Chapter 1 : Project MUSE - The Emerging Structure of International Politics bipolar world, with stability measured by the peacefulness of ad justment within the international system and by the durability of the system itself. Unipolarity[ edit ] Unipolarity in international politics is a distribution of power in which one state exercises most of the cultural, economic, and military influence. Monteiro, assistant professor of political science at Yale University, argues that three features are endemic to unipolar systems: Anarchy results from the incomplete power preponderance of the unipole. The power projection limitations of the unipole is a distinguishing characteristic between unipolar and hegemonic systems. Unipolar systems possess only one great power and face no competition. If a competitor emerges, the international system is no longer unipolar. This idea is based on hegemonic stability theory and the rejection of the balance of power theory. The clearer and larger the concentration of power in the leading state, the more peaceful the international order associated with it will be. Monteiro argues that international relations theorists have long debated the durability of unipolarity i. Rather than comparing the relative peacefulness of unipolarity, multipolarity, and bipolarity, he identifies causal pathways to war that are endemic to a unipolar system. He does not question the impossibility of great power war in a unipolar world, which is a central tenet of William C. Wohlforth in his book World Out of Balance: International Relations and the Challenge of American Primacy. Put another way, the first two decades of unipolarity, which make up less than 10 percent of U. Paradoxically, the Father of the German nationalism and convinced adherent of the balance of power, he appears to be the path-breaker. Back in, Fichte wrote Characteristics of the Present Age. It was the year of the battle at Jena when Napoleon overwhelmed Prussia. The challenge of Napoleon revealed to him the precarious nature of the balance of power and a much deeper and dominant historical trend: There is necessary tendency in every cultivated State to extend itself generally Such is the case in Ancient History â As the States become stronger in themselves and cast off that [Papal] foreign power, the tendency towards a Universal Monarchy over the whole Christian World necessarily comes to lightâ This tendency Whether clearly or notâ it may be obscurelyâ yet has this tendency lain at the root of the undertakings of many States in Modern Times Although no individual Epoch may have contemplated this purpose, yet is this the spirit which runs through all these individual Epochs, and invisibly urges them onward. In, Gladstone wrote: While we have been advancing with portentous rapidity, America is passing us by as if a canter. Finally, the present Powers of the world were formed. This process [of coalescing and forming fewer, larger units] has all taken place among the 10, countries over several thousand years. The progression from dispersion to union among men, and the principle [whereby] the world is [gradually] proceeding from being partitioned off to being opened up, is a spontaneous [working] of the Way of Heaven or Nature and human affairs. This will hasten the world along the road to One World. He knew how in his civilization it emerged and several times reemerged. Naturally, his theory is very realist, deep, and developed relatively to his Western contemporaries convinced in the universality of the balance of power or, at most, having abstract ideas of the "Parliament of men, the Federation of the world. Son Role Social published in Similarly to de Tocqueville, he guessed the Cold War contenders correctly but he went one step further. He estimated the chances of the United States as favorite in the final confrontation: The latterâ is the true adversary of Russia in the great struggle to comeâ I also believe that the United States is appealed to triumph. Otherwise, the universe would be Russian. Wells and William Thomas Stead were borne out. The United States is the only country in the early 21st century that possesses the ability to project military power on a global scale, providing its full command of the global commons. With no viable challenger on the horizon in the short term, the current distribution of power overwhelmingly favors the United States, making the world order it set out to construct in more robust. Two, he stated Within twelve years, unipolarity emerged. War is rooted in the anarchic structure, or a self-help environment, of the international system, Waltz argues. Simply changing the domestic political structure of countries will not eliminate war, Waltz notes. The second challenge to realist theory argues that economic interdependence promotes peace. Waltz believes this causal logic is backward: Peace can promote economic interdependence. Peace abounds when a political Page 1
