1. The International System
Chapter 4
The International System

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. Polarity in the International System

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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)

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

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

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

27. 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)

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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

36. 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

37. 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

38. 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

39. 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

40. 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