A system is a set of units that interact with one another on a regular basis and according to a set of rules that stem from a well-defined structure. The key function of a system is to preserve its structure. The structure of the system is preserved as long as units follow the rules of interaction and the organization of the units does not change significantly. International Systems Units are states. Structure is defined in terms of: (1) the number of major powers, and (2) the distribution of capabilities among them. The rules of interaction define how states behave towards each other in general or in specific situations (e.g., war, crisis).
What do systems approaches do? System approaches attempt to account for long-term processes such as stability and change in the politics of the globe or of specific regions thereof. The focus in such approaches is on the relationship between the geopolitical structure of the world and patterns of historical processes. System approaches do not typically focus on specific units (e.g., states) unless they are considered to be major players (i.e., great powers). Nevertheless, system approaches have some interesting things to say about the relationship between great powers and minor ones and on the relationships among minor powers.
Structural characteristics of the system No. of great powers Distribution of power State foreign policy behavior Relations among Great powers Rules of the game (Rules of interaction) Minor-minor relations Great power- Minor power relations Feedback International Outcomes Systemic balance (imbalance)
Systems theories define stability (equilibrium) not necessarily in terms of war and peace. Rather, stability in systems terminology is defined as the preservation of the basic structure of the system. The principal characteristics of systemic equilibrium are: 1. Lack of change once equilibrium is reached. 2. Return to the basic equilibrium when the system is out of balance.
Relative Power System Structure--Three Hypothetical Conditions 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 A B C D E State System #1 System #2 System #3
Change in the System and Systemic Change Change in the system occurs when the distribution of power changes across actors, but neither the number of actors or the structure of the distribution changes in any fundamental way. The rise of one power is accompanied by the parallel decline of another power. There is a change in the identity of the system s leader(s) but not in the structure of systemic leadership. This is similar to a government change without regime change within states. Changes in systems may be a result of a war or an outgrowth of a long term process of economic and political development
Systemic Change (or system transformation) takes place when either the number of (key) actors changes, when the distribution of power changes in fundamental ways, or both. The rise of one power does not necessarily parallel the decline of another power. The change in the distribution of power is fundamental such that the new distribution of power over actors is quite different from the previous distribution. Systemic change is like regime change, the structure of the political system and the rules of political action undergo basic change. Systemic change can also be the result of a major war or of a long-term but nonviolent process.
1. Classical Balance of Power A B E C D Rules of the game 1. Increase your power, but negotiate rather than fight 2. Fight rather than lose power 3. Stop fighting prior to the elimination of a principal actor 4. Act to block the rise of a single hegemon or a coalition of states aspiring hegemonic status 5. Act to oppose the formation of an international organization with hegemonic capabilities 6. Restore defeated actors to their previous position in the system
Bi-polar Systems Tight Bi- Polar System A B Loose Bi- Polar System A B
Multipolar Systems A B C D
Characterized by widespread nuclear proliferation; many states possess nuclear weapons and some may have second-strike capability Each state is capable of causing total destruction of other states, but no state is capable of defending itself from a devastating nuclear strike Thus the name of the system each state possesses veto power over any significant outcome in the system This model predicts: Minimal contact among states for fear of nuclear confrontation Possible pressure for the formation of a supernational authority that would limit the threat capacity of states
Major Debates in Systems Theory The bipolar-multipolar debate The role of alliances in system theories Balancing or bandwagoning Capability distribution and systemic stability Nuclear proliferation and systemic stability
Power (GNP) The Power Transition Model Organski and Kugler (1980). The War Ledger. 120 100 Declining power initiates war Power Transition Rising Power initiates war 80 60 40 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Year A B