The International System

Chapter Summary
I. THE NOTION OF A SYSTEM

 A system is an assemblage of units, objects, or parts united by some form of regular interaction.
 In the 1950s, the behavioural revolution in the social sciences and growing acceptance of political
realism in international relations led scholars to conceptualize international politics as a system,
using the language of systems theory.

II. THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM ACCORDING TO REALISTS

 All realists characterize the international system as anarchic. No authority exists above the state,
which is sovereign. Each state must therefore look out for its own interests above all.
 Polarity: system polarity refers to the number of blocs of states that exert power in the international
system. There are three types of polarity:
1. Multipolarity: if there are a number of influential actors in the international system, a
balance-of-power or multipolar system is formed.
1. In a balance-of-power system, the essential norms of the system are clear to
each of the state actors. In classical balance of power, the actors are
exclusively states and there should be at least five of them.
2. If an actor does not follow these norms, the balance-of-power system may
become unstable. When alliances are formed, they are formed for a specific
purpose, have a short duration, and shift according to advantage rather than
ideology.
2. Bipolarity: in the bipolar system of the Cold War, each of the blocs (the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization, or NATO, and the Warsaw Pact) sought to negotiate rather than
fight, to fight minor wars rather than major ones, and to fight major wars rather than fail
to eliminate the rival bloc.
0. Alliances tend to be long term, based on relatively permanent, not shifting,
interests.
1. In a tight bipolar system, international organizations either do not develop or
are ineffective. In a looser system, international organizations may develop
primarily to mediate between the two blocs.
3. Hegemony: one state that commands influence in the international system.
0. Immediately after the Gulf War in 1991, many states grew concerned that the
international system had become unipolar, with no effective counterweight to
the power of the United States.
 System Management and Stability: Realists do not agree among themselves on how polarity matters.
o Bipolar systems are very difficult to regulate formally, since neither uncommitted states
nor international organizations are able to direct the behavior of either of the two blocs.
Informal regulation may be easier.
o Kenneth Waltz argues that the bipolar system is the most stable structure in the long run
because there is a clear difference in the amount of power held by the two poles as
compared to that held by the rest of the state actors.
o John Mearsheimer suggests that the world will miss the stability and predictability that
the Cold War forged. He argues that more conflict pairs would develop and hence more
possibilities for war.
 o Theoretically, in multipolar systems, the regulation of system stability ought to be easier
than in bipolar systems. Under multipolarity, numerous interactions take place among all
the various parties, and thus there is less opportunity to dwell on a specific relationship
or respond to an arms buildup by just one party in the system.
o Advocates of unipolarity, known as hegemonic stability theorists, claim that unipolarity
leads to the most stable system. Paul Kennedy argues that it was the hegemony of Britain
in the nineteenth century and that of the United States after World War II that led to the
greatest stability. When the hegemon loses power and declines, then system stability is
jeopardized.
o The international system of the twenty-first century is confronted by a unique problem:
the United States dominates both militarily and economically. What are the implications
of such a world? Will it lead to international peace?
 Realists and International System Change
o Changes in either the number of major actors or the relative power relationship among
the actors may result in a change in the international system. Wars are usually
responsible for changes in power relationships.
o An example of a system change occurred at the end of World War II. The war brought the
demise of Great Britain and France, and signaled an end to Germany’s and Japan’s
imperial aspirations. The United States and Soviet Union emerged into dominant
positions; the multipolar world had been replaced by a bipolar one.
o Robert Gilpin sees another form of change, where states act to preserve their own
interests and thereby change the system. Such changes occur because states respond at
different rates to political, economic, and technological developments.
o Exogenous changes may also lead to a shift in the system. Advances in technology not
only have expanded the boundaries of accessible geographic space, but also brought
about changes in the boundaries of the international system. With these changes came an
explosion of new actors.
o Nuclear warfare has had more of an impact of on the international system more than any
other technological change. Although these weapons have not been used since 1945, the
weapons remain much feared, and efforts by nonnuclear states to develop such weapons,
or threat to do so, has met sharp resistance. The nuclear states do not want a change in
the status quo and do not want them in the hands of rogue states.
o In the view of realists, international systems can change, yet the inherent bias among
realist interpretations is for continuity.

III. THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM ACCORDING TO LIBERALS

 The international system is not central to the view of liberals. Thus, there are three different
conceptions of the international system:
o Not as a structure but as a process, in which multiple interactions occur among different
parties and where various actors learn from the interaction.
1. Actors include, not only states, but also international governmental
organizations, nongovernmental organizations, multinational corporations,
and substate actors.
2. Each actor has interactions with all of the other ones. Thus, a great many
national interests define the system, including economic and social issues and
not just security.
3. Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye describe the international system as
interdependent. There are multiple channels connecting states, and multiple
issues and agendas arise in the interdependent system.
 o An English tradition of international society: in an international society, the various
actors communicate and consent to common rules and institutions and recognize
common interests.
1. Actors share a common identity, a sense of “we-ness”; without such an
identity, a society cannot exist.
2. This conception has normative implications: the international system is an
arena and process for positive interactions
o An anarchic one in which each individual state acts in its self-interest: This is also called
neoliberal institutionalism, a view that comes closer to realist thinking.
1. But, unlike many realists, they see the product of the interaction among
actors as a potentially positive one, where institutions created out of self-
interest serve to moderate state behavior.
 Liberals and International System Change
o Changes come from several sources:
1. Changes occur as the result of exogenous technological developments—that
is, progress occurring independently. Examples are communication and
transportation systems.
2. Change may occur because of changes in the relative importance of different
issues areas. In the last decades of the twentieth century, economic issues
replaced national security issues. Globalizing issues such as human rights
may assume primacy in the twenty-first century.
3. Change may occur as new actors, including multinational corporations and
nongovernmental organizations, augment or replace state actors.

IV. THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM ACCORDING TO RADICALS

 Radicals seek to describe and explain the structure of the system in terms of stratification: the
uneven division of resources among different groups of states. The system is stratified according to
which states have vital resources.
 From the stratification of power and resources comes the division between the haves, characterized by
the North, and have-nots, positioned in the South. Economic disparities are built into the structure
and all actions are constrained by this structure.
 The Implications for Stratification
o When the dominant powers are challenged by those states just beneath them in terms of
access to resources, the system may become highly unstable. The rising powers seek first-
tier status and are willing to fight wars to get it. Top powers may begin a war to quell the
threat.
o For Marxists, crippling stratification in the system is caused by capitalists. Capitalism
dominates international institutions whose rules are structured by capitalist states to
facilitate capitalist processes, and MNCs whose headquarters are in capitalist states but
whose loci of activity are in dependent states.
o Radicals believe that the greatest amount of resentment will be felt in systems where
stratification is most extreme. The call for the New International Economic Order (NIEO)
in the 1970s was voiced by radicals and liberal reformers in most developing countries.
They sought changes such as debt forgiveness, how commodities were priced, and
controls on multinational corporations (MNCs).

V. CONSTRUCTIVISM AND INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM CHANGE

  Constructivists argue that the whole concept of an international system is a European idea. Nothing
can be explained by material structures alone
o Martha Finnemore suggests that there have been different international orders with
changing purposes.
 Constructivists believe that what does change are social norms.
o Social norms change through both actions of the collective and through individuals
o Norms may change through coercion, but most likely they will change through
international institutions, law, and social movements

VI. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE INTERNATIONAL

SYSTEM AS A LEVEL OF ANALYSIS

 Advantages:
1. Allows comparison and contrasts between systems
2. Comprehensiveness: it enables scholars to organize the seemingly disjointed parts into a whole.
3. Systems theory is a holistic approach. Although it cannot provide descriptions of events at the micro level, it
does allow plausible explanations at the more general level. For realists, generalizations provide fodder for
prediction. For liberals and radicals, these generalizations have normative implications.
 Disadvantages
1. The emphasis at the international system level means that the “stuff of politics” is often neglected, while the
generalizations are broad and obvious.
2. The testing of systems theories is very difficult. Most theorists are constrained by a lack of historical information
and thus the ability to test specific hypotheses over a long time period is restricted.
3. The problem of boundaries: does the notion of the international system mean the political system? What factors
lie outside the system? What shapes the system?
4. The idea of a single international system is largely a creation of European thought. It may be better to think of
multiple international systems over time
1. Imperial China
2. The umma as a community of Muslims

VII. IN SUM: FROM THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM TO THE STATE

 Of all theoretical approaches, realists and radicals pay the most attention to the international system
of analysis. For realists, the defining characteristic is polarity; for radicals, it is stratification.
Constructivists emphasize how changes in norms and ideas shape the system, seeing little
differentiation between the international and domestic system and eschewing the importance
attached to international system structure.
 Constraints are viewed by realists as positive, by radicals as negative, and by liberals as neutral (as an
arena and process for interaction).