First, the assumption that states are the only actors in the international system (Mearsheimer 2010) seems outdated. In a globalized world based on interdependence and with the decline of sovereign states, it seems almost impossible to exclude organizations such as NGOs, multinational corporations but also terrorist groups from what is happening in the international system and from resulting behaviors of States. A notable example could be the recent terrorist attack in Paris on November 13, 2015: this event threatened not only global security, but also unity among Western countries and affected international decisions (such as on the issue of immigration) from different states. We can then recognize that states do not only act as security seekers who achieve the balance of power after having resolved both the security dilemma and the national interest. Indeed, the importance of statesmanship and ideology in decision-making cannot be denied, as this can have a profound influence on foreign and international policies. Furthermore, national interest does not have a single meaning and it could be manipulated to either hide the desire for power and hegemony or to justify war. This therefore does not seem to be a valid reason to explain the behavior of States. Finally, the structural level of analysis does not take into account the relevance of social practices in the behavior of states: the interaction and interdependence between states could affect their decisions (Copeland 2000). Indeed, constructivists argue that “anarchy is what states make of it” (Wendt 1992), meaning that the structure of the international system is a tangible effect of all the decisions made by different states. This idea constitutes an obvious challenge to the deterministic orientation of events.