Competition is more complicated than multipolar systems. 

Kenneth Waltz is considered as the precursor of neorelaism. Theory of International Politics (1979) is his seminal work and in this book he tries to develop a scientific approach to understand and explain the international political system.

Neorealism's center of attention is the systemic structure that is completely external to the actors, particularly, relative distribution of power and capabilities. Neorealism asserts that neither individual decision makers nor states' traits are important in international relations. Neorealist paradigm is interested in external factors and their impact of state's decisions and actions in the international relations. Neorealist paradigm disregard internal factors and asserts that states are happy with relative gains and are not always in search of absolute gains. Therefore, the correct answer is C.

The basic advantages of approaches receiving the state as a level of analysis is that they point out the differences between states by taking each state’s characteristics into consideration. These theories and models lead the researcher to regard (not disregard) the details of variables concerning the states. Taking the states to the core of research as mentioned above provides the researcher the opportunity to make concrete generalizations (not prevent them from doing so). On the other hand, in system (not state) level analysis, characteristic differences among states are neglected. Nevertheless, state level analysis sometimes overemphasizes the unnecessary details (and this in not an advantage).

As the basic unit of analysis is taken to be the human being, classical liberals have concentrated on the human nature and actions in explaining IR. They have been realistic to recognize the human nature as flexible and need to freedom to use his/ her reason and potential. Conflict is also recognized as a natural part of human life since individual is prone to making mistakes and act according to his/her passions. Thus, politics needs to study conflict resolution as well as conditions of peaceful cooperation, in both domestic and international spheres. Classical liberals in this sense have been away from the Kantian utopianism’s idea that conflicts could be totally abolished. They are concerned more with the means/tools to deal with violence and how to limit its occurrence (van de Haar, 2009, 128).

Realist theory of international relations has four main assumptions upon which further various hypotheses are built to analyze certain events and/or phenomena. These are:

1. States are the central and most important actors of world politics.
2. State is seen as a unitary actor.
3. States are rational and purposive actors.
4. According to hierarchy of issues, national and international security are located at the top. In this regard, socio-economic topics remains in the field of low-politics.

In light of the above information, the correct answer is D. 

Cold War

Dialectics is a term used to describe a method of philosophical argument that involves some sort of contradictory process between opposing sides.

Liberal tradition has four main assumptions: (1) pluralist image of world politics where states, non-state and transnational entities are important actors (2) economic interdependence or interconnectedness where network of states, governmental and non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, groups and individuals turn into a global civil society that has a pacifying affect on states (3) an extensive agenda composed of all issue areas not limited with military and security issues but involving economic, social and environmental ones (4) individual level of analysis, opposed to a top-down analysis of structural realism and analysis of decision-making processes with an eye to individual, social, cultural differences. The correct answer is A.

Marxist

In general, there are two or three levels such as system and state or system, state and individual. In case the system approach is used, then the structure becomes the main focus to emphasize and the features of each state and their decision makers or power capabilities are not taken into consideration. In other words, in such cases, public opinions, local characters, ethnic or ideological differences are not a point of concern for the researcher. Hence, in system theories, state is accepted as an entity responding to the effects from outside whereby internal features are ignored. In these models based on the system level of analysis, foreign policy is accepted as a response of state to the foreign environment.On the other hand, in the case of state level analysis, according to the theoretical framework used, state is accepted as the main determinant for foreign policy process and in some theories such as game theories, state is assumed to maximize its gains, but for realist theories state takes balance of power into consideration and tries to attain more power to survive. Taking the states to the core of research as mentioned above provides the researcher the opportunity to make concrete generalizations.Theories only focusing on individuals such as decision making theories and its models, foreign policy process is tried to be analyzed through behaviors of decision makers or political leaders. In this kind of analysis, individual is very central and also ideologies, motivations, values and beliefs are very important factors to be included to the analysis. The correct answer is C.

The level of analysis is a subject of study in IR. In general there are two or three levels such as system and state or system, state and individual. The correct option is B.

In Waltzian perspective, having only two great powers in the system is a sine qua non condition to a stable international environment. “Significant changes take place when the number of great powers reduces to two or one. With more than two, states rely for their security both on their own internal efforts and on alliances they may make with others. Competition in multipolar systems is more complicated than competition in bipolar ones because uncertainties about the comparative capabilities of states multiply as numbers grow, and because estimates of the cohesiveness and strength of coalitions are hard to make”.

There are 193 sovereign states which are member to the United Nations (UN) as a major actor in international politics.

capitalism

Robert Keohane explained the role of institutions as “persistent and connected sets of formal and informal rules that prescribe behavioral roles, constrain activity and shape expectations”. In his words, international institutions could take one of three forms: (1) formal intergovernmental or cross-national, non-governmental organizations, (2) international regimes, and (3) conventions (customary norms and practices).

Morgenthau and Niebuhr among leading post war realists explain IR with human nature.

Wallerstein, Galtung and Modelski are well known scientists and made real contribution for dependency theories or theories of structural Marxism.

Joseph S. Nye, Robert O. Keohane, Richard W. Mansbach and John A. Vasques who agreed with the description of David Easten for politics as authoritative allocation of values claimed the necessity of changes in the statecentric paradigm.

There are “four factors that encourage the limitation of violence in interstate relations”, thus, the stability, within a bipolar world. First of all, as a natural result of an international system with only two major powers, there are no peripheries. Secondly, the scope of factors those included in the competition is extended as the intensity of competition increases and “increased intensity is expressed in a reluctance to accept small territorial losses.” As a third characteristic of bipolar world, one must point out “the nearly constant presence of pressure and the recurrence of crisis.” Although it may sound, at first glance, a bit odd that this condition of permanent tension is considered to be a factor that encourages peace and stability, this assumption emphasizes the fact that “to fight small wars in the present may be the means of avoiding large wars later.” These three factors as the stabilizing particularities of a bipolar world, combined with a fourth element which is the preponderant power of major actors that help to achieve, in one way or another, comprehension and absorption of revolutionary political, military, and economic changes within the bipolar balance, are to be seen as sources of peace and stability. These are also the characteristics of the AmericanSoviet relations in the post-WWII era and in that perspective, they are considered to be generally effective to maintain the relative stability of this period and relevance of each factor is proved by various crisis examples of different degree such as Korea, Formosa Strait, Cuba, Berlin, Indo-China, etc..