Chapter 4

The International System

 The Notion of a System
• A system is an assemblage of units, objects, or parts
united by some form of regular interaction.
• In the 1950s, the behavioral revolution in the social
sciences and growing acceptance of political realism in
international relations led scholars to conceptualize
international politics as a system, using the language of
systems theory.
体系的两大特征：
• 互动性：体系与单元以及各单元之间相互依存和相互制约的关系。没有
互动无法形成体系。
• 整体性：体系是一个不可分割的整体，体系在整体上的功能应大于所有
单元单纯相加的总和。

• “ 任何系统的基本特征，是它的各构成部分之间有着相当程度的相互依赖性 ...... 如果
其中一个发生变化，或是作用于其中的另一个，都会使另一个产生可以预见的变
化。”

• —— 卡尔•多伊
奇

• “ 任何体系的重要之处总是在于整体体系总是大于个体之和。”

• —— 约瑟夫•奈
体系的文化：

• 文化是指人们普遍持有的态度、观念、信念和意识形
态等。
• 价值观是文化的核心。
• 文化的主要功能是提供认同、价值规范和行为模式。
• 体系文化是指体系中国家对于自身、与他国关系以及
自身所处环境或世界所持有的共同知识。
• “ 人生而有文化，文化生而有约束。”
System Culture ：

• Hobbesian Culture ： enmity——all against all

• Lockean Culture ： rivalry——live and let live
• Kantian Culture ： friendship——all for one, and one
for all
 The Notion of a System
• For realists and radicals, the concept of an international
system is vital to their analyses.
• For liberals, the international system is less
consequential.
• For constructivists, the concept of an international
system is tied to notions of identity as derived from
norms, ideas, and discourse.
The International System According to
Realists
• All realists characterize the international system as anarchic. No authority
exists above the state, which is sovereign. Each state must therefore look out
for its own interests above all.

• The state among states, it is often said, conducts its affairs in the brooding
shadow of violence. Because some states may at any time use force, all states
must be prepared to do so-or live at the mercy of their militarily more vigorous
neighbors. Among states, the state of nature is a state of war. This is meant not
in the sense that war constantly occurs but in the sense that, with each state
deciding for itself whether or not to use force, war may at any time break out.
Whether in the family, the community, or the world at large, contact without at
least occasional conflict is inconceivable; and the hope that in the absence of
an agent to manage or to manipulate conflicting parties the use of force will
always be avoided cannot be realistically entertained. Among men as among
states, anarchy, or the absence of government, is associated with the
occurrence of violence.
• ----Kenneth N. Waltz“Theory of International Politics”
 国内体系和国际体系的区别

国内体系：有政府状态 国际体系：无政府状态
等级制，垂直关系 主权原则，平行关系
权力集中于政府 权力分散
存在巨大强制力 无强制力
人们受到政府和法律保 国家获得独立，但失去保
护，获得安全，但自由受 护，只能自助
限
人们追求公正和平等 国家追求安全和生存
－ Polarity: system polarity refers to the number of blocs of states that exert
power in the international system. There are three types of polarity:
– Multipolarity: if there are a number of influential actors in the
international system, a balance-of-power or multipolar system is
formed.
• In a balance-of-power system, the essential norms of the system are
clear to each of the state actors. In classical balance of power, the
actors are exclusively states and there should be at least five of
them.
• If an actor does not follow these norms, the balance-of-power
system may become unstable. When alliances are formed, they are
formed for a specific purpose, have a short duration, and shift
according to advantage rather than ideology.
– Bipolarity: in the bipolar system of the Cold War, each of the blocs (the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, and the Warsaw Pact)
sought to negotiate rather than fight, to fight minor wars rather than major
ones, and to fight major wars rather than fail to eliminate the rival bloc.
• Alliances tend to be long term, based on relatively permanent, not shifting,
interests.
• In a tight bipolar system, international organizations either do not develop or
are ineffective. In a looser system, international organizations may develop
primarily to mediate between the two blocs.
– Hegemony: one state that commands influence in the international system.
• Immediately after the Gulf War in 1991, many states grew concerned that
the international system had become unipolar, with no effective
counterweight to the power of the United States.
• System Management and Stability: Realists do not agree
among themselves on how polarity matters.