monopoly on force, or a favorable balance of power, prevents revisionist powers from altering the status quo. After all, Waltz argues, strong economic interdependence did not prevent war in The third challenge that Waltz confronts is the rise of international institutions as primary actors in international politics. Waltz argues that the structure of power in the international system determines the role of institutions. NATO, for example, is often cited as an institution that has outlived its original mandateâ preventing a Soviet onslaught of Western Europe. With no great power to check its adventurism, the United States will weaken itself by misusing its power internationally. In conclusion, the U. An Unbalanced Future Our discipline has tarried too long in the wreckage of history, spent too long trying to recover something familiar from the ruins We must complete the realist theory, integrating an understanding of unipolarity into our knowledge of multipolarity and bipolarity. Realists expect states to balance against rising powers, which would prevent a unipolar distribution of power from developing. To states with a proud past as an international actor, unipolarity seems intolerableâ To those who wish to teach history and international relations, unipolarity seems Fukuyamish. In particular, some have advanced the concept of soft balancing â balancing that does not balance at all. In his view, realist predictions of power balancing did not bear fruit because the United States engaged in strategic restraint after World War II, thereby convincing weaker states that it was more interested in cooperation rather than domination. The liberal basis of U. The Military Foundation of U. A key to U. Posen believes that the Bush Doctrine was problematic because it not only created unease among U. Bipolarity[ edit ] This section possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. September Learn how and when to remove this template message Bipolarity is a distribution of power in which two states have the majority of economic, military, and cultural influence internationally or regionally. After this, the two powers will normally maneuver for the support of the unclaimed areas. Which in the case of the Cold War means Africa, etc. The " First World ": NATO members dark blue and their " Western " allies light blue. Page 2
Chapter 2 : International Relations Political Science SIU THE STABILITY OF A BIPOLAR WORLD. and the prevention of war (see Waltz ). Along with investigating the political interaction of states in the international system, IR scholars have also. One may argue that the mighty states control the somewhat less mighty states, an argument which may be easily countered by arguing that international relations allow for countries to form alliances in order to counter a greater power. With that snippet of the argument one then wonders if there really exists a powerful state capable of controlling the world or not. Even though the Cold War is behind the world, traces of it are still present in the world and it is hard to predict if there will ever be a time when the world will not be divided between the two power centres. Taking into consideration peripheral areas like Sub-Saharan African countries, America is still forming alliances with many countries through financial and military aids and Russia has also joined the race. The somewhat neutral China has also joined into the race through economic assistance which renders it a force to be reckoned with in the international system. The introduction of China into the global arena as a superpower brings us to the question of which system of polarity is much stable for the world to adopt. This question arises as China has assumed a neutral position where it trades with both the United States of America and Russia but at the same time has almost the same military capabilities as the two superpowers and it remains a republic that has the capability of snatching allies from both the USA and Russia. This on its own makes it a power centre. The paper will be set out in sections. The first one will discuss structural realism. The second will discuss the bipolar system, its virtues and its pitfalls. Then a conclusion will sum up the paper. Neo-realism bases its argument of how the international system operates on how power is distributed among states in the world. It argues the most powerful states normally control the less powerful states. This leads to a security dilemma. States in an international system do not trust other states hence they are forced to be always on guard of what other states may do that can harm them. This leads to a self-help system where a state does all it can to help itself to survive in the international system. A bi-polar system therefore refers to an international system where two independent power centres exist. Such was seen during the Cold-war where the United States of America and the Soviet Union were the two blocs at loggerheads ideologically. Bi-polarity virtues Waltz argued that the bi-polar system was more stable. On the other hand those advocating for a multi-polar system risk a situation where the ease 3 and freedom of changing alliances constantly gives rise to a conflict in the international arena. In the system it is clear who is powerful hence who is responsible. In a multi-polarity system since alliances can and are expected to be changed freely and quicker, the certainty of knowing enemies and friends change drastically. All states embark on a self-help system of trying to avoid being blindsided and attacked by other states. This on its own harbors an atmosphere of fear of war erupting at any time. This makes a multi-polar system somewhat unstable and a bi-polar system more stable in those regards. In a multi-polar system the somewhat compulsory unity that existed during the bi-polar system does not exist anymore as when a number of countries unite they pose a threat to other countries militarily and economically. This was not the case during the bi-polar era as the unity was compulsory and expected among blocs. Without a common known enemy to states it is difficult for states to unite as it would mean they would have to share a common interest and goal and most importantly an ideology. In a multi-polar system it is difficult to garner support against a state as some states in alliance