The stability of unipolarity in the international system
Introduction
In the modern world, states have long been recognized by their power and their positions in the international system. International actors compete for power in the system to pursue their national interests. Whoever has the most ability to influence other states to act in a certain way, is considered the most powerful and so there has been the distribution of power namely polarity. The international system according to realists is anarchic and every state is sovereign meaning therefore there is no authority above them and the change in the number of powerful actors or the power relationship may result into wars leading to the change of the system.
Unipolarity, 1989-present,
…show more content…
The bipolarity system was throughout the cold war where allies had been created and too much competition especially in the economic sphere was going on. The communist superpower fell apart due to economic failures and other smaller states attaining independence from them. The United States in the other hand which was and still is a democracy was spreading democracy and making more allies which made them stand strong. In 1991 when the president of the communist state resigned, the bipolar system ended and it marked the start of a new era of power, the unipolar …show more content…
Most states’ problems start with the governance which is why they mostly end up being powerful in either one or two spheres.
The U.S influence on other states
America has greatly influenced other states. It has helped make countries like the Philippines, Panama, Cuba etc. independent. president Truman changed the whole constitution of japan from authoritarian to democratic, Invading Iraq to look for weapons of mass destruction although it is said that the U.S simply used that as an excuse to get oil, having the USAID in many different parts of the world, veto actor in the United Nations participating in many different diplomatic affairs.
Impacts of unipolarity on global stability
Neo- liberals and realists have argued that a hegemon is necessary to create stability and order within a liberal market economy, thereby bringing benefit to all the states within such an economy. It does this by enforcing the rules of the economic platform. The United States can be said to do this through the role of the dollar as an international currency and by its influence over the institutions of global economic governance. This is referred to as hegemonic stability
Certain things led Americans to become more involved in world affairs. For example, from 1803 to 1916, there was plenty of territorial growth of the United States. Economic, military, and political powers in the U.S. became higher, and more important. The United States wanted more territory for trade, income, jobs, and more. We wanted more influence on other countries. For example, when the U.S. built canals, we wanted more impact and trade such as the Panama canal, and Cuba.
With the shock of two destructive world wars and then the creation of the United Nations, whose aim is to preserve peace, it is unconceivable for these two nations to fight directly in order to promote their own ideology. But the US and the USSR end up to be in competition in numerous ways, particularly in technological and industrial fields. In the same time they start to spread their influence over their former allies. This phenomenon have led to the creation of a bipolar world, divided in two powerful blocs surrounded by buffer zones, and to the beginning of what we call the Cold War because of the absence of direct conflicts between the two nations.
From the realist point of view, the international political system is considered as anarchic. There is a lack of external authority among states that ensures peace, stability and balance of power. In the analyzed document, the author's main thesis states that changes of the system would alter the international political system. However, changes within the system will maintain its anarchism. In order to support his thesis, the author replies to liberal critics, who consider the neorealism as obsolete taking into account three important arguments against the neorealism.
The Soviet Union’s collapse at the end of the Cold War left the United States without its major global rival. Now alone at the top, the United States’ strategic imperatives have shifted remarkably. The shift has been significant enough to prompt fundamental questions about the international order and whether this new “unipolar moment” will last. Indeed, since 1989, political scientists have clamored to define the United States’ status relative to the rest of the world. Indispensable nation? Sole super...
