lecture7 IR

Lecture No: 7
International System : The Concept ,

and the Birth of the Multipolar System
The concept of “system” is one of the basic concepts in the study of

international political relations.
The relations among nations are usually perceived through the concept of
“system”, this approach to the study of international politics is known as the systemic
approach, and have paved the way to the “systemic theories” aiming at the analysis
of international relations, and relying on the concept of “system”.
The definition of “system”:
There are several definitions to the term “system”, among these we can cite
the following:
- A system is a set of interacting elements.
- A system is a structure that is perceived by its observers (thus it is an analytical
concept or a mere construction of the mind) to have elements in interaction or
interrelationships and some identifiable boundaries that separate it from its
environment”.
Accordingly, International system is “a collection of independent political

entities that interact with considerable frequency and according to regularized
processes”.
In other words, an international system is “a set of States interacting with each

other in a way leading to a state of equilibrium and stability”.
The concept of international system evokes the clarification of some related
concepts such as:
1
(1) Actors:
The actors in a system are the interacting units or elements or members of the
system. States (National States) are considered the main actors in international
systems. A “State” is a territorially based political organization that claims
sovereignty.
Sovereignty means independence and at least theoretical equality among
states. Since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, the most important characteristic of
the international system has been that it is detonated by a large number of sovereign
states that do not obey any higher authority. The absence of a central authority is a
major characteristic of the international environment. This means that States are
responsible, individually, for their own protection, a prime cause of the fact that all
States are armed. The quasi-anarchical nature of the international community has
also tended to legitimize war , not just for self-protection but also to accomplish
national interests)1(.
(2) Number of Poles:
Once we have identified the actors in a system a next step toward describing
that system is to denote the number of major poles of powers or the principal actors
within the system.
The number of poles is an important characteristic of a system because

systems with different numbers of poles operate differently. One study found that a
(1) It is important to mention that some scholars of international relations consider

international organizations and other supranational organizations as actors in
international system. However, it must always be remembered, that these organizations
can act only by virtue of the behavior of individual States connected with them . An
Organization, as such, cannot “act” independently any more than they can think, feel,
have purposes, and so on.
2
system with two poles (bipolar) has a medium chance of war, while systems with
four or more poles (multipolar) have the highest propensity toward war.
(3) Configuration of power:
This means the distribution of power among the different poles and actors or
members of the system. Power assets are the components of national power that help
determine any country’s capabilities. They include strategic location, military
strength, population, natural resources, technological and economic development.
The distribution of power assets among different members of the system

is important in two ways:
(1) It defines which actors constitute a pole and which do not.
(2) The fact that power assets are not distributed evenly across the system creates
pressures within the system.
According to the configuration power within an international system we can

speak about the “hierarchy of States” within this system.
(4) Norms of Behavior:
These englobe the rules of the game, or the different devices and technique
through which the different poles and actors seek to attain equilibrium, as well as
the values and norms which guide the behavior of different actors. These norms are
not based on moral or mere ethical base only, but they constitute a pragmatic
necessity or need because humans tend to construct social systems based on
regularized patterns of behavior in order to avoid the anxiety of random behavior of
others.
The norms of behavior within international systems change, as do human

behavior problems over time. These changes affect the way a system works.
3
Sovereignty , and legitimacy of war were previously considered as norms of
behavior within international multipolar systems. Nowadays, sovereignty is being
eroded, and sometimes it leads observers to mistake a legal fiction for political
reality. Wars, as well, still occur as they have occurred within multipolar and bipolar
systems, but they are being perceived as less legitimate, and are more widely
condemned in principle.
Birth of the International Multipolar System :
The treaty of Westphalia in 1648 is often taken as the birth date for the
national state system. The principal actors in the system were nations.
The nation-states that composed this system were, to a considerable extent,

impermeable units.
The capacity of one nation to reach inside the borders of another nation to
influence its people was slight. Relations between actors were, therefore, those of a
formal, government-to-government nature.
From a geographic point of view, the powerful nations (the poles of the
multipolar system) were located in Western Europe, and the system was therefore
known as a European one, and was dominated by European events.
Power assets were distributed evenly among the major actors in the system.
No actor was able to maintain clear predominance for long.
Although dynastic and other differences were dividing nations, deep

ideological schisms were rare. The system was known, therefore, as an
“homogenous system” (the members of the system were adopting nearly the same
values and principles). The relative absence of serious ideological differences made
it possible for the different actors to align and to realign themselves as the situation
demanded, according to the necessities or the considerations of the balance of power.
4
To sum up , we can conclude that the principal characteristics of the
Multipolar system were :
1 ) Multipolarity .
2 ) Europeanity .
3 ) Ideological Homogeneity .
4 ) Approximate Equal distribution of power among principal actors .
5 ) Relative instability of system equilibrium .
6 ) Clear cut distinction between war and peace .
7 ) Formality of international interactions (State-centric Relations .
8 ) System equilibrium based on traditional Balance-of-Power policies .
A set of ideas or principles were the basic determinants of the behavior of the
different actors. These principal ideas were:
(1) National sovereignty:
The doctrine of national sovereignty taught that each nation, by virtue of being a
national state, was a law unto itself and owed obedience to no lawful superior or
higher authority.
This principle, when generalized to all nations, served to justify the