with it may refuse to support a cause against it. This was not the case in the bi-polar system as it was easily distinguished who belonged to which camp hence uniting against a threat was easy. In a bi-polar system band-wagoning was common and what the bloc leader states were mostly concerned about was their power compared to their rivals. This meant alliance changing was not an issue that could result in war over issues of power diminishing as a result of that hence the bi- polar system was stable in that regard. The structure of the international system that was in existence which was distinguished by two power centres between the two rival blocs meant they both had an understanding of the fact that should 4 one take an opportunity at an interaction of sparking a war they had an equal chance of losing the war hence the structure of power provided for peace in the system. Should such advances look to endanger it, the other competitor would move to protect Page 3
itself or advance more than its competitor. This means there will be in existence a form of quiet deterrence amongst the two superpowers. Each knowing that should it attack the other it risks losing. The post war system referred to here is the period of the Cold war after the Second World War. The Soviet Union and the U. S had embarked on an arms race and were both developing nuclear weapons. This arms race had a stabilizing effect on the bi-polar system as both could not use them as they had an understanding of what could happen should such weapons be used. As compared to the era of the Cold War, countries adjust alliances easily and the process is peaceful. Considering the missile crisis in Cuba where the Soviet Union was strategically positioning itself through its ally Cuba it is evident alliances held more value to the rival blocs and as it unfolded in the crisis it is evident adjustments were not as peaceful as they are currently. The range of factors included in the competition is extended as the intensity of the competition increases Waltz, Waltz here brings forth an argument that as the competition increases the superpowers increase factors of competition from maybe just military superiority to cultural superiority and economic superiority. Such means the system was in a way a time bomb. If the two superpowers continued increasing their factors of competition one way or the other they were going to run out of factors and if they do not cause a revolution by states within their 5 blocs they were bound to cause a war with each other if one does not pull out of the race. Such is evidenced by Russia declaring the Cold War over. If power is identical with the ability to control, then those who are free are also strong; and the freedom of the weak would have to be taken as an indication of the weakness of those who have great material strength Waltz, The movement of Communist China and France to assume a neutral position and not conform to either power meant there was a weakness to the system and the two countries were exploiting it. This then shows that it may be considered to be stable but its lack of durability renders its stability poor as it shows there is a weakness in the system. The power of the United States and of the Soviet Union has been predominant but not absolute. What it means is that even though other states may develop and gain prominence in the international system, the militarily superior states may still remain superior just like the U. S has been over the years hence the multi-polar system will still maintain its peace. Bi-polarity does not have influential or powerful states that can prevent war acting as balancing actors between the two rival blocs. In a bi-polar system if the two states went to war there was almost nothing that other states in the international system could do to prevent the war. Considering that in the alternative system of multi-polarity, alliances are formed based mostly on economic gains than ideology. With opportunities of alliances that could benefit a state, that particular state will choose to cooperate than to go to war hence multi- polarity proves to be more stable than bi-polarity. Under multi-polarity, however, there are two alternatives: Bi-polarity has a major pitfall in its nature. The alternative to bi-polarity, multi-polarity, advocates for either imposing the ideology on other states or forming alliances which makes it more peaceful compared to bi-polarity. Some may have argued along the lines of the military might and economic developments of the two superpowers in comparison to the states being ideologically controlled. China as a state just like any other state aspired to be a superpower as well. That aspiration on its own meant the system was prone to revolutions within the blocs by countries wishing to break free from being controlled ideologically and militarily by the superpowers. That on its own made the system less durable and most likely to collapse. Conclusion The bi-polar system had its fair share of advantages but its pitfalls were most devastating hence the change of the international system from a bi-polar system to a multi-polar system. This is because the multi-polar system is mostly stable but too much prone to war. With that argument the bi-polar system is less stable in an international system compared to its rival the multi-polar system. Multipolar Power Systems and International Stability. Elements of Stability in the Postwar International System. Structural Realism and the Causes of War. Mershon International Studies Review, New Paths for Inquiry. Journal of Peace Research, Polarity and International Stability. The American Political Science Review, The Stability of a Bipolar World. The Emerging Structure of International politics. Page 4