 Bipolar systems are very difficult to regulate formally, since

neither uncommitted states nor international organizations are
able to direct the behavior of either of the two blocs. Informal
regulation may be easier.
 Kenneth Waltz argues that the bipolar system is the most
stable structure in the long run because there is a clear
difference in the amount of power held by the two poles as
compared to that held by the rest of the state actors.
 John Mearsheimer suggests that the world will miss the
stability and predictability that the Cold War forged. He
argues that more conflict pairs would develop and hence more
possibilities for war.
 Theoretically, in multipolar systems, the regulation of system
stability ought to be easier than in bipolar systems. Under
multipolarity, numerous interactions take place among all the
various parties, and thus there is less opportunity to dwell on a
specific relationship or respond to an arms buildup by just one
party in the system.
 Advocates of unipolarity, known as hegemonic stability
theorists, claim that unipolarity leads to the most stable
system. Paul Kennedy argues that it was the hegemony of
Britain in the nineteenth century and that of the United States
after World War II that led to the greatest stability. When the
hegemon loses power and declines, then system stability is
jeopardized.
 The international system of the twenty-first century is
confronted by a unique problem: the United States dominates
both militarily and economically. What are the implications of
such a world? Will it lead to international peace?
• Realists and International System Change
 Changes in either the number of major actors or the relative
power relationship among the actors may result in a change in
the international system. Wars are usually responsible for
changes in power relationships.
 An example of a system change occurred at the end of World
War II. The war brought the demise of Great Britain and
France, and signaled an end to Germany’s and Japan’s
imperial aspirations. The United States and Soviet Union
emerged into dominant positions; the multipolar world had
been replaced by a bipolar one.
 Robert Gilpin sees another form of change, where states act to
preserve their own interests and thereby change the system.
Such changes occur because states respond at different rates to
political, economic, and technological developments.
 Exogenous changes may also lead to a shift in the system.
Advances in technology not only have expanded the
boundaries of accessible geographic space, but also brought
about changes in the boundaries of the international system.
With these changes came an explosion of new actors.
 Nuclear warfare has had more of an impact of on the
international system more than any other technological
change. Although these weapons have not been used since
1945, the weapons remain much feared, and efforts by
nonnuclear states to develop such weapons, or threat to do so,
has met sharp resistance. The nuclear states do not want a
change in the status quo and do not want them in the hands of
rogue states.
 In the view of realists, international systems can change, yet
the inherent bias among realist interpretations is for
continuity.
The International System According to
Liberals
• The international system is not central to the view of liberals. Thus, there are
three different conceptions of the international system:

 Not as an unchanging structure but as an interdependent system, in

which multiple and fluid interactions occur among different parties and
where various actors learn from the interaction.
• Actors include, not only states, but also international governmental
organizations, nongovernmental organizations, multinational
corporations, and substate actors.
• Each actor has interactions with all of the other ones. Thus, a great
many national interests define the system, including economic and
social issues and not just security.
• Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye describe the international system as
interdependent. There are multiple channels connecting states, and
multiple issues and agendas arise in the interdependent system.
 A specific international order: a liberal international order governs
arrangements among states by means of shared rules and principles.

• Institutions play a key role

• the dominant power limits its own autonomy and agrees to make
credible commitments
 An anarchic one in which each individual state acts in its self-interest:
This is also called neoliberal institutionalism, a view that comes closer to
realist thinking.

• But, unlike many realists, they see the product of the interaction
among actors as a potentially positive one, where institutions
created out of self-interest serve to moderate state behavior
• states choose to cooperate because they realize that they will
have future interactions with the same actors
• cooperation may emerge through institutions
• Liberals and International System Change

 Changes come from several sources:

• Changes occur as the result of exogenous technological
developments—that is, progress occurring independently.
Examples are communication and transportation systems.
• Change may occur because of changes in the relative
importance of different issues areas. In the last decades of the
twentieth century, economic issues replaced national security
issues. Globalizing issues such as human rights may assume
primacy in the twenty-first century.
• Change may occur as new actors, including multinational
corporations and nongovernmental organizations, augment or
replace state actors.
The International System According to
Radicals
• Radicals seek to describe and explain the structure of the system
in terms of stratification: the uneven —— and relatively fixed
division of valued resources among different groups of states.
The system is stratified according to which states have vital
resources.
• From the stratification of power and resources comes the division
between the haves, characterized by the North, and have-nots,
positioned in the South. Economic disparities are built into the
structure and all actions are constrained by this structure.
• The Implications for Stratification
 When the dominant powers are challenged by those states just beneath
them in terms of access to resources, the system may become highly
unstable. The rising powers seek first-tier status and are willing to fight
wars to get it. Top powers may begin a war to quell the threat.

 For Marxists, crippling stratification in the system is caused by capitalists.

Capitalism dominates international institutions whose rules are structured
by capitalist states to facilitate capitalist processes, and MNCs whose
headquarters are in capitalist states but whose loci of activity are in
dependent states.

 Radicals believe that the greatest amount of resentment will be felt in

systems where stratification is most extreme. The call for the New
International Economic Order (NIEO) in the 1970s was voiced by radicals
and liberal reformers in most developing countries. They sought changes
such as debt forgiveness, how commodities were priced, and controls on
multinational corporations (MNCs).
 Constructivism and International
System
• Constructivists argue that the whole concept of an international
system is a European idea. Nothing can be explained by material
structures alone
– Martha Finnemore suggests that there have been different
international orders with changing purposes.
– “What made 1815 a concert and 1950 a cold war was not the
material distribution of capabilities but the shared meanings
and interpretations participants imposed on those
capabilities.”
 Constructivism and International
System
• Constructivists see not a material structure in the international system
but rather a socially constructed process.
– the system is anarchic, the whole notion of anarchy is socially
constructed: anarchy is what states make of it
– reject the notion that the international system exists objectively or
gives rise to objective rules or principles
• Constructivists believe that what does change are social norms.
– Social norms change through both actions of the collective and
through individuals
– Norms may change through coercion, but most likely they will
change through international institutions, law, and social
movements
Advantages and Disadvantages of the
International System as a Level of
Analysis
• Advantages:
 Allows comparison and contrasts between systems
 Comprehensiveness: it enables scholars to organize the
seemingly disjointed parts into a whole.
 Systems theory is a holistic approach. Although it cannot
provide descriptions of events at the micro level, it does allow
plausible explanations at the more general level. For realists,
generalizations provide fodder for prediction. For liberals and
radicals, these generalizations have normative implications.
• Disadvantages
 The emphasis at the international system level means that the “stuff of
politics” is often neglected, while the generalizations are broad and obvious.

 The testing of systems theories is very difficult. Most theorists are

constrained by a lack of historical information and thus the ability to test
specific hypotheses over a long time period is restricted.

 The problem of boundaries: does the notion of the international system mean
the political system? What factors lie outside the system? What shapes the
system?

 The idea of a single international system is largely a creation of European

thought. It may be better to think of multiple international systems over time
• Imperial China

• The umma as a community of Muslims

From International System to the State
• system: a group of units or parts united by some form of
regular interaction, in which a change in one unit causes
changes in the others; these interactions occur in regularized
ways
• multipolar: an international system in which there are several
states or great powers of roughly equal strength or weight
• bipolar: an international system in which there are two great
powers or blocs of roughly equal strength or weight
• unipolar: an international system in which a single actor
exercises the most influence
• multilateralism: the conduct of international activity by three
or more states in accord with shared general principles, often,
but not always, through international institutions
• stratification: the uneven distribution of resources among dif­ferent
groups of individuals and states
• North: the developed countries, mostly in the Northern Hemisphere,
including the countries of North America, the European countries, and
Japan
• South: the developing countries of Africa, Latin America, and Southern
Asia
• New International Economic Order (NIEO): a list of demands by the
Group of 77 to reform economic relations between the North and the South,
that is, between the developed countries and the developing countries
• international society: the states and substate actors in the international
system and the institutions and norms that regulate their interaction;
implies that these actors communicate, sharing common interests and a
common identity; identified with British school of political theory