Outline Notes Ch. 4

The International System

CHAPTER OUTLINE

I. The Notion of a System

• A system is an assemblage of units, objects, or parts united by some form of regular interaction. Because these units interact, a change in one unit causes changes in the others; units respond in regularized ways.

II. The International System According to Realists

• All realists characterize the international system as anarchic. No authority exists above the state; the state 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. In classical balance of power, the actors are exclusively states, and there should be at least five of them. 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 (NATO and 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. Bipolar alliances tend to be long term, based on relatively permanent, not shifting, interests. 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. Unipolarity: one state commands influence in the international system by virtue of size, economic and/or military capability, or organizational competence. 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. Today, although the United States remains the unipole in absolute terms, its ability to exercise hegemony is being challenged by other states.

  </p>

  • System management and stability: realists do not agree among themselves on how polarity matters.

  <br /> 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. Realists disagree over how stable a bipolar system is.

  <br /> 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 to respond to the arms buildup of just one party in the system.

  <br /> Advocates of unipolarity, known as hegemonic stability theorists, claim that unipolarity leads to the most stable system. The hegemon enforces norms and ensures the continuation of the system. However, when the hegemon loses power and declines, then system stability is jeopardized.

  <br /> ·         Realists and internationals change

  <br /> 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, such as at the end of World War II.

  <br /> o   Exogenous changes may also lead to a shift in the system. Advances in technology and the advent of nuclear warfare are examples of such change.

  <br /> 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 liberalism. Liberals have three different conceptions of the international system:

\

• Not as a structure but as an interdependent process. Multiple interactions occur among different parties, and various actors learn from the interaction.

\

• Actors include not only states but international governmental organizations, nongovernmental organizations, multinational corporations, and substate actors. There are multiple channels connecting states, and multiple issues and agendas arise in the interdependent system. Negotiating and coordinating in the liberal international system occurs through multilateralism.

\

• A second conception sees the international system in terms of a specific international order, governed by basic rules and principles.

\

• Neoliberal institutionalists have a third view. Although the international system is anarchic, states cooperate because it is in their interest to. International institutions are created to moderate state behavior. Liberals and international system change

\

• All liberals acknowledge and welcome change in the international system. Changes come from several sources:

\
§  Changes occur as the result of exogenous technological developments, such as communication and transportation systems.

\
§  Change may occur because of changes in the relative importance of different issue areas, such as the increasing focus on economic issues, human rights, and the environment.

\
§  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 international system in terms of stratification, the uneven division of resources among different groups of states. From the stratification of power and resources comes the division between the haves, characterized as the North, and have-nots, positioned in the South. Economic disparities are built into the structure, and all actions are constrained by it.

\

• When the dominant powers are challenged by those states just beneath them in terms of access to resources, the system may become highly unstable.

\

• For Marxists, crippling stratification in the system is caused by capitalism.

\

• 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 is an example of a radical effort to empower the South.

\

• Economic disparities are built into the structure of the system. But change may occur as states change their relative positions vis-à-vis one another as capitalism goes through cycles of expansion and decline. Radicals disagree about the likelihood of changing the basic capitalist structure of the system.

V. Constructivism and Change

\

• Changes occurring in the social norms of a system can lead to a fundamental shift in that system. Understandings of the international system have altered over time and are socially constructed; there have been different international orders, different views of threats, and reliance on different ways to maintain order.

\

• Social norms may change through collective action or through individuals. At the collective level, while coercion may still lead to change, international institutions and law, the legal profession, and social movements are more critical. At the individual level, change occurs through persuasion and through internationalization of new norms.

VI. Advantages and Disadvantages of the International System as a Level of Analysis

• Advantages

1. Examining the international system allows comparison and contrast between systems.
2. Comprehensiveness: you cannot understand the whole by only referencing its parts; it enables scholars to organize the seemingly disjointed parts of the international system into a whole; it permits theorizing about change.
3. Systems theory is a holistic, top-down approach.

• Disadvantages

1. The emphasis at the international system level means that politics is often neglected, while generalizations are broad and obvious.
2. The problem of boundaries—what is inside/outside the system?
3. 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.
4. Is the concept of an international system a Eurocentric notion?

\