Chapter 3 : Table of contents for Realism and international politics Indeed, he is famous for his argument about the stability of a bipolar world. In a article, written at the height of the Cold War, Waltz argued that the U.S.-Soviet rivalry was likely to be. Hugo Grotius, he Rights of War and Peace. The Highest Stage of Capitalism. Kenneth Waltz, Man, the State and War Inis Claude, Power and International Relations Thomas Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict Arnold Wolfers, Discord and Collaboration Graham Allison, Essence of Decision Ole Holsti, Crisis, Escalation, and War Hans Morgenthau, Politics among Nations 4th ed. A London Perspective Theory and Practice Klauss Knorr, The Power of Nations: The Political Economy of International Relations Thomas Schelling, Arms and Influence Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics David Singer, The Correlates of War Stephen Krasner, Structural Conflict: Robert Keohane, After Hegemony David Baldwin, Economic Statecraft Kenneth Oye, Cooperation Under Anarchy Stephen Walt, The Origins of Alliances The Contemporary Debate Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations International politics and Foreign Policy, pp. Karl Deutch and J. Josef Lapid, "The Third Debate: Page 5
Chapter 4 : academics: Unipolar, Bi-polar, Multipolar International Systems Disengagement - minor vs minor, major vs. minor, etc. Kenneth N. Waltz, "The Stability of a Bipolar World," In a article, written at the height of the Cold War, Waltz argued that the U.S.-Soviet rivalry was likely to be stable on two grounds: Such a configuration of power would reduce uncertainty because the two great powers had to. This is because of the trends that have been noted in the international arena since then. There are different developing powers, globalization of the economy, transfer of economic power and wealth from the western nations to the developing world, and the developing influence of the non-state players. Derryberry elucidates that by the year, the global economy will have become a global multipolar one. This means that the world will be characterized by continued narrowing of the gaps in national power between the developed and developing world. It is predicted that the nations in the developing world will be involved in the global affairs. Some of the countries from the developing world that have shown evidence in the achievement of this include China and India. Historical review of power systems among nations of the world The power systems of different societies around the world have its origin in ancient civilizations. Various powers have been evident in the world since the ancient days. Some examples of ancient powers include: The Medieval Powers were such powers as: In the modern perspective, recognized great powers started in Europe during the period of post-napoleonic. This was through the development of a division between great powers and small powers which emanated from the passage of the Treaty of Chaumont in the year Thus, a great power can be defined as a state or nation that is able to exert influence and power over it region of the world as well as to other nations, through its political, military and economic strength. A great power refers to a state which is identified as having the capability to influence others on an international scale. Such powers typically have economic and military strength as well as diplomatic and soft power which may render the small powers to adopt the opinions of the great powers in their own decisions. The status of great powers in the world can be typified into spatial aspects, power capabilities, and status dimensions. At times the great power status can be officially recognized in conventions like the Congress of Vienna or a global structure like the United Nations Security Council Mearsheimer, Origin and definition of the terms polarity and polarization In international relations, polarity defines the different ways of power distribution within the global system. The term defines the character of the international system at a particular period of time. The term polarity emanates from the fact that the definition of the international system is by its ordering principle as well as by its distribution of powers. The ordering principle in this case is the anarchy and the powers are measured by the amount of great powers in the international system. The anarchic principle of ordering of the system is decentralised, without any legitimate central authority. This means that the participants in the international structure are equal independent states. The agents are similar on the basis of the needs, rather than the abilities to achieve those needs. The distribution of abilities is determined by the positional placement on the basis of the capabilities. Cooperation among agents is limited by the structural distribution of abilities. This is based on the fears of relative gains that are made by other agents as well as the likelihood of reliance on other states. Internal balancing and external balancing are the two means of balancing power by the states. There are basically three likely types of systems international system on the basis of the changes in distribution of abilities: Unipolar, Bipolar, and Multipolar Mearsheimer, The kind of system is totally related to the distribution of influence and power of states in a region or globally. Such are defined by the amount of great powers that are available in the international structure. Unipolar system This kind of system contains a single great power, meaning that only one state has most of the economic, military and cultural influence. Jervis argues that there are three main features of unipolar system: This kind of system has been supported for the lack of competition among great powers and thus absence of war. A good example of a unipolar system according to Monteiro is the post-cold War international system: Bipolar system As the name suggests this kind of system consists of two great powers. This means that there are only two spheres of influence. It is the distribution of power in which only two players have most of the military, economic and cultural influence regionally, or globally. Over and over again, spheres of influence develop. For instance, during the Cold War, most of the western democracies Page 6
