SYSTEM APPROACH

The System approach is the intellectual child of the General system theory (GST) which was
introduced by the Austrian-born Canadian biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy. According to him,
the System is a ‘set of elements standing in interrelation among themselves and with
environment.’

“System is a set of objects together with relationships between the objects and between their
attributes.” – Hall and Fagen

The term ‘system’ refers to a structure of its own, having different parts which are inter-related
and inter-dependent, which undergoes various processes to maintain its existence.

Mortan Kaplan is the chief exponent of the international systems theory. The other important
contributors to the system approach include Karl Deutsch, Charles McClelland, J. David Singer,
Kenneth Boulding, David Easton and Anatole Rapport.

The interpretation given by all these scholars refers to the variables of the international system,
which help in a proper understanding of the interaction process. These variables are discussed
as below:

 Structure of the System: Structure of the system refers to the pattern of relationship
among the States. The pattern of relation-ship depends upon :(i) The distribution of
capabilities referring to the evenness or unevenness; (ii) The characteristic configuration
referring to un polarity, bipolarity or multi polarity and; (iii) The hierarchy within the
system referring to the dominant and subordinate sub-system.

 Components of the System: It means actors of the system. The members or actors can be
of different types such as sub-national, national, transnational and Universal.

 Boundary of the System: Boundary refers to the dividing line between the environment
and the system itself. Environment means all that exists or is perceived as existing
outside that system. This makes it easier to draft a line between national and an
international system.

 Interaction among the Components: The concept of system refers to the fact of
interaction among its components. System theorists may differ on anything while
defining a system, but they all agree on its aspect of interaction. Interaction is of
different forms such as direct governmental, direct non-governmental and indirect
governmental. Interaction may differ in content. It may be collaborative as well as
conflicting. Interaction may differ in intensity. For example the interaction between the
actors of the West-European sub-system is of great intensity than between the actors of
Africa.

 Regulation in the System: Regulation is the process by means of which a system

attempts to maintain or preserve its identity over time as it adapts to changing
circumstances. Regulation is aided by various factors such as culture, institution etc.
Morton Kaplan (System and process in international politics; 1957) has given most
comprehensive and successful characterization of international politics in terms of systems
theory. He has emphasized on the pattern of the behaviour of states. He argues that the
character of state has been changing since its birth. Hence the International System has also
been changing correspondingly. International System is thus never static, but dynamic. The
systems approach takes into consideration the action of nations, structure and functioning of the
system, and the environ-mental factors that not only condition the actions of nations but also
the interaction among them and the working of the system itself.

He divides international actors into two categories – the national and supranational actors. The
US, China, Russia and India are the examples of national actors while the NATO is an example
supranational actors. According to Kaplan, International action takes places between
international actors. It is the interaction between these two types of actors that ultimately gives
birth to the International system.

Kaplan comes up with 6 major models of international system which are macro-models of the
international politics.

1. Balance of Power System : Kaplan’s balance of power system is similar to the one which
prevailed in the Western World in the 18th and 19th centuries. In it, power relations among five
or six major powers constitute a balance and there is no authoritative international organization
present in the system. The operation of the balance of power system, according to Kaplan has six
instant rules:

 Each actor should try to increase its capabilities but through negotiations and not
through war.
 The foremost obligation of each actor must be to itself. It should achieve its national
interest even at the risk of war, if necessary.
 The participant who is threatened of its own existence should stop fighting. It is to
ensure that no essential participant is eliminated altogether.
 The participant should oppose any coalition of other participants in order to avoid
predominance of that group in relation to the rest of the system.
 The participant should prevent other participants from subscribing to the supra-national
principles.
 The defeated participants should be permitted to re-enter the system.

When the participants in the system, individually or collectively, do not play according to these
six rules, the system becomes unstable. The moment this system becomes unstable, it is bound
to be changed into a different system.

2. The Bipolar System : The unstable balance of power system changes itself into a bipolar
system. Kaplan conceives of two types of bipolar system:-(a) the loose bipolar system and (b) the
tight bipolar system.

