本文試圖為當前現實主義中，國際政治理論發展的問題與瓶頸，作一概略的檢視、提出可能的倡議，並進行實證研究加以檢驗。本文發現攻勢與守勢現實主義之爭，是理論發展上不必要的誤會，現實主義內的理論爭議，其實仍是分析層次的問題：單元層級的解釋混亂繁瑣而難以驗證，但體系層級基於權力分配結構的解釋，卻也不盡圓滿。因此，本文嘗試在現實主義的物質能力傳統中，對體系穩定的變動提出「體系穩定的互動解釋」與「體系穩定的結構解釋」之新嘗試，以求在名稱上貼近解釋倡議的實質內容，跳脫過去攻勢、守勢現實主義理論名稱劃分的漩渦，並作為未來建立國際政治理論的可能選擇。 本文指出，互動能力的概念，不僅是新的解釋來源，也是界定體系範疇的前提，未來的國際政治理論應利用攻守平衡的解釋邏輯，在結構之外的互動能力解釋來源中，開發科技與地理等兩項解釋變數；並發掘結構解釋來源中，絕對的權力分配作解釋變數，再分別從此導出推論；而有關穩定的意涵，也應從戰爭的避免，擴大為對和平的威脅。本文的實證研究範圍訂在一六四八年至今的歐洲乃至全球體系，本文將先分別呈現各項解釋變數在各個時代的變化，以及依據推論所應出現的結果，再對照實際上體系穩定的變異狀態，以檢驗各項推論。整體而言，本文所進行的實證研究大致上是獲得了相當的正面結果。 / The purposes of this thesis are: examining the current obstructions in Realist theory of international politics, proposing alternatives, and conducting empirical studies. The thesis finds that, the debates between Offensive and Defensive Realism are unnecessary. The level of analysis problem is still crucial: unit level explanations are complex and hard to test, but system level explanations base on the structure of relative power distribution are not satisfactory either. Thus, to get rid of the offensive and defensive labeling, the thesis proposes two alternatives within the Realist material tradition: “interaction” and “structure” explanations on the stability of the international system. The thesis argues that, interaction capacity is both a source of explanation and the precondition of a system. In the future, the theory of international politics should take offense-defense balance as logic of explanation to explore technology, geography, and absolute power distribution as independent variables. In addition, the concept of stability as a dependent variable should also be expanded. Stability is not merely the avoidance of war, but the threat to peace. The scope of the qualitative empirical studies are European and global international systems from 1648 to present. In general, the thesis finds rather positive results to support the interaction and structure explanations.