would fall under the influence of the United States, while on the other hand, the communists nations would be under the influence of the Soviet Union. Following this, the great powers would often contrive for the support of those remaining areas that are unclaimed. The bipolar system is considered to be more stable compared to the other two types of system. This is due to the fact that it is less vulnerable to systematic change and great power war. Multipolar system This refers to a system with more than two great powers; a system of distribution of power in which the great powers have almost equal levels of cultural, military and economic influence. There are different opinions as far as the stability of this kind of system is concerned. For example, Classical realists like Hans Morgenthau and E. Carr suggests that compared to bipolar system, this system is more stable. This is because in unipolar systems, great powers can have more influence through coming together in alliances but this is not possible with the other kinds of systems. On the other hand, the issues of security of states emerge as a limitation of the unipolar system. In the anarchic system, the states seek survival and self-interests. The states seek survival in the anarchic system through balancing of power. This is the result of the need to survive. Looking at the perspective that the international systems is anarchy and is founded on self-help, the strongest units create the scene for the others and also for themselves. These are the major powers in the system Waltz, Nevertheless, because of the intricacy of mutually guaranteed destruction situations, with weapons of mass destruction, multipolar systems may tend to be more stable compared to the other systems even in the analysis of neorealists. Relevance of polarity to how issues of international scope are addressed among nations today Polarity is important in the understanding of global governance and in the dealing with global issues in the current globalised world. It is important to note that the world today is a multipolar system as there are many great powers. In this kind of system, there are regular shifts of alliances. Various alliances have been formed in various situations such as during the United States war on terrorism where other western democracies joined in the cause. The alliances keeps on changing until one these two things occur. Either there is striking of a balance of power, or there is no side that is willing to attack the other, or there is an attack by one side on the other due either to fear of possibility of a new alliance, or there is a possibility that it can overcome the other side. In this kind of system also, the global decisions are normally made for strategic purposes to uphold a balance of power instead of historical or ideological purposes. The world today is argued to be unipolar from two perspectives. One of the perspectives is that a superpower has become an outdated idea. The United States and the Soviet Union are argued to have been superpowers during the Cold War, but because of the multifaceted economic and cultural interdependencies on the global scale as well as the development of the global village, the idea of one or a number of states having enough powers to be considered superpowers is outdated. There is another perspective that even during the Cold War, the two states could not be said to be superpowers. This is because they depended on the smaller states in the war. Prospects for future international relations between countries International relations will continue to be driven by the interdependence of the players in the global arena. For example, while the United States has continued to have a great economic and cultural influence, the dependency on foreign investors as well as dependence on international market will maintain the mutual economic dependence between the actors in the global system, both in the developing and the developed nations. This means that there is no single nation that can be argued to be a superpower as there is none that is self-sufficient and does not depend on the international community to sustain the quality of life of its people. This is also the same case when looking at the point of view of diplomacy. It is also important to consider the fact that some developing nations such as China, India and Japan are developing very first to compete with the US, with some claims that China is in the new future going to overtake the US in terms of economic power. Thus, due to the complicated nature of the international affairs as well as the development and military power of some countries in the developing world, it is hard to engage in foreign policy without the support of other nations. There are economic and diplomatic connections that will continue to bind the globe together, however alliances will continue to be formed and the US will continue to hold a great deal of influence in the international system, but not without the support of other nations. Conclusion This essay has discussed the concept of polarity and polarization and the implications these have on the international system. It is evident that the global economy is changing at a very high rate. More and new great powers are emerging in the global arena and challenging the existing players a lot. The Page 7
