The International System Chapter 4 The International System

Thinking Conceptually What is a system? Assemblage of units, objects, or parts that are united by some form of regular interaction Change in one unit leads to changes in other parts Patterns to the interaction Units act in regularized ways

International System: Realist View The system is anarchic; no authority above the state Constrains actions Affects distribution of capabilities State is sovereign; each must look out for own interests

International System: Realist View Realists disagree about degree of state autonomy in the system Traditional: states can shape system Neorealist: states more constrained by system

Dimensions of the International System Realism Emphasis on polarity (number of blocs of states that have power) Polarity important because influences system management and stability Three types: multipolarity, bipolarity, hegemony or unipolarity

Polarity in the International System

Norms of Balance-of-Power System Any actor or coalition that tries to assume dominance must be constrained States want to increase their capabilities by acquiring territory, increasing their population, or developing economically Negotiating is better than fighting

Norms of Balance-of-Power System Fighting is better than failing to increase capabilities Other states are viewed as potential allies State seek their own national interests, defined in terms of power

Norms of Bipolar International System Negotiate rather than fight Fight minor wars rather than major ones Fight major wars rather than fail to eliminate rivals Alliances are long term, based on permanent interests

Norms of Bipolar International System Tight: international organizations do not develop or are ineffective Loose: international organizations can develop to mediate between the two blocs Caveat: effective international organizations can develop within a bloc

During the Cold War, the international system was bipolar, with two blocs of countries allied with either the United States or the Soviet Union. Each side sought to counter the other’s power, through military and other means. In this 1968 photo, Soviet missiles are set up, ready to respond to any threat from the U.S. and its allies. Bettmann/Corbis

Hegemonic System Basics One group or state has superiority Becomes unipolar if no effective counterweight exists Example: United States in 1990s versus in 2000s

Which International Polarity Is More Stable? Waltz: Bipolarity is more stable: Disruptive behavior immediately evident Two sides can moderate other’s use of violence Absorb potentially destabilizing changes Each focus activity on just the other Anticipate actions of other and predict responses Mearsheimer: The world will miss the Cold War

Which International Polarity Is More Stable? Multipolarity is more stable (Gulick): More interactions, less opportunity to dwell on one More crosscutting alliances Less likely to respond to actions of any one state

Which International Polarity Is More Stable? Keohane: Unipolarity is more stable Hegemon pays the price of enforcing norms to insure stability When hegemon declines, there is less system stability

Will the United States Persist as the System’s Hegemon? YES: Has unprecedented military power; can project Premier innovator in information technology Given land power, unlikely to provoke balancing Economy three times stronger than next three rivals combined (Japan’s aging population)

Will the United States Persist as the System’s Hegemon? YES: China still has large, undeveloped rural sector Soft power—democracy, human rights, cultural hegemony—has no rival

Will the United States Persist as the System’s Hegemon? NO: Military power ill-suited to twenty-first century warfare (example: Iraq, Afghanistan) European Union rising in power United States in relative economic decline, while China, Brazil, India, and other nations are rising

Will the United States Persist as the System’s Hegemon? NO: Torture allegations, climate change responses, and blame for global economic crisis weakened soft power Domestic politics gridlocked Americans no longer willing to bear hegemonic costs

The International System: View from China China is becoming an active participant in international institutions (example: UN Security Council and ASEAN) Current international economic system operates to China’s benefit, so China does not want to upset the status quo

The International System: View from China China’s priorities are domestic: poverty in rural areas and environmental problems China does not have the will or the military means to challenge U.S. dominance in the international system

Realists: How the International System Changes When actors change basic power relations, often due to war (domestic or international) Because states respond at different rates to economic, political, and technological developments When exogenous change occurs (technology such as nuclear weapons) Still, there is an overall bias toward continuity

The Realist Perspective on the International System Characterization Anarchic Actors State is primary actor Constraints Polarity Possibility of change Slow change when the balance of power shifts or technological change occurs

Three Liberal Characterizations International system as process with multiple interactions among actors Keohane and Nye, Power and Interdependence: interdependent system with mutual sensitivities and vulnerabilities; multiple channels connect

Three Liberal Characterizations International system as international society (English school) wherein actors share common identity Consent to common rules and institutions Recognize common interests

Three Liberal Characterizations Neoliberal institutionalists: international system is anarchic Possibility of institutions created from self interest Institutions moderate state behavior

Liberals: Change in the International System Exogenous technological developments (communication/ transportation) Changes in relative importance of different issues (from security to economics) New actors emerge: multinational corporations (MNCs), nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)

The Liberal Perspective on the International System Characterization Three liberal interpretations: interdependence among actors, international society, and anarchy Actors States, international governmental institutions, nongovernmental organizations, multinational corporations, substate actors

The Liberal Perspective on the International System Constraints From anarchy and interdependence Possibility of change Low likelihood of radical change, but may occur; constant incremental change as actors are involved in new relationships

Radicals: International System Structure Emphasis on stratification Stratification is the uneven distribution of resources among different groups of states North versus South—the haves versus the have- nots Implications for ability of system to regulate itself and system stability

Radicals: International System Structure Emphasis on stratification Caused by capitalism, which breeds its own instruments of domination Great economic disparities built into system structure, which constrains all actions and interactions

The Radical Perspective on the International System Characterization Highly stratified Actors Capitalist states vs. developing states Constraints Capitalism; stratification Possibility of change Radical change desired but limited by the capitalist structure

Constructivism: International System Concept of international system is a European idea Nothing can be explained by international material structures alone Finnemore: there have been different international orders with changing purposes, different views of “threat,” and different ways to maintain order Idea of an anarchic international system is socially constructed

Constructivists and International System Change Social norms change, though not all are transforming Norms can be changed by collectives and individuals Change can occur through coercion, but most often through institutions, law, and social movements Individuals: change occurs through persuasion, internalization of new norms

Constructivists and International System Change Material conditions do matter for change, but a particular change occurs through ideas, culture, and social purpose of actors Example: use of force

Advantages of International System as Level of Analysis Comprehensiveness Language of system theory permits comparisons across systems Enables scholars to organize the parts into whole Suggests hypotheses about the parts Shows how change in one part of the system results in changes in other parts

Disadvantages of International System as Level of Analysis Testing of theories difficult Problem of boundaries—what is in and outside of the system Cannot describe micro-level events Politics often ignored Generalizations are sometimes broad and obvious Eurocentric bias

Contending Perspectives on the International System Liberalism / Neoliberal Institutionalism Realism / Neorealism Radicalism / Dependency Theory Construc tivism Characterization Three liberal interpretations: interdependence among actors, international society, and anarchy Anarchic Highly stratified International system exists as social construct

Contending Perspectives on the International System Liberalism / Neoliberal Institutionalism Realism / Neorealism Radicalism / Dependency Theory Construc tivism Actors States, international governmental institutions, nongovernmental organizations, substate actors State is primary actor Capitalist states vs. developing states Individuals matter; no deliniation between international and domestic

Contending Perspectives on the International System Liberalism / Neoliberal Institutionalism Realism / Neorealism Radicalism / Dependency Theory Construc tivism Constraints None; ongoing interactions Polarity; distribution of power Capitalism; stratification Ongoing Possibility of change No possibility of radical change; constant incremental as actors are involved in new relationships Slow change when the balance of power shifts Radical desired but limited by the capitalist structure Emphasis on change in social norms and identities