POL 282 – THE NATURE OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM

The nature of the relations of states reflects the nature of the international system. The main
feature of the international system is ANARCHY. Unlike the nation state system, the
international system lacks a central authority to regulate activities and arbitrate between the
competing interests of nation states which constitute the main units operating within it. Thus, the
relations which nation states have with each other are characterised by conflicts and cooperation.
Therefore, in the international system, power consideration are of immense importance. The
ability of each state to use its in self-defence will determine its sovereignty and effective
participation in the international system. A state has to rely on its own power in conducting its
relations with other sovereign states. Where its own power is inadequate, it might find it
necessary to enter into alliance with any one or more states with which cooperation would be
more beneficial. But cooperation in the international system today does not preclude conflict
tomorrow, and vice-versa. Hence, a scholar (Hartmann) asserts that the relations of states must
be seen as “a complex of conflicts and co-operations embracing hundreds of different kinds of
situations in some of which power is virtually at stake and others of which mutual convenience is
the real issue”.

All the participants in the international system have diverse historical, cultural and social
backgrounds. Their values and goals have been, are, and will continue to be dissimilar. This
situation reflects the absence of “easily achievable consensus among the various groups which
participate in international system/relations”. Therefore, no state can expect only ‘gains’ for its
positions on own position on all values, at all times and in all places (Oslan and Sondermann).
All states recognize the fact that in international system, there are gains and losses to be made,
conflicts and compromises to be reached, threats and force to be faced. But in a bid to realize
certain gains – it might require to deploy force.

THEORIES OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

International relations, from our previous discussions, shows that it is broad and complex. Its
definitions and boundaries may not be easily identified or stated. It involves the use of many
variables and the treatment of numerous interactions. This has always made it hard to
comprehend fully the dynamics of the international system and all the interactions within the
system. In an effort to deal with this situation, scholars in the field of international relations have
formulated theories and made attempts to develop tools of analysis that facilitate a better
understanding of the behaviour of states in the international system.

THEORY is a set or sets of propositions and/or hypotheses that are logically related to each
other. It enables scholars to tie together the propositions they have developed at different levels.
In the words of Stanley Hoffman, “theory is understood as a set of inter-related questions capable
of guiding research, both of the empirical and of the normative variety”. The Movement for a
general theory of International Relations (1950s/60s) stemmed from the expression of
disaffection/dissatisfaction with:
(a) The Rationalist theory that had dominated the post first world war studies of international
relations;
(b) The failure of the League of Nations to prevent a second war;
(c) The failure of the United Nations to prevent the Cold War, and
(d) The development of nuclear weapons.

APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Idealist Approach – The Idealist Approach believes that most of the wars that have happened in
the world have indicated that there was a need for an international organisation. The impression
is given that if there had been an international organisation dishing out rules and regulations on
how to solve conflicts and violence all over the world, there would not have been the First World
War. The League of Nations was in fact, established on the premises of the Idealist Approach.
The Idealist Approach is based on the fact that there should be a collective security approach. As
far as this security approach is concerned, all nations within the world belonging to the
orgnisation should combine efforts and launch attacks on any aggressor. This would avoid wars.
The Idealists hold it that rather than study how men behave in international relations, a critical
assessment should rather be on how men ought to behave. The Idealists therefore insist that the
world would be a better place to live in if:
1. Freedom, and
2. Justice are adequately considered in the relations of nations. As far as the approach is
concerned, men are naturally peaceful and would indeed pursue peace rather than any other thing
if the natural atmosphere is created by government. They therefore insist that for peace to reign
all over the world, different governments must be ready to hold the principle of disarmament
strongly.