economic power and global wealth is shifting from the west to the east. This is evident when looking at developing nations such as China and India. These are two countries that are expected to perform at the same level with the past superpowers like the United States in just a few years, if the current trend continues. This casts the world as a mutlipolar system where there no single nation that will have all the power and influence in international affairs and in other nations. Sales and Marketing Management. A Structural Perspective, World Politics, 6 1: Political Studies 54 1: International Security, 36 3: Louisiana State University Press, p. Page 8
Chapter 5 : Polarity in International Relations James Arianda - theinnatdunvilla.com It reads: A world of many powers is more stable than a bipolar world, with stability measured by the peacefulness of ad justment within the international system and by the durability of the system itself. Morgenthau argue that state are self interested, power-seeking rational actors, who seek to maximize their security and chances of survival, and [even] cooperation between states, are for, this purpose. The concept of Polarity depicts this Realist school of thought, and especially one examines the types of polarity that have been in the international system. This conflict is driven by the desire to have power, and indeed this is evidence in the analysis of polarity. It is in the best believe of the writer of this paper, that state struggle for power cannot be avoided- the human nature is that of avitism- is preoccupied with domination and ruling over other humanity, and as such, in the process of attaining this, anarchy is un avoidable. This paper is devoted to the polarity, as a major dominant in the attempts of attaining global order. Communism A political- economy system in which all wealth and property are shared so as to Eliminate exploitation, oppression. Democracy A political system in which power is exercised either directly or indirectly by the People. Equality A shared standard of individuals within a community, society or a country. International System Political contacts that involve many countries. Liberalism Political attitude that favors evolutionary transformations. Nation-state A state encompassing one dominant nation that it claims to embody and represent. Politics The struggle in any group of power that will give one or more groups or states the ability to make decisions Sovereignty The ability of a state to carry out actions or policies within a territory independently from external actors or internal rivals. Power The degree of resources, capabilities, and influence in international affairs. State The organization that maintains a monopoly of force over a given territory. This scores the essential value of interstate relations. The history of international relations, have never been so profound than in the periods of World First War WW I It is safe to mention that during these periods, a number of nations defined the way they relate to each other, either on the grounds of sharing an ideology, territorial boundaries, race, national identity or ethnicity, security, just to mention but a few. It is this historical development that gave birth to the Polarity, as used in determining the relationship among states. Walt defines polarity [in IR] as the distribution of power among the great powers during a given period. The concept of power can be described as the degree of resources, capabilities and influence in international relations. In reality, Kegley writes that in reality, polarity is the degree to which military and economic capabilities are concentrated in a global system. In sum, Polarity in IR is defined as various ways in which power is distributed within the international system. Over a considerable amount of time, the international systems have witnessed a number of historical developments, some of which have threatened the world peace, and doing deep to define how states relate, as other [states] influencing such system. This paper discusses types Polarity and its role in the IR. Types of Polarity Having defined Polarity, the next concerned of this paper digs into the types of Polar, which have existed in history and even does. Historians generally have identified three major types of Polarity viz. Unipolarity, Bipolarity and Multimodality. They are discussed below. Waltz defines a pole as a state that a commands an especially large share of the resources or capabilities states can use to achieve their ends, and b excels in the entire component elements of state capability, conveniently defined as size of the population and territory, resource endowment, economic capability, military might, and organizational institutional competence. As such, any state having claims over Unipolarity power must have such manifestations [as prescribed by Waltz]. Cold War, in its basic definition is state of conflict between nations that involves ideological difference over a number of issues ranging from form political to economic systems. It does not involve direct military action but is pursued primarily through economic and political actions, and propaganda. The two however could not have one point of view over disarmament programs, and especially after the USA used atomic bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, in Japan. IR scholars debate over the probability of having a global peace in the international where a state exerts Unipolarity power. The argument is that the distribution of power is unsustainable and conflict prone. In support of the existence of [USA] as unipole state, Wohlforth writes 7 that the [international] system is unambiguously unipolar [as] the USA enjoys a much larger margin of superiority Page 9
