1. The International System
Chapter 4
The International System

2. The International System
International system concept
Important for Realists and Radicals
Less precise, consequential for Liberals (multiple conceptions)
System defined
Assemblage of units, objects, parts united by some form of regular interaction
Change in one causes changes in all the others
Systems tend to respond in regularized ways
Patterns to their actions and interactions
Can break down; when changes become significant, can give rise to new system
International politics is a system whose major actors are individual states

3. Liberalism (1): International System as Process; Interdependence
Multiple interactions among different parties; actors learn from interactions
Actors include states, IGOs, NGOs, MNCs, sub-state actors (unlike Realists who emphasize states)
Different kinds of actors, variety of interactions
Likewise, range of national interests (security, economic, social, etc.) (unlike Realists who emphasize security)
Keohane and Nye, Power and Interdependence
International system as interdependent
Multiple actors sensitive/vulnerable to actions of others
Multiple channels connect states; multiple issues and agendas

4. Liberalism (2): International System as International Society
English tradition
International system more than a group of independent political communities
Various actors communicate, consent to common rules and institutions, and recognize common interests
Actors share a common identity
International system an arena and process for positive interactions

5. Liberalism (3): Neoliberal Institutionalism and The International System
Like Realists, see international system as anarchic
Each individual state acts in its own self-interest
Product of interaction among actors potentially positive
When states realize they will have future interactions with other actors involved, institutions created out of self-interest serve to moderate state behavior

6. Sources of Change in the Liberal International System
Exogenous (from “outside” the system) technological developments
Examples: changes in communication, transportation
Changes in relative importance of different issue areas
Examples: economic issues; human rights, environment
New actors (MNCs, NGOs, others) can augment, replace state actors; create new relationships
Change in overall power structure among states (not unlike Realists)

7. International System According to Realists
Anarchic (all Realists agree)
No authority above the state; state is sovereign
Anarchic structure constrains actions of decision-makers and affects distribution of capabilities among various actors
Each state must look out for own interests
Differ on degree of state autonomy
Traditional Realists recognize states act and shape system
Neorealists believe states are constrained by structure of international system

8. Realists and Polarity in the International System
Given focus on power, Realists particularly interested in polarity and system stability
System polarity = number of blocs of states that exert power in the international system
Multipolar (19th century balance of power)
Several states (three or more) influential actors in international system; relative power parity
Bipolar (Cold War; )
Two states influential; relative power parity
Unipolar (post-Cold War; 1991-present(?))
One state stands out as the most powerful; no parity

9. Polarity and System Stability
Are certain polarities more manageable, stable, conflict-prone than others?
Studies of relationship between polarity and stability inconclusive
Bipolar systems
Clear power differential between poles and other states; each can focus on other pole; each tries to preserve balance and bipolar system (Waltz)
Multipolar (balance of power) systems
System stable if poles maintain balance; multiple interactions and cross-cutting loyalties, alliances
Unipolar systems
Hegemonic stability theory (Kennedy, Keohane); hegemons willing to pay price to enforce norms

10. Realists and International System Change
Changes in the number of major actors or the relative power relationships (distribution of power)
Usually the result of war
States acting to preserve their own interests can change their relative power positions due to differing responses to political, economic, and technological changes (example: NICs of SE Asia; South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong)
Exogenous factors (from outside the system)
Advances in technology
Example: nuclear weapons (N. Korea, Iran)

11. International System According to Radicals
Radicals describe and explain international system structure in terms of stratification
Stratification = uneven division of resources among different groups of states due to capitalism
International system stratified according to which states have vital resources (oil, military strength, economic power)
Different international systems have varying degrees of stratification
Current international system is highly stratified
7 states (U.S., Japan, Germany, France, Britain, Russia, China) have ½ of world GDP; other half shared among remaining states
Stratification of power/resources creates division between haves (North) and have-nots (South)

12. Implications of Stratification
Stratification caused by capitalism, which structures relationship between advantaged and disadvantaged, empowering the rich, disenfranchising the weak
Instruments of capitalist domination:
International institutions: rules are structured by capitalist states to facilitate capitalism (IMF, World Bank)
MNCs: headquartered in capitalist states exploit dependent areas
Co-opted individuals, classes in weak states perpetuate exploitative system
Economic disparities built into structure of international system; all actions and interactions constrained by structure of international capitalist system
Likelihood of systemic change varies among Radical theorists

13. Constructivism and International System Change
Changes in social norms can lead to fundamental shift in system
Social purposes of international system have changed over time (Finnermore)
18th century balance of power; 19th century concert; 20th century sphere of influence; Late 20th century promotion of liberal democracy, capitalism, and human rights
Mechanisms of change
(Collective level) Coercion; international institutions and law, social movements; (Individual level) Persuasion and internationalization of new norms
Material forces constrain what order is possible, but what order emerges is function of ideas, culture, and social purposes of actors (Finnermore)

14. International System Level of Analysis
Strengths
Important research tool; allows for comparison between systems; enables scholars to organize parts into whole; to hypothesize, test relations and evaluate changes between and within systems; holistic, top-down approach; generates plausible general explanations
Weaknesses
Generalizations sometimes broad, obvious; difficult to test theories; boundaries (what is, is not part of the system?) often unclear
Important for Realists (polarity) and Radicals (stratification): system constrains state behavior
Liberals see it as arena and process for interaction
Constructivists focus on how norms and ideas shape system

15. Discussion Questions
What are the most important contributions of Liberal theory to our understanding of the international system? Do Liberals care about the international system, or do their primary analytical concerns lie elsewhere?
Discuss some of the key differences among Realists with regard to the international system’s character and operation. Do you think these disagreements result from Realism’s shortcomings or the complexity of the international system?
How well founded is the Radical contention that the international system is characterized by “crippling stratification?” How likely is it that system stratification will be changed?
Which theoretical perspective best explains changes that have occurred in the international system since the end of the Cold War? Highlight the relative weaknesses of other theoretical perspectives in this regard.
What issues or events in world politics are best addressed by using the international system as a level of analysis? What issues or events cannot be sufficiently addressed at this level of analysis?