Realist Approach – The realists hold it that the fact that there was the Spanish War and the
Scandinavian War show that the idealist approach was basically wrong. To them, if the idealists
were to be right, there would not have been the Second World War. They hold it that war and
violence were inevitable. As far as the Realists are concerned, only skilful diplomacy and a
military power base could, to some extent, control violence and war. They also insist that since
human behaviour cannot be realistically predicted, it was futile and indeed totally wrong to
pretend to study how men ought to behave. Both the Idealists and Realists Approaches take
sources from such courses as history, Political Science, Philosophy, Law and Economic
Geography. They are both tagged as the TRADITIONALIST APPROACH to the study of
International Relations.

POWER THEORY – (Theory of Power Relationship)

Power Theory is based on Realism – Realism. Realism sees the state as the main actor in the
international system. It starts from the premise that universal conformity is not possible. Hence,
international conflicts must arise and must persist, as few nation states want to surrender their
sovereignty to international institutions, and international institutions are bound to fail since they
lack power to sustain them. Furthermore, the responsibility of each state is to promote the
interests of its people against the opposition of other groups in the international system. To the
realists, the behaviour of states in the international system can best be understood in terms of
international politics, defined as “a struggle for power”. In relations between and among states,
the power factor is dominant – it is inescapable. The struggle for power is therefore “universal in
time and space”. The struggle for power overrides all other factors – it also dictates the tone of
any state’s foreign policy. Every government is pre-occupied with this struggle and every
government must adjust its actions to its power requirements.

The consequences of power position and overall power distribution allows a nation state only a
limited number of policy choice. Hence, a state can either choose the status-quo (maintenance of
the balance of power) or expansion (imperialism and increase of power), or prestige
(demonstration of power held by a state).

Power being the dominant factor in the international relations of states, must also be seen as a
psychological relationship in which one actor (the state) is able to control the behaviour of
another actor. Power politics dictates that a rational political actor be concerned mainly with the
promotion of his vital interest, that is, he acts to seek power and to develop capability and
willingness to control others, for this is the “Law” of nature – Does not expect a rational political
actor to be bound by morals or ideology. They should see morals and ideology as means to an
end.

To non-realists, the only guarantee of achieving state security is to balance the power interplay in
the world system (balance power – neutralize power – power equilibrium) – “A balance of power
is the pre-requisite of each nation’s security” (John Spanier). But to realists, it is the ability to
struggle, demonstrate and control power – (Elements of power).

The FLAWS of the realists is traced back to the lessons of history – Power is not the end in
itself; the theory is static and deals with “what is” and ignores “what ought to be” and “what is
becoming”. Moreover, the power theory sees power as an independent variable when power can
also be a dependent variable, but is a vital national interest and plays a decisive role in the
international system.

LIBERALISM THEORY

The paradigmatic revolution to the study of international politics started after the world war I.
The first theory was Liberalism Theory which involves the impact of Idealism on behaviour,
equality and liberty. Liberalism emphasizes the impact of ideas on behaviour and the liberty of
the individual and the need to protect the individual from excessive state regulation. The
Liberalist sees the individual as the seat of value and virtue and put forth the assertion that
human beings must be treated as ends and not the means. They should not be the means to an end
but an end itself, as such other means should satisfy them. Their emphasis was on ethical
principles over the pursuit of power, and institutions versus capabilities. These are forces shaping
interstate relations. Their own definition of politics in interstate relations is a struggle for
consensus than one of power or prestige in the international realm. A definition sees Liberalism
as a paradigm predicated on the hope that the application of reason and universal ethics to
international relations can lead to a more orderly, just, cooperative world and that international
anarchy and war can be policed by institutions, reforms that empower international organisations
and Laws.
The main themes that run through Liberal thought are that human beings are perfectible, that
democracy is necessary for that perfectibility to develop and that ideas matter. Behind all this,
lies a belief in progress. They reject the Realist notion that war is the natural condition of world
politics. They also question the idea that state is the main actor on the world political state,
although they do not deny that it is important. In relations between states, Liberals stress the
possibilities for cooperation. The picture of world politics is a complex system of bargaining
between many different types of actors. They stress the importance of economic, environmental
and technological issues. They do not think that sovereignty is as important in practice as
Realists think in it is in theory. Interdependence between states is a critical important feature of
world politics. Liberalism whose raison d’etre is to hound the talking heads of power politics for
their remorseless pessimism, has occasionally found itself in the ascendancy, when its ideas and
values set the agenda for international relations. LIBERALISM HAS BEEN DESCRIBED AS
THE TRADITION OF OPTIMISM. It is an ideology whose central concern is the liberty of the
individual. For most Liberals, the establishment of the state is necessary to preserve individual
liberty from being destroyed or harmed by other individual or by other states. But the state must
always be the servant of the collective will and not (as in the case of Realism), the master.

