International System Essay ⋆ Political Science Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

Since the 1970s, scholars have largely conceived of international politics occur ring within a system or environment defined by a structure and interacting units. Systemic approaches make it possible to understand two recur ring features of the international political landscape: unintended consequences and equifinality. How scholars define the international system and characterize its potential for change depends on their theoretical orientation. The two main approaches are realist and idealist. Among idealists, one can further distinguish between evolutionary and revolutionary perspectives.

Kenneth N. Waltz’s Call For Systemic Theories

In Man, the State, and War (1954), Kenneth N. Waltz identifies three images, or levels, of analysis from which international politics are typically studied: the individual level, the state level, and the international level. In the first half of Theory of International Politics (1979), Waltz argues that international outcomes are best explained systemically, at the international level of analysis.

According to Waltz, reductionist approaches (those at the individual and state levels of analysis) are inappropriate wherever unintended consequences and equifinality prevail. In the international realm, unintended consequences are evident in that individuals who prefer to avoid war are often drawn into fighting, and states whose policy is to ally with certain types of states often end up allying with others. Equifinality, by contrast, is evident in the fact that all manner of individuals and states participate in war.

Unintended consequences and equifinality demonstrate that individual and state actions are affected by systemic conditions. These conditions must be taken into account when explaining and predicting international outcomes and prescribing foreign policies.

Waltz’s Structural-Realist Theory

In the second half of Theory of International Politics, Waltz develops the first systemic theory of international relations. Today structural-realist theory remains at the center of scholarly debates about how international relations work and whether they can be changed.

In developing structural-realist theory, Waltz defines the structure of the international system in terms of anarchy (the absence of world government) and polarity (the distribution of capabilities among units). In addition, he argues that states should be “taken as the units of the system” (Waltz, 1979, p. 93). According to Waltz, a state is an “autonomous political unit,” an entity that “decides for itself how it will cope with its internal and external problems” (pp. 95–96). Finally, Waltz assumes that states seek, at least, to survive.

From this theory, Waltz derives several hypotheses about international outcomes. In particular, he expects that strong states have better survival chances and more influence than weak states. He also predicts that balances of power recurrently form to limit the reach of the strong. Above all, Waltz expects that wars continue to occur “because there is nothing to prevent them” (1959, p. 232). Specifically, in the anarchic international system, there is no sovereign to limit the expansion of strong or ambitious states and to help states avoid the “security dilemma,” in which relative power is, at once, the best guarantor of security and likely to make one a target.

According to Waltz, it is necessary to distinguish between change in the system and change of the system. Changes in the distribution of capabilities, for example the rise of a third great power in a bipolar era and the consequent emergence of multipolarity, are simply changes in the system. A change of system would occur only with a change of ordering principle, from anarchy to hierarchy. Like classical realists such as Hans Morgenthau, Waltz and other structural realists doubt that such a change will occur. Unlike classical realists, however, structural realists’ pessimism arises not from a dim view of human or state nature but from the structure of the international system. International anarchy gives states both the means and the motive to preserve their sovereignty.

Alternative Perspectives On The International System

Unlike realists, idealists are optimistic about the transformation of the international system from an anarchic realm characterized by conflict to a hierarchic, or at least cooperative, realm. There are two types of idealists: those who argue that system transformation is inevitable and evolutionary, and those who argue that change is possible but will not occur without deliberate, revolutionary action.

Liberalism is the most prominent evolutionary theory. Liberal arguments range from classical claims, about the inevitable and pacifying spread of capitalism and democracy at the state level of analysis, to neoliberal assertions, about the socializing effects of international institutions and economic interdependence at the system level. According to neoliberals Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye (2001), weak states and nonstate actors are “able to put increasing leverage on [strong] states” (p. 225), thereby creating “de facto governance” (p. 261). What unites classical and neoliberal arguments is their view of human nature. According to liberals, all people seek prosperity and justice. In pursuing these interests, individuals transform the world into one that is good for all.

Marxism, dependency theory, and constructivism are often characterized as revolutionary theories. Whether this is apt depends on the argument under consideration. Karl Marx’s claim about the role of technology in the rise of capitalism and inevitable emergence of a cooperative socialist order rests on evolutionary logic. By contrast, for dependency theorist Johan Galtung system transformation requires deliberate choices and strategies by center and periphery classes and countries. Constructivist Alexander Wendt’s early argument about the possibility of replacing “self-help” with “other-help” norms rested on revolutionary logic. By contrast, his more recent argument that a universal desire for recognition leads inevitably toward world government has strong evolutionary tones.

Feminists, too, differ in their predictions about system change. Liberal and radical feminists take an evolutionary view, asserting that female enfranchisement and participation have made international politics more cooperative than they once were and that progress will continue as more women become involved. By contrast, critical feminists such as Sandra Whitworth argue that the behavior of both men and women reflects gendered norms of competition and dominance constructed by governments and militaries. For a more cooperative and nurturing international system to emerge, these norms must be deliberately reconstructed.

For structural realists such as Waltz, changes in the attributes, interdependence, and norms of states are changes in the international system, not changes of the system. Unless states surrender sovereignty to a world government, the anarchic structure of the international system will persist, and war and conflict will continue to occur, both intentionally and inadvertently, among a wide variety of leaders and states.

Bibliography:

Doyle, Michael. “Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs, Part I.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 12, no. 3 (1983): 205–235.
Galtung, Johan. “A Structural Theory of Imperialism.” Journal of Peace Research 8 (1971): 81–117.
Jervis, Robert. “Cooperation under the Security Dilemma.” World Politics 30, no. 2 (1978): 167–214.
Jervis, Robert. System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998.
Keohane, Robert O. “Governance in a Partially Globalized World.” American Political Science Review 95, no. 1 (2001): 1–13.
Marx, Karl. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Vol. 1 (trans. Ben Fowkes). New York: Penguin, 1992.
Morgenthau, Hans. Politics among Nations:The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978.
Waltz, Kenneth N. “Structural Realism after the Cold War.” International Security 25, no. 1 (2000): 5–41.
Wendt, Alexander “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics.” International Organization 46 (1992): 391–425.
Wendt, Alexander “Why a World State Is Inevitable.” European Journal of International Relations 9, no. 4 (2003): 491–542.
Whitworth, Sandra “Feminist Theories: From Women to Gender and World Politics,” in Women, Gender, and World Politics: Perspectives, Policies, and Prospects. Edited by Peter R. Beckman and Francine D’Amico.Westport, Conn.: Bergin & Garvy, 1994, 75–88.

This example International System Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.