(a) The Loose Bipolar System: The two super-powers are surrounded by a group of smaller
powers and non-aligned states. The existence of non-aligned States makes the power of the two
major actors loose. In it, blocs try to increase their relative capabilities as well as to eliminate or
weaken the rivals. The non-bloc actors tend to support the universal actor for reducing the
dangers of war between rival blocs. Therefore, the loose bipolar system is characterized by the
presence of two major bloc actors(Soviet Union and the US), non-member actors (the Non-
Aligned countries) and the universal actor (UN). All of them perform unique and distinctive role
within the system.

(b) The Tight Bipolar System: The loose bipolar system will be transformed, according to
Kaplan, into tight bipolar system. In this system, the non-aligned states will disappear and the
system will operate only around two super blocs.. The most important thing about the tight
bipolar system is the virtual disappearance of the category of non-member national actors and
the universal actor (UN).

3. The Universal System : The Universal Actor System comes into existence with the extension
of functions of universal actor in a Loose Bipolar System. The most striking feature of this
system is that even though the national actors constantly strive for more power, they are
prevented effectively from going to war with each other by the UN. Hence, this system envisages
that the universal actor (the United Nations) is sufficiently powerful to prevent war among
national actors. National actors will try to achieve their objectives only within the framework of
the universal actor.

4. Hierarchical International System : It is a system in which practically the whole of the world,
except one nation, is brought under the control of one universal actor. The hierarchical
international system can be directive as well as non- directive. It will be directive if it is formed
as a consequence of world conquest by a national actor. The national actors lose their primary
function of transmitting the rules of the national systems. The states become merely territorial
sub-division of the system instead of being independent political systems. Once established, it
will be impossible to displace this system. However, it will be non-directive if it is based on
political rules generally operative in democracies. As a result, there will be great tension in a
directive hierarchical system than in a non-directive system.

5. 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, but all of them are aware of the consequences of the attack. The
consciousness about the retaliatory action discourages each and every nation-system from
attacking other states.

However, Kaplan revisited his 6-model scheme of international system in 1969 owing to the
changing situations and added 4 new categories of international systems, which are

 Very Loose Bipolar system : In it, the two superpowers exercise far less control over their
respective allies or satellites. Nations have greater autonomy to navigate between the two
superpowers.

 Détente system (1970-1979) : It is the process of normalization of relations and the

development of comparatively friendly cooperation in place of strained, hostile an
unhealthy mutually harmful relations. Prof. A.P. Rana conceptualizes détente as “the
collaborative competitive behaviour of the superpowers.”

 Unstable bloc system : It is characterized by high levels of suspicion and rivalry among
superpowers and return of the cold war.
  Incomplete nuclear diffusion system : In it, there are few nuclear powers, and not all
nations possess nuclear weapons. This creates a situation where nuclear weapons are not
fully diffused across the system, and the deterrent value is concentrated in the hands of
the few. This asymmetry in the distribution of nuclear weapons generates instability and
strategic competition.

CRITICISM

1. Morton Kaplan's Models are Limited : Critics refuse to accept Morton Kaplan's view that his
models involve a preliminary theory of International Politics All of his six models are limited.
The Balance of Power system is impracticable in post-1945 years. He has been wrong in
predicting that the Balance of Power system leads first to Loose Bi-polar System and then to
Tight Bi-polar System. The course of evolution of international relations in the post-1945 period
reflects that the opposite of it has come to be true. Tight Bi-polarity emerged first in early 1950s
and then it came to be replaced by Loose Bi-polarity or polycentrism in the 1960s. In 1990s the
International System has become virtually unipolar.

2. Impracticability of Four Hypothetical Models of Kaplan : The four hypothetical models

appear to be totally impracticable. The Tight Bi-polar System as conceived by Kaplan has little
chance to get established in international relations. There is no chance for the existing
international organisation, the United Nations to become a really powerful and effective
universal actor. There has never been, and there can never be a situation involving world
domination by a single actor. This model wrongly envisages total and complete imperialism of
one nation. The unit veto system can be hypothetically imagined but never considered to be
possible and practical.

3. Kaplan ignores Geo-strategic Factors : Kaplan's models ignore the role of economic,
technological, personality, geo-political and political factors of international relations