SOMETHING OF A CRISIS IN LIBERAL THINKING ON INTERNATIONAL

Occasionally, Liberalism has found itself ascending to this struggle – Liberalism superseding
Realism when its ideas and values set the agenda for interstate relations. In the 20 th century, after
the world war I, which has been referred to, in the history of academic international relations as
the IDEALIST PERIOD, policy makers, public opinion was influenced by Liberalism in Western
countries.

The end of the World War I put an end to Liberalism and at the end of World War II, we saw a
resurgence of the Liberalist sentiments with the birth of the United Nations but the flames and
hopes of the liberal world was again dashed with the outcome of the Cold War.

- Successive post-Cold War conflicts in Afghanistan, Liberia, Somalia, Rwanda – the geo-
political rivalry to grant massive arms transfers to states involved in civil war.
- The application of reason and science to politics has not brought communities together. Indeed,
it has arguably shown the fragmented nature of the political community, which is regularly
expressed in terms of ethnic, linguistic or religious differences.

THE SCIENTIFIC SCHOOL

This school of thought arose as a reaction to the limitation inherent in the power theory.
Scientific school rejected the realists claims that power theory was scientific. It advocates,
though said that power theory was scientific – feels that it lacks (like the rationalist theory) the
precision and the explicitness of a real science. The power theory is too vague and too inclusive
to provide adequate explanations of international political behaviour and of the nature of the
international system. The scientific school equally felt that the power theory was too broad and
flexible to withstand the test of rigorous scientific verification. They argued that the study of
international relations qualifies as being scientific if it meets the following basic minimum
requirements:
(a) Involves the formulation of generalisations (universal and statistical) which must be
confirmed by their ‘positive instances’;
(b) Involves the construction of general theories, understood to be logically homeomorphic to
theories in Physics;
(c) Involves precise measurement and analysis in an articulated data language.

All formulations, definitions and analysis must be derived from systemic and comprehensive
observation of human behaviour. Only generalisations found in empirical evidence should be
formulated, following testing and re-testing according to scientific methods.

Quantification is, therefore, essential to the scientific method of international relations. Scholars
and students should always aim at conceptual theories and models of international relations
rather than resort to descriptive analysis of international relations/events.

GENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY

Systems theory is based on the assumption that ‘political activity is a life process’ that can best
be approached from the perspective of systems analysis. It treats the political system as a living
system capable of adjusting to changes in its environment while retaining those basic
characteristics that identify it as the same system. Systems theory, is therefore, an attempt to
develop a unified theory of politics which is applicable to all political systems. As a theory,
systems analysis is applicable to the state systems as well as the international system.

Systems theory comprises two types of theories – Medium Range and Long Range theories.

Medium Range Theories – concentrate on one aspect of international relations, for example,
behaviour of individuals, or groups or organisations which are viewed as major actors in the
international system.

Long Range Theories – on the other hand, look at the totality of the system. Thus, international
relations are treated ‘as sets of interactions of many different kinds and which concern
themselves with the nature of interactions and interrelationships, and how and why and in what
senses they change or remain stable. Systems analysis will therefore, embody all the components
of sovereign states and will focus on relationships among the units and on their interdependence.

The Systems Theory is an offshoot of behaviouralism which arose as a result of the criticisms on
the inadequacy of the power theory in explaining interactions in the international system.