appropriateness for national actors or units (States) to pursue national interests free
from binding moral or legal constraints.
(2) Nonintervention:
The doctrine of nonintervention is a corollary of the doctrine of national

sovereignty. If each nation is properly sovereign and a law unto itself, then, all
efforts by one nation to interfere in the affairs of another nation are clearly improper.
5
(3) National Loyalty:
If the nation-state was the building block of the international system, it was
natural that the system ideology would emphasize the importance of loyalty to the
nation.
Accordingly, the primary political loyalty of the individuals (the citizens of

any state) was to be given to the nation-state in which he resided, not to any other
body such as the Pope or the Emperor. In the event of a conflict between loyalties,
it was assumed that loyalty to the nation would take precedence over all other
religious or political loyalties.
The absence of sharp ideological cleavages, as well as the very frequent and
relatively easy alignments and realignments between national actors, limited the
objectives of one nation with regard to another. During armed conflict there was
little motivation for the extermination of the enemy or for its final and total
destruction because it was perceived was a potential or possible future ally if
conditions change.
The basic law of behavior of states in the multipolar (or balance-of-power)

system dictates that “countries should join alliances against the strongest member or
against a potentially hegemonic alliance in order to prevent hegemony or
domination. Once the threatening country (or alliance) has been defeated, do not
weaken it so much that it cannot join you later as an alloy to prevent another country
from going hegemony”. The anti-domination policies, or balancing techniques and
mechanisms, have successfully prevented any single power or coalition from
controlling Europe and perhaps the whole world for three centuries and especially
during the period 1800-1945. This elasticity of alignments was expressed by the
famous saying “The friend of today is enemy of yesterday, and the enemy of today
will be the friend of tomorrow” “Power was thought to involve primarily physical
6
force of coercion. Other forms of influence were few in number and relatively
insignificant whether nations were engaged in collaboration or conflict.
Conflicts of interest in this system (multipolar) were settled by means of

negotiation among interested parties (through traditional diplomacy), there were no
special institutions concerned with the solving of international organizations or
courts). If disputes could not be settled amicably (peacefully), war was both a normal
and a legitimate means of settlement. War and peace were regarded, therefore, as
clearly identifiable conditions (or forms) in the relations among nations. War was
war and peace was peace and the differences between the two were clear-cut. The
categories of war and peace were thought to exhaust the possible relations or
interactions among actors or states. It states were not at war, then they had to be at
peace, and vice versa.
The multipolar (or the balance-of-power) system which prevailed during the
period 1648-1945, was a relatively fluid and competitive system. The equilibrium of
the system was not stable.
Among the main balance-of-power policies (or techniques) applied in order

to attain a state of equilibrium we can cite: Alliances and Counter-alliances, Alliance
Prevention , Divide and Rule, Armament, Disarmament and Arms Control, Buffer
Zones, Territorial Compensations, Intervention , Congresses, Holder of the balance,
and finally war being the last resort or the ultimate arbiter of all differences.

lecture7 IR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

lecture7 IR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

lecture7 IR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lecture No: 7

International System : The Concept ,

The concept of “system” is one of the basic concepts in the study of

The definition of “system”:

Accordingly, International system is “a collection of independent political

In other words, an international system is “a set of States interacting with each

(2) Number of Poles:

The number of poles is an important characteristic of a system because

(1) It is important to mention that some scholars of international relations consider

(3) Configuration of power:

The distribution of power assets among different members of the system

(1) It defines which actors constitute a pole and which do not.

According to the configuration power within an international system we can

(4) Norms of Behavior:

The norms of behavior within international systems change, as do human

Birth of the International Multipolar System :

The nation-states that composed this system were, to a considerable extent,

Although dynastic and other differences were dividing nations, deep

4 ) Approximate Equal distribution of power among principal actors .

5 ) Relative instability of system equilibrium .

6 ) Clear cut distinction between war and peace .

7 ) Formality of international interactions (State-centric Relations .

8 ) System equilibrium based on traditional Balance-of-Power policies .

(1) National sovereignty:

This principle, when generalized to all nations, served to justify the

The doctrine of nonintervention is a corollary of the doctrine of national

Accordingly, the primary political loyalty of the individuals (the citizens of

The basic law of behavior of states in the multipolar (or balance-of-power)

Conflicts of interest in this system (multipolar) were settled by means of

Among the main balance-of-power policies (or techniques) applied in order

You might also like