In Morgenthau’s “Politics among Nation’s”, his main point is that survival is a national interest, and survival comes from power; therefore, the national interest is power. Morgenthau further mentions the balance of power which means that if states were to strive for more and more power, then they will get further away from their goal of survival. Morgenthau has even said, “…that the balance of power and policies aiming at its preservation are not only inevitable but are an essential stabilizing factor ill a society of sovereign nations..”. Morgenthau is saying that the balance of power is crucial for the survival of these nation states. Morgenthau also mentions an equilibrium in order to talk about the balancing of powers. Morgenthau said “that without a state of equilibrium among them one element will gain ascendancy over the others, encroach upon their interests and rights, and may ultimately destroy them.” This is exactly what defensive realists are all about, that if a state receives too much power, the system is ultimately going to try and balance themselves out and will most likely lead to conflict or war. Morgenthau also mentions how power and social life are connected, he almost has a constructivist approach (conflict or cooperation based on one’s social/historical norms) to it. Morgenthau thought that social norms about order and power will either result in conflict if the norms are weak or cooperation if the norms are strong. For example, we can relate this to the game stag hunt as an analogy, Morgenthau would agree that if there is a way for two states to cooperate, they will ultimately get the best outcome. He would say a close community will want to help others and cooperating is in everybody’s interest. Morgenthau argues that if the international system has a strong sense of community then the balance of power will keep peace. Without a strong knit community, the
Hegemon is a represents a system of leadership where power is based on domination as much as co-optation”, whilst Evans and Newnham (1990:153) argued that hegemony means “primacy or leadership. In an international system this leadership would be exercised by a ‘hegemon’, a state possessing sufficient capability to fulfil this role.” More than just leadership, Myers (1991:5) posits that hegemonic states are those “states which possess power sufficient to dominate subordinate state systems”. Similarly writing in terms of power, Adebajo and Landsberg (2003:173) termed it “the holding by one state of a preponderance of power in the international system or regional subsystem, so that it can single-handedly dominate the rules and arrangements by which international and regional political and economic relation
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
In the world of international political economy, three dominant perspectives have emerged over time. The differences and similarities between the realist/mercantilist, liberalism, and historical structuralism perspectives are significant. In this essay, I will compare and contrast these dominant perspectives. First, I will give a historical account of how each perspective originated. Then I will outline the actors involved in each perspective, explore those actors’ interests, and outline which of those actors set economic and political policy. Lastly, I will explore how those political and economic actors relate to each other.
In this paper, I will argue that the current system is hegemonial. My explanation to hegemony will then be centered on the sources of the United States as a hegemonial power. Furthermore, I will state the different primary implications associated with the rise of China and what the Roman Empire offers for understanding the United Sta...
The international system is an anarchical system which means that, unlike the states, there is no over ruling, governing body that enforces laws and regulations that all states must abide by. The International System in today’s society has become highly influential from a number of significant factors. Some of these factors that will be discussed are Power held by the state, major Wars that have been fought out in recent history and international organisations such as the U.N, NATO and the W.T.O. Each of these factors, have a great influence over the international system and as a result, the states abilities to “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development”.
Again, the realists believe that free international trade works best when a hegemon dominates the global market. I agree because hegemony enhances the global economy by providing the relative distribution of power in several countries. Since every country has its own function in the system, the hegemonic power is mandatory to sustain the world economy and international trade.
Powers is very substantial in international relations because this has changed throughout human kind and many great power countries had some time of greatness in history. However, international relations can also define power in many aspects. For example, one way of power in international relations is defined one actor employing influence over another, which this brought so many conflicts in today’s international politics. International relations also can describe this category of power is, hard for soft power. In hard power, there are many ways that can be mentioned. For instance, US has a massive hand of military size and technology over the other great powers. In addition to that, the concept of power in international relations is mostly used by realist thinkers whom they believe more extreme while they say other nations as thereat and they can attack anyone in any time. In other words, every nation must have a strong military and economy to defend themselves in
States cooperate to create international institutions with the goal of avoiding market failures and creating trust. The peaceful drive by self-interested economic behavior permeates international relations. The International Political Economy, stems from the neoliberal alternative of International Relations theory which emerged in the 1980’s through the writings of Keohane (1984) who emphasised the economic sphere and fused politics and economics in order to go beyond the limiting security obsession.
international politics (politics in general) are objective to be interpreted by one's own understanding of
To examine what state formation is and how it has occurred the logical route seems to assess from where they have evolved. The notion of the state is a relatively recent concept, for example in 1555 there existed only two national states, England and France. With otherwise the existence of disorganised and corrupt empires, federations and protectorates. It appears states have formed despite the many obstacles facing their development. Not only did the challenges of securing territory exist but ri...