over the next most powerful state, [and even] other great powers combinedâ and has all the proponent of power: Wohlforth also advance a school of thought that the current Unipolarity is prone to peace. He says that the raw power advantage of the USA means that an important source of conflict in previous is absent: He emphasize the fact that for many years the USA has not only expanded their elements of power but also maintained the same, and efforts by the current candidates for polar status â Japan, China, Germany, and Russia- efforts to increase their power or ally with other dissatisfied states are likely to spark local counterbalance well before they can create a global equipoise. The question of unipolar durability remains a subject of academic discussion. Kagan argue that American dominance [in the international system] is unlikely to fade any time soon while scholars in IR like Layne believe that it is on a serious decline. This is viewed on the rise of China as a major world economic player. Kuwait, Kosovo in, and Afghanistan from [to present] and Iraq between and In all, the US has been for thirteen of the twenty â two since the end of Cold War. And in, there were rising tensions between the US and the South Korea over missiles production, and the latest is the heated differences between the US and her former friend Russia over crisis in Ukraine and Crimea. With this the theories [in IR] today have failed to provide how Unipolarity operates in the global system and the shift is now focusing on the durability of polarity. In sum, Unipolarity is a type of polarity where one state, has influence on the international system. This is credited to the power- which is determined by economic strength, military might and technological advancement- which such as state has, at a period which, no other state can match such lever. Bipolarity Bipolarity is a distribution of power in which two states have the majority of economic, military, and cultural influence internationally or regionally and in most case, spheres of influence would develop. A good example can be drawn from Cold War. After this, the two powers will normally maneuver for the support of the unclaimed areas. This in practicality opened the international system for influence and control by the two super powers. Adherents of bipolar argue that such a system is desirable for reason that [as they allege] it will reduce international violence on the grounds that with only two world powers. Waltz captures this when he writes: First, only two world powers, there are no peripheriesâ Any event that involves the fortunes of the fortunes of the Soviet Union or the United States 9 automatically elicits the interest of the otherâ [Secondly] not only there are no peripheries in the bipolar world, but also, as a second consideration, the range of factors included in the competition is extended as the intensity [expressed in a reluctance to accept small territorial losses] of the competition increases. Fourth and final, the preponderant power of the two superpowers means that minor shifts in the balance area are not of decisive significance. The two states were as strong as they could accommodate changeâ These are strong reasons for having a bipolar system. But, proponents of this also claim that it will continue indefinitely, it is a condition to which we must adjust. The power of the US and USSR will still increase, and Waltz point out that if the independent capabilities began to be significant militarily, the nuclear giants would merely increase their offensive or defensive postures, and as a result, modest exertions, the bipolar world would be restored. On the other hand, there are three arguments advanced against bipolarity as a desirable international system. Rosecrance observes that bipolarity comprehends only one of the impulsions or expansion or aggression. He recognizes that while bipolarity by help in preventing successful expansion by either side, as there is polarization and counter pressurization, it does not reduce the motives of expansion and my even increase them. Another thought has advanced by Rosecrance against bipolarity, is that two quite different notions of the term appear to be employed. According to one, he writes, the Soviet Union and the US are engaged in a dual for world supremacy or at minimum, in a struggle to maintain their relative position. An action by one, seem to affect the position of the other, directly; all international changes are of vital significance in that they affect the balance between the two. Rosecrance says that such notions are equivalent to say that world most peaceful place is at the brink of war. The presence of peace does not invite war, and the presence of war, may not necessarily welcome peace. The above discussion considers bipolarity as a situation where two states, have influence in the international system. A school of thought, blended in the idea of bipolar world, do so on the 10 claims that is creates peace and stability, by eliminating peripheries, and also the presence of polarization and counter pressurization. Those against bipolarity doubt its ability to create and maintain peace in the international system. By the fact that there exist two opposing sides, claiming hegemonies in the international Page 10
system, a peaceful coexistence seems to be wavering. Maybe some ideas should focus on maintaining peace and stability in the international system, without forceful competition. Multipolarity Multipolarity is a distribution of power in which more than two nation-state have nearly equal amount of military, cultural and economic influence. Classical realist theorists, such as Hans Morgenthau and E. Carr, hold that multipolar systems are more stable than bipolar systems, as great powers can gain power through alliances and petty wars that do not directly challenge other powers; in bipolar systems, classical realists argue, this is not possible. On the other hand, the neorealist focuses on security and inverts the formula: Another reason for advocating for multipolar world is that it diminishes the attention paid to other states, as a number of independent actors in the system increases; the share of its attention that any nation can devote to any other must be of necessity decrease. And so in this manner, conflicts maybe limited. However, proponents of this model accept that too many competing powers can also become unstable. Rosecrance notes that multipolarity offers remedies for certain of the limitations of bipolarity. He says that there should be no cause under multipolarity for total international concentration on the reciprocally reinforcing hostility between two states. On the same note however, he underscore three points against multipolarity. First, it appears more likely that a multipolar world will increase the number of conflicts, though it may reduce their significance. Whereas in bipolar can have but one antagonism, in a multipolar system, the friction would not only exist, but exist tirelessly. This will engineered a number of national interests, and the result will be an everlasting chaos. Another criticism lies on reasoning that multipolar creates international order and promote peaceful coexistence. If that could be the case, then even the widespread distribution of nuclear should not destabilize the international system. Thirdly, if multipolar in essence, reduces the significance of any single alignment or military posture, this, on the other hand compounds uncertainty. It thus raises the difficulty of policy making. Types of polarity in IR have also been discussed with argument for and against such models given. From the discussion, it is eminent that states are in constant struggle for power and by large, influence on the international system and politics, and it seems that whether there is unipolar, bipolar or multipolar worlds, attaining of peace is still not a walk in the part. It may not be enough and satisfactory to have unipolar for the realization of global peace and stability, but at least, it fosters direction, and by some extend, creates hope for peace. This is unattainable, in having bi- or multi- polar system in the international politics. Penguin Group Morganthau, H The Struggle for Power and Peace. International Security 36 3 Kagan, R. Trend and Transformation, Belmont CA: Cengage Learning Layne, C. Page 11
Chapter 6 : Project MUSE - The Stability of a Unipolar World Title: The Stability of a Bipolar World Created Date: Z. Additional Information In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content: The Emerging Structure o f International Politics IF o r more than three hundred years, the drama of modern history has turned on the rise and fall of great powers. In the multipolar era, twelve great powers appeared on the scene at one time or another. At the beginning of World War 11, seven remained; at its conclusion, two. Always before, as some states sank, others rose to take their places. World War I1 broke the pattern; for the first time in a world of sovereign states, bipolarity prevailed. In a essay, I predicted that bipolarity would last through the century. The longest peace yet known rested on two pillars: He has written Man, The State, and War: The American and British Experience, reissued, Theory of International Politics, and numerous essays. Harcourt, Brace and Company,, p. The behaviors of states, the patterns of their interactions, and the outcomes their interactions produced had been repeated again and again through the centuries despite profound changes in the internal composition of states. States have continued to compete in economic, military, and other ways. The use of force has been threatened, and numerous wars have been fought on the peripheries. Yet, despite deep ideological and other differences, peace prevailed at the center of international politics. Changes in structure, and in the weaponry available to some of the states, have combined to perpetuate a troubled peace. What structural changes are in prospect? What effects may they have? The multipolar world was highly stable, but all too war-prone. The bipolar world has been highly peaceful, but unfortunately less stable than its predecessor. Almost as soon as their wartime alliance ended, the United States and the Soviet Union found themselves locked in a cold war. In a world of two great powers, each is bound You are not currently authenticated. View freely available titles: Chapter 7 : Polarity (international relations) - Wikipedia For arguments in favor of multipolarity, see Karl Deutsch and J. David Singer, "Multipolar Power Systems and International Stability," World Politics, Vol. 16, No. 3 (April ), pp. Page 12