2015080398

The first development of a system can all be traced to the group of hunterer

gathering bands during the pre-international era. The groups were able to survive

through cooperation and developments of social technologies such as a concept of

strategic placing of territories that made contact and interaction between the groups

more established, maintained, and accessible. In other words, HGBs were able to

ensure survival in an environment that is highly unpredictable through a development

of a system which revolves around the idea of kinship. Developments and the level in

physical technologies is what differs the 21st century from its precursors as the

development of transportations and communications were able to pass the limitations

past systems encountered; the boundaries of landscapes and geographical features of

the world that limited communications in general. Fast trading, transportation, and

advancement of military equipments all brought faster and stronger interaction and

cooperation towards each state establishing the links between them more concrete in

the modern era. The utilization of these developments may have brought the upside of

making political and economic interactions between a state easier however these

developments also made war also more probable due to one part correlated in the

development of technologies and that is military weapons and equipments. 1 While the

fear of a recurrence of war started to linger in the system at the same time was also the

idea of diplomacy and cooperation to avoid the horrors of war. Through the

institutionalization of law, a modern system that structured to promote peace, stabili ty,

and cooperation within are thus formed.

Till to this day, conceptions of the international system and its nature still agonize

scholars who are trying to define the field as it has no general theory to begin with or

does not possess one coherent framework diverse scholars agrees with. The wide

variety of introductions of systems terminology has only provided a source of

1
Buzan, B., & Little, R. (2000). International Systems in World History: Remaking the Study of
International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press.
confusion and obscurantism and the highly monistic nature of scholars and its

heterogeneity only adds to the problem of generating a consensus and advances

uncertainty on the field. 2 Hence it follows that answers regarding to the question on

the existence of an international political system will also vary from one scholar to

another who are influenced by particular frameworks that are only limited to one

perspective of the system. From a realist to a constructivist, the field is full of each

one.

Any student of international relations and international political systems must

have encountered the basic approaches on the field and the fundamental theories that

act as its foundations such as realism, one of those theories students already are too

familiar with. A reflection on realism in international relations might be well advised

to follow the strategy of the Turin school of philosophy in adding to the question

which socialism and which realism for realism have varieties of associations with

more famous political theories or even ideologies. The number of realist theoreticians

is now in the same number of realists theories. This awareness of internal diversity is

a relatively recent development as only in the postwar period did the discipline

acquired a common realist language. Theoretical treaties were used as introductions at

a higher level, which further theoretical discussion concentrated on the study of

particular topics or concepts involving politics such as the study of power politics by

Morgenthau, study of war by War and Waltz, , or study of order in world politics by

Bull. With realism negatively defined against idealism, more was not needed. Today,

such self-evident approach both to realism and the discipline of international relations

may no longer be possible due to developments not just of the field but of the system. 3

Realism is actually the most dominant school of thought in the study which was

introduced by Europeans in the 1930s like Hans Morgenthau who "moved the basic

tenants of realism to the center of academic stage in the United States." Realism and

2
Ibid.
3
Guzzini, S. (2013). Realism in International Relations and International Political Economy: the continuing
story of a death foretold. Routledge.
its emergence can be traced to the dissatisfactions of scholars in idealistic thinking

after the outbursts of World War II. 4

Realism without really digging deeper into its surface revolves its main

strategies around statism, helping oneself, and survival. In their 'examinations' of the

international, realism have several presumptions that are built within its framework.

First, a realist basically assumes nation states as entities that are geographically

bounded and unitary that acts within a system anarchic in nature with no authority that

manages each relationship with one another. Additionally, the approach also views

states as the most focal point in the study of international affairs. In relation to states

is being at the receiving end of the perception as the primary actors that only fits its

behavior to ensure one's security, survival, and sovereignty. Interactions between

states are determined by the levels of power which are mainly influenced by its

military and economic capacities. 5

Although realism looks ideal during the ensuing cold war and made sense during

the period, scrutinies and criticisms are something that are still inevitable for the

approach. And although scholars were able to pinpoint its loopholes, one of the most

important a scholar can critic on the approach is, in terms of interactions, the system

is only concerned in one subject and that is military security. While the balance of

power is highly interdependent, the interdependence is only needed if regarded to

such issues.6

Why is realism being discussed and not what supposed to be supporting

discourses on the existence of an international political system? Realism is in the

discussion because it has the purpose of delivering the contrasting image of the

perspective that the framework will borrow from to be established, an approach

known as liberalism. This perspective views states as merely reflections of

4
Ibid.
5
Rousseau, D. L. (2006). Identifying threats and threatening identities: The social construction of realism
and liberalism. Stanford University Press.
6
Lampert, D. E., Falkowski, L. S., & Mansbach, R. W. (1978). Is there an international system?.
International Studies Quarterly, 22(1), 143-166.
individuals' interests additional to its perceptions of behavior as the focal point in

discussing the nature of the international political system; a perception where the

discussion will be rooted and the framework will revolve. 7 Under liberalist

perspective, there are three variants that are present in our society. First is liberal

institutionalism in which the analysis of balance of power theory is being considered.

In comparison with realist perspective, this also shares views such as the nature of

international anarchy, insecurity, and men as rational actors. 8 Departure from realism

can be in the perception of the approach in cooperation as in the perspective, such idea

is possible and believes to posit a positive-sum game. Arguments of liberal

institutionalism also revolve to what we call the prisoner’s dilemma. 9 They see

cooperation between two or more members in interaction with multiple countries as

an effective way of to maintain security. If the country does not cooperate with other

countries, they have the tendency to be left behind and have a weak system. The main

strategy in the model is reciprocity; a strategy that match whatever the move that the

player previously made. 10 This paper will explain the existence of International

Political System through the lens of Liberalism that will show how it affects

integration, transnationalism, interdependence, and globalization.

Before discussing the answer to whether an international political system does

exist or not, it is better to first define what a system is. not just to clear confusions

from its other definitions provided by different scholars but also to establish the

boundaries constitutive of a political system, characterize it from other systems, and

draw the demarcating line from its setting or environment. From its simplest

definition, a system is a set of units or elements interconnected so that changes in

some elements or their relationships produce changes in other parts of the system. 11

7
Rosseau, Identifying threats and threatening identities (see footnote 4)
8
Paul D’Anieri, Theories of international relations: realism and liberalism, in International Politics: Power
and Purpose in Global Affairs. (Boston, USA: Cengage Learning, 2017), 74
9
Joseph Grieco, Anarchy and the limits of cooperation: a realist critique of the newest liberal
institