"Should international relations theory be held responsible for explaining fundamental changes in the hierarchy of international politics and the emergence of new actors?" It seems absurd to reply that international relations theory should not be concerned with explaining fundamental changes in international politics. However, this response paper will argue both sides of the issue. First, it actually makes sense to try to hold as many things as possible constant, or as “given” in attempting to create explanations for international political events. Jumping to an explanation that involves a fundamental change in the structure of the international system or the nature of the actors should be a last resort, rather than a first. This is an important component of Waltz's neorealism. On the other hand, this article will demonstrate that, although it is desirable to hold some variables constant in an attempt to explain large variation with few premises, it is necessary to take a broad view (to expand the scope or break previous "data"). neorealism) to create better explanations. Several alternative schools of thought are indeed pursuing this goal, including rational choice, liberalism, and regime theory. These approaches attempt to create explanations of change, holding several elements constant. Finally, a brief word on constructivism should be considered. Before answering this question further, we must first identify what is meant by “theories of international relations”. We might initially observe that there is no unifying theory of international relations that everyone agrees on, but rather different families/schools of thought, which may or may not form convincing explanations of observable phenomena. It's obvious...... middle of the paper ......al Organization 52 4 (Fall): 759-786.Ikenberry, G. John. 2001. After the victory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Keohane, Robert O. 1984. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in World Political Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Lake, David A and Robert Powell, eds. 1999. Strategic Choice and International Relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Tilly, Charles. 1985. “Waging War and Creating the State as Organized Crime.” in Evans, Peter R., Dietrich Ruesdchemeyer, and Theda Skocpol, eds. Bringing the state back inside. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Wagner, R. Harrison. 2007. War and State. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. New York: McGraw-Hill. Wendt, Alexander. 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.