International Relations

• System


  is an assemblage of units, objects, or parts united by some form of regular interaction. The concept of systems is essential to the physical and biological sciences; systems are composed of different interacting units, whether at the micro (cell, plant, animal) or the macro (natural ecosystem or global climate) level. Because these units interact, a change in one unit causes changes in the others. With their interacting parts, systems tend to respond in regularized ways; their actions have patterns
• International system

  • Anarchic
  • States are all sovereign (meaning no other state may legitimately intervene in any other state's internal affairs)
  • States are equal
• Realist view on states

  States should constantly seek power because, in an anarchic system, the only true guarantee of security must come from self-help
• To characterize the possibilities of war and peace in the international system, realists rely on the concept of polarity.
• system polarity


  describes the distribution of capabilities among states in the international system by counting the number of “poles” (states or groups of states) where material power is concentrated.
• Multipolar System


  is any system in which the distribution of the power to conquer is concentrated in more than two states.
• In a stable multipolar-system — a balance- of- power system— the essential norms of interaction are clear to each of the state actors: norms of competition, cooperation, and shifting alliances. In systems in which these norms are shared and observed, alliances are formed for a specific purpose, have a short duration, and shift according to advantage rather than ideology.
• Bipolar system


  are those in which the distribution of the power to conquer is concentrated in two states or coalitions of states. I
• In a bipolar system, alliances tend to be longer term, based on relatively permanent interests, not shifting ones.
• In a tight bipolar system, international organizations either do not develop or are relatively ineffective, as the United Nations was during the height of the Cold War.
• In a looser bipolar system, international organizations may develop primarily to mediate between the two blocs, and individual states within the looser coalitions may try to use the international organizations for their own advantage.
• Unipolar system


  is one in which the power to conquer all other states in the system combined resides within a single state.
• The neorealist theorist Kenneth Waltz


  He argues that because of this visibility, the bipolar international system is the most stable structure in the long run: the two sides are “able both to moderate the other’s use of violence and to absorb possibly destabilizing changes that emanate from uses of violence that they do not or cannot control.
• Multipolar systems can also be “balance of power” systems. According to some realists, multipolar systems can be very stable so long as the system’s key actors internalize norms of competition and cooperation.
• For neorealists, however, balance of power is more difficult in multipolar systems because they involve more inherent uncertainty about where and when a threat might emerge (including the threat of a given state’s ignoring important balance- of- power norms). For this rea son, neorealists argue that bipolar systems are likely to be more peaceful.
• Hegemon


  a term coming from the Greek word for “to lead”
• In The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, historian Paul Kennedy


  He argues that the hegemony of Britain in the nineteenth century and the United States in the immediate post– World War II era led to the greatest stability.
• Robert O. Keohane


  He contends that hegemonic states are willing to pay the price of enforcing norms, unilaterally, if necessary, to ensure the continuation of the system that benefits them. When the hegemon loses material capability or is no longer willing to exercise its advantage in relative power, then system stability is jeopardized.
• Liberalism on the International System - Conception 1


  It sees the international system not as an unchanging structure, but rather as an interdependent system in which multiple and fluid interactions occur among different parties and where various actors learn from their interactions. Actors in this process include not only states but also international governmental organizations, NGO
• In their book Power and Interdependence, the political scientists Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye


  They describe the international system as an interdependent system in which the different actors are both sensitive to (affected by) and vulnerable to (suffering costly effects from) the actions of others. Interdependent systems have multiple channels connecting states; these channels exist among governmental elites, nongovernmental elites, and transnational organizations.
• Multilateralism


  it is the conduct of international activity by three or more states in accord with shared general principles, often, but not always, through international institutions.
• A second liberal conception sees the international system in terms of a specific international order. This view holds that a liberal international order governs arrangements among states by means of shared rules and principles, similar to the principles that realists see under varying conditions of polarity. But unlike the realists’ principles, this order is an acknowledged order; it is not just patterned behavior or some interconnections. In this order, institutions play a key role.
• neoliberal institutionalists


  it sees the international system as anarchic and acknowledge that each individual state acts in its own self- interest. But neoliberal institutionalists draw different conclusions about state behavior in the international system. It may be a cooperative system, wherein states choose to cooperate because they realize that they will have future interactions with the same actors.
• Martha Finnemore in The Purpose of Intervention


  She suggests that there have been different international orders with changing purposes, different views of threat, and different ways to maintain order. An evolving new order whose purpose is the promotion of liberal democracy, capitalism, and human rights. Constructivists agree with other theorists that power matters in the international system, but they propose that the meaning of “power” can change over time.
• Finnemore writes:


  “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.”
• Alexander Wendt, in Social Theory of International Politics,


  he contends that the whole notion of anarchy is socially constructed: anarchy is what states make of it.
• Robert Gilpin, in War and Change in World Politics,


  states grow at uneven rates because states respond differently to political, economic, and technological developments. Those uneven rates eventually lead to a redistribution of power and thus change the international system.
• State


  an entity must have a defined territory, a stable population, and an effective government and must be recognized by other states as having the capacity to enter into relations with them.
• Sovereignty


  The authority to govern matters that are within its own borders and that affect its people, economy, security, and form of government.
• Power


  refers to the ability not only to influence others but also to control outcomes, producing results that would not have occurred naturally.
• Natural sources of power potential:

  • graphic size and position
  • natural resources
  • population
• Alfred Mahan (1840–1914)


  He notes the importance of controlling the sea. He argued that the state controlling the ocean routes controls the world. To Mahan, sovereignty over land was not as critical as having access to, and control over, sea routes.
• In 1904, the British geographer Halford Mackinder


  the state that controlled the Eurasian geographic “heartland” had the most power: “He who rules Eastern Europe commands the Heartland of Eurasia; who rules the Heartland commands the World Island of Europe, Asia, and Africa, and who rules the World Island commands the world.
• German geographer Karl Haushofer (1869–1946)


  He disappointed by Germany’s loss in World War I. Arguing that Germany could become a powerful state if it could capture the Eurasian heartland, he set out to make geopolitics a legitimate area for academic inquiry. He founded an institute and a journal, thrusting himself into a position as the leading supporter and proponent of Nazi expansion.
• soft power


  the ability to attract others because of the legitimacy of the state’s values or its policies. Rather than exerting its power potential to coerce states, a state can influence others through the power.
• smart power


  Success often involves using a combination of the hard power of coercion with the soft power of persuasion and attraction.
• Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev


  After coming to power in 1985, he began to frame the challenges confronting the Soviet Union differently, identifying the Soviet security problem as part of the larger problem of weakness in the Soviet economy. He realized that the economic system had to be reformed to improve the country’s security.
• Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping established himself as the architect of the new China after 1978.
• Political psychologist Margaret Hermann


  One type— leaders with high levels of nationalism, a strong belief in their own ability to control events, a strong need for power, low levels of conceptual complexity, and high levels of distrust of others— tends to develop an “independent” orientation to foreign affairs.

  The other type— leaders with low levels of nationalism, little belief in their ability to control events, a high need for affiliation, high levels of conceptual complexity, and low levels of distrust of others— tends to develop a “participatory” orientation to foreign affairs.
• Ole Holsti


  He systematically analyzed 434 of the publicly available statements of Secretary of State John Foster Dulles concerning the Soviet Union during the years 1953–54. His research showed convincingly that Dulles held an unwavering image of the Soviet Union, focusing on atheism, totalitarianism, and communism.