First, the assumption that states are the only actors within the international system (Mearsheimer 2010) appears to be obsolete. In a globalized world based on interdependence and with the decline of sovereign states, it appears almost impossible to exclude organizations such as NGOs, multinationals and even terrorist groups from what happens in the international system and from the behaviors of states that derive from it. A notable example would 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 influenced international decisions (such as on the immigration issue) of different states. Thus, it can be recognized that states do not just act as security seekers who reach the balance of power after regulating both the security dilemma and the national interest. Indeed, the importance of statesmen and ideology in decision-making cannot be denied, as it could have a profound influence on foreign and international policies. Furthermore, national interest does not have a unique meaning and could be manipulated to hide the desire for power and hegemony or to justify war. Therefore, it does not seem to be a valid reason to explain states' behaviors. Finally, the structural level of analysis does not take into account the relevance of social practices in how states behave: both interaction and interdependence between states could influence 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 is a clear challenge to the deterministic orientation of events