Evolution of International Systems

Q.1. The following statement, stressing that the modern international system exists in conditions of anarchy and a sovereign state is the main figure on the international arena, expresses the basic ideas of realist and constructivist thinkers. I am going to analyze this statement by first presenting supporting theoretical perspectives and their main followers. I will also connect these theories to historical events, aiming to reflect how and why they were actual

and gained popularity. Purpose of my work is to contradict the following statement and present opposing views. For this I will use the pluralist and liberal theories and turn to historical events and future perspectives. I am going to prove, that much has changed in the international system, which made it closer to being controllable. To begin with, I would like to clarify the term “anarchy”. Anarchy literally means absence of control and organization, or disorder.

In international relations anarchy is reflected by the absence of government or a common world governing structure, instruction of which would be mandatory for all the countries. Plus, states have to rely on themselves and their own capabilities, when defending their interests. Anarchic view on the nature of international relations is the basis of realist theories. In fact, according to this theory, anarchy is what distinguishes international relations from relations

within the society, which are built on the principle of hierarchy, subordination and domination. Realist thinkers believe in the balance of power ruling the relations between states, and that the relations are built on a competition. The brightest followers of this theory are Kenneth Waltz and Hans Morgenthau. Kenneth Waltz, a contemporary scholar, claimed that states exist in the anarchic environment with no power to control potential conflicts.

He also developed a new political theory - neorealism. Neorealism does not concentrate on the military aspect in the balance of power, but on its economic, scientific, financial and industrial components. Some of Waltz’s works were written during the Cold War, when political realism was especially popular. The Cold War covers the period from 1940s to 1980s and it’s a fearful experience of a modern time,

with accumulation of nuclear weapons, political intrigues, spy revelations and incredible tensions in political life of the states. It was a bipolar world with two equally strong superpowers, sharing diametrically opposing ideologies and balancing international relations, which explains why ideas of realism gained so much attention at that time. Waltz stated in his works that nuclear deterrence, and the inability of either superpower to overcome the retaliatory forces of the other, enhanced the stability of the

system. Russian president at that time, Mikhail Gorbachev, was promoting liberalization and openness in the politics, which pushed forward the process of peaceful negotiations with the U.S. The socialist ideology could no longer go along with new ideas, and the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. The “iron curtain” fell, as one of the superpowers vanished from the political landscape. These events have influenced works of political scholars, including

Kenneth Waltz, who started using the concept of a multipolar system in his political analysis. He also argued, that the international system possesses an independent structure constraining the behaviour of states, and called a current international system a “system-dominant”. This means that, according to his theory, states’ behaviour is dependant on the structure of the international system. After the Cold War, the U.S. became the world leading economic and political power, and its

behaviour greatly influenced the both existing international system as a whole and separate states. Hans Morgenthau, one of the most popular political scholars of the 20’s century, criticized the U.S. foreign policy, especially its role in the Vietnam war. He also argued that all foreign policies tend to conform to one of three patterns of activity: maintaining the balance of power, imperialism and impressing other states with the extent of one’s power.

I believe that the U.S. actions in Vietnam included all three of these patterns. This was both a war of opposing ideologies, where the U.S. supported the anti-communist bloc, and a war of opposing superpowers to dominate in the political sphere. The U.S. also spent a great amount of its military resources, which covers the third Morgenthau’s pattern. However, there is another view among scholars on a state’s hegemony in an international

system, it is when domination is considered as leadership. According to this thought, a state leads other states in its own path of development. For example, in 1970s and 1980s, when Europe and Japan followed in the "consumerist" path of development opened up by the United States, the U. S. hegemony began to decline. 7 I would like to mention the theory constructivism, which claims

that state interaction reflects a learning process in which action shapes, and is shaped by, identities, interests and values over time. A constructivist thinker Alexander Wendt stressed the state-centrism of this theory and the accent on the state as the main actor in the international system, which exists in anarchy. Thus, we can see why realist and constructivist scholars would support the following statement, and

how their ideas were shaped around political circumstances in the world arena. Realists believe that without a governing power and laws regulating potential conflicts, the nature of international relations has not changed since the times of Ancient Greece. Scholars argue that the main interest of a modern state is still in strengthening its own security and broadening the influence on other states.

Now I would like to discuss an opposing view on the matter, going back to the events of the French Revolution 1789-1799, when the absolute monarchy was thrown down under the mass protest of liberal political groups. This historical event has completely changed the international system of Europe, spreading a new ideology of liberalism. The concept of this theory already existed in ancient times. For example, the first form of democracy was found in

Athens, or concepts of rights were expressed by Aristotle, who lived back in the 4th century B.C. However, liberal ideas started fully developing in the 15th-17th centuries and after the Cold War. The popularity of realism grew pale after the “iron curtain” had fallen, and some new perspectives were formed, like liberal realism or utopian realism. This means that political thinkers demonstrated willingness to reconsider certain realist views.

Moreover, some scholars claim that the nature of international relations is changing into the “mature anarchism”, where Western European states can monitor international security and achievements in world progress become available for all the states, including the weak ones. However, there is still no police force in the international system, which could control states’ behaviour and apply effective punishing measures. Thus, in some sense the international system still remains anarchic.

But this condition of international relations is only a consequence of states’ actions. During the Old and New History international system was mainly constructed by hierarchic states. Even in the post World War II era the world stability was dependant on actions of single superpowers. However, since liberalism has become a leading political ideology in the modern society, diplomacy, peaceful negotiations, protection of human rights and cooperation are the main principles of international

relations today. Liberal thinkers believe that the traditional realist view on the conflict is no longer actual today. A famous scholar Richard Rosecrance divided international system into a “military political world” and a “trading world”, suggesting that in the future states’ main priorities in international relations will be trade and interdependence. I believe that this shift from a “military” thinking is already happening. Plus, in the current interdependence of states, especially the

European states, there is no longer a need or a reason for war. States are dependant on each other economically, through trade and distribution of natural resources, and politically, through numerous alliances and participation in non-governmental organizations. Moreover, if we get back to Waltz and his theory of the three patterns in foreign policy, the third one was about impressing other states with the extent of one’s power.6

In fact, I believe that now the third component could sound like this: impressing other states with promotion of the world peace, humanitarian help and contribution into the human rights protection. As to the other two, they could be replaced by maintaining good relations with other states and political pluralism, since it literally means the acceptance of diversity. The system of international relations is a melting pot of different cultures, which have their own

patterns of development, social and political structures, and views on relations between states. Consequently, pluralism is essential in order to establish an effective understanding of international systems. Its roots go back to the times of Ancient Greece, where a philosopher Empedocles promoted ideas of pluralism, but the real growth of this movement started in the 20th century.20 As we can see, there is a broad diversity of current political actors,

which are tightly connected by different circumstances, and theorists see the future of international system quite differently. Some talk about the “post-liberal” era, which will bring great world disorder. Others, like Karl Marx or Francis Fukuyama, mentioned the “end of history”, where former believed in the communist utopia and the latter considered liberal democracy as the final form of government.21 There are also concerns about the stability of the current multipolar world, due to the belief, that

peace was established after the Cold War only because of the bipolar structure of international system. Terrorism has become a real threat to world peace and stability, which some theorists connect with the openness of politics to individuals and intense propaganda of political ideas in the society. However, I believe that individual approach is an important idea of liberalism, which has been changing the content of politics both within and outside a state.

Since liberalism promotes protection of human rights and liberties, a citizen as an individual has become the main priority to the government. Citizens’ interests constitute the scope of a state politics, where citizens decide on who is going to defend their rights in the government. Recent events have shown that the leading economic and political powers are interested in promotion of disarmament. For example, Barack Obama and Dmitrij

Medvedev have stepped on the way to reducing the amount of nuclear weapons in their countries. In addition, global organizations, like the UN or Human Rights Watch, are moving into developing an effective legal system, which could make human rights “real” for all the states. To conclude, the current international system can be characterized as anarchic, due to the absence of an effective controlling and regulating force.

However, the system is not the same, as it was 500 years ago, constructed by hierarchy and fragmentation of separate states, which were ruled by dynasties of monarchs. The international system today is shaped by a broad variety of interconnected states and a leading political ideology of liberalism, which promotes global peace, security and protection of human rights. The role of a state as the main actor on the international arena is slowly fading under the pressure

of new ideas, like an individual approach, which puts human rights and security as the main priority of every government and certain international organizations. Plus, the popularity of liberal ideas of peaceful negotiations and cooperation has remarkably grown in years, which means that interests of the states can no longer stay unaffected by the interests of other countries and individuals. Despite the negative prognoses regarding the future of international

system, there are scholars who oppose it and historical facts that reflect the scale of the positive change. References BBC News (2010), US and Russian leaders hail nuclear arms treaty. Retrieved February 25 2011 from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8607985.stm Buzan, Barry; Little, Richard (2000). International Systems in World History: Remaking the Study of International

Relations. Oxford: Oxfrod University Press. Chase-Dunn, Christopher. Et. Al 1994. “Hegemony and Social Change.” Mershon International Studies Review 38(2): 361-376 (16 pgs) Retrieved January 25 2011 from: http://www.jstor.org/pss/222747 Dictionary.com (n.d.), Retrieved February 25 2011 from: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/p luralism

Discovery Channel (n.d.), Ancient Greece. Retrieved February 25 2011 from: http://www.yourdiscovery.com/greece/poli tics/government/index.shtml Empedocles (n.d.), Retrieved February 25 2011 from: http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/grphil/empe docles.htm Fukuyama, Francis, (1989) “The End Of History?” cited in The National Interest (1989). Retrieved February 25 2011 from: http://courses.essex.ac.uk/GV/GV905/IR%2 0Media%202010- 11/W4%20Readings/Fukuyama%20End%20of%20H

istory.pdf Goldgeier, James M McFaul, Michael 1992: “A Tale of Two Worlds: Core and Periphery in the Post-Cold War Era”, International Organization, 46:2: 467-491 Retrieved February 25 2011 from: http://www.jstor.org/pss/2706860 Griffins, Martin et. al. (2009), Fifty key thinkers in

International Relations, 2nd edition. New York: Routledge. Ikenberry, John G Kupchan,Charles A. (n.d.), Liberal Realism, the foundations of a democratic foreign policy. Retrieved February 25 2011 from: http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/zselden/Co urse%20Readings/IkenberryKupchan.pdf Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph, cited in: Marshall, Peter (2009).

Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism. Oakland: PM Press. Spruyt, Hendrik 2002. “The Origins, Development, and Possible Decline of the Modern State” Annual Review of Political Science 2002(5): 127-49 (22 pgs) Retrieved February 25 2011 from: http://web.ebscohost.com.support.mah.se/ ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?

hid=107&si d=ac 81272b-1129-400a-9c53-0150ae65b9c7%40ses sionmgr111&vid=5 Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1993. “The World-System after the Cold War” Journal of Peace Research 30(1): 1-6 (6 pgs) Retrieved February 25 2011 from:. http://www.jstor.org/stable/424718.