System Theory

(Karl W. Deutch, Raymond Aron, Stanley Hoffman, Morton Kaplan)

A system is defined as a set of elements interacting with each other. Usually speaking, a
system may be either natural or mechanical or social. The social system itself may be related
either to “community, or economy, or politics, or international systems.” System is a set of
interrelated and interdependent interactions among various actors.

System approach seeks to analyze international relations as a system of interactions which are
interdependent and interrelated. It studies international relations as a system of behavior of
international actors. Each nation acts and reacts in the international environment and its
behavior is characterized by regularities. A nation’s behavior influences and is influenced by
the international environment.

Assumptions of systems approach

1) International relations as international system: international relations can be analyzed

as a set of relations among international actors i.e. as an international system.
2) International system is not international political system: when the concept of
“system” is used in the context of international politics it is taken to mean
international system and not international political system.
3) International actors and national actors: what are known as international actors are
basically the national actors acting in the international environment.
4) National and supra-national actors: the international actors can be classified into two
main categories:
i) The national actors acting in the international environment, and
ii) The supra-national actors like the UN, regional organizations and other
international agencies.

The later can be sub classified as bloc actors or regional actors like the EU, ASEAN,
NAFTA and others, and universal actors like the UN, World Bank etc.

5) A system of interactions: international system is constituted by a set of interactions

among the actors or entities (national and international actors)
6) Regular interactions: Nations are in continuous contact. There is a continuous process
of interactions among international actors and entities.
7) Interactions for preservation of national interests: the activities of nations are directed
towards the preservation of their national interests in the international environment.
8) Regular participation: participation in international environment give rise to regular
mutual exchanges among international actors.
9) Pattern of behavior: there are certain identifiable and describable regularities in the
patterns of interactions among nations.
One of the first writers to use systems concept in International Relation was Morton Kaplan.
According to Kaplan international system is the set of interrelated and interdependent
interactions among international actors-national and supra-national actors.

Kaplan’s international system consisted of states interacting in six possible patterns or

structures.

Categorization of System

1. Balance of power system: a balance of power is a multi power arrangement.

This model of international system refers to the balance of power system that operated
in the 19th century Europe. It is constituted by 5 or 7 major powers/actors. Each actor
seeks to increase its capabilities through negotiations and not through resort to war.
The actors maintain a balance in their power positions, and no actor is permitted to
become unduly powerful.

In the early years of the 20th century these rules were not followed by major
international actors and the Balance of Power system suffered a breakdown. It led to
the outbreak of First World War in 1914.

2. Loose bipolar system: two main opposing spheres with satellites of varying degree of
adherence to either side. In other words, Loose Bi-polar System is constituted by two
major bloc-actors, non- member bloc-actors (like the group of Non-aligned), and
universal actor/actors, like the UN. In it, blocs try to increase their relative capabilities
as well as to limit or weaken their rival bloc. Each bloc strives to use the universal
actor for increasing its own power. The non-bloc actors tend to support the universal
actor for reducing the danger of war between rival blocs. Blocs attempt to extend
membership but along with it tend to tolerate the status of non-bloc actors.
3. Tight bipolar system: The Loose Bi-polar System easily gets transformed into a Tight
Bi-polar System. It is a bi-polar system in which the two major powers lead their
respective blocs of allied powers. Each bloc is dominated by a major power. The
international organizations are very weak and there are no neutral blocs or nations.
International relations take the form of interactions between the two blocs.
4. Universal system: The fourth model is the Universal System in which the nations get
organized in a federal system. It is a hypothetical model in which the world gets
transformed into a Federal World State based upon the principle of mutual toleration
and universal rule of law. It works through a universal actor—an international
organization. The universal actor is powerful enough to check war and preserve peace
or a balance in international relations. Nation states will strengthen the Universal
Actor (like UN) without giving away their sovereignty.
5. Hierarchical system: The fifth model is that of the hierarchical international system; in
 which the Universal Actor virtually absorbs all the others, and only one nation is left
in the world.
6. Unit veto system: The sixth model projected by Kaplan is the Unit Veto System. It
involves the conception of a situation of multi-polarity in which each state is equally
powerful. Each possesses such weapons (nuclear weapons) as can be used by it for
destroying any other state. It becomes stable when each state can resist and retaliate the
threats from every other state. On the basis of these six models, Morton Kaplan believes
that international relations can be analyzed as an international system.

Categorization of potential actors

Directive and non-directive and each of them in turn may be either system dominant or
subsystem dominant.

Directive seems to be identical with authoritarian and non-directive seems to be identical

with democratic.

Likewise, a nation is system-dominant if its culture is uniform and power is widely

distributed or wielded under strong consensus. It is subsystem dominant if its policies are
determined by a small group within the nation without much regard for public opinion
outside the group.

Criticism
1) The systems approaches are not yet theories but only conceptual frameworks.
2) There is lack of operationalization of concepts in a way that can make them accessible
to empirical testing.
3) It is a limited approach as it does not accept the study of political institutions and
importance of domestic variables of international relations.
4) Kaplan's six models of international system are not fully practical.