-2020 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I. INTRODUCTION Both Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer agree that structural realism emphasizes on Great powers, since these are the basic determinants of the evolution of international politics. Nevertheless, as Mearsheimer mentions referring also to Waltz, “the theory has relevance for smaller powers, although for some more than for others. Kenneth Waltz puts the point well when he writes, „A general theory of international politics… once written also applies to lesser states that interact insofar as their interactions are insulated from the intervention of the great powers of a system, whether by the relative indifference of the latter or by difficulties of communication and transportation‟” (Mearsheimer 2001: 403-404). The core axis of the current research is related to the description of the common ontological parameters of structural realism and systemic geopolitical analysis as well as the necessary clarification of methodological divergences. Therefore, on the basis of Lakatosian legacy, we proceed into the relevant “hardcore” and test Kenneth Waltz’s argumentation through this epistemological lens. Afterwards, we elaborate into the notion of “system” and what this level of analysis may contribute to the overall debate on international politics. Systemic analysis represents the common ground of the development of the two fields and it is placed beyond any consequent heterogeneous analyses concerning – for instance – predictability or deduction. Finally, there is a brief reference to systemic geopolitical analysis, as this has been introduced and developed by its founding father, Ioannis Th. Mazis (2012; 2002; Mazis and Troulis 2019). II. THE LAKATOSIAN “HARDCORE” AND KENNETH WALTZ According to the Lakatosian metatheoretical approach, the substance of a scientific research program is consisted of the “hardcore”; i.e. the foundational hypotheses / assumptions of this scientific research program. The “hardcore” is protected by the principle of the “negative heuristic”; i.e. the rule not permitting researchers of a similar scientific research program to proceed into inconsistency or inconsistencies [in their effort to respond to new empirical data, inclined to confute theory] in relation to the foundational assumptions meaning the “hardcore” of this scientific research program (Mazis 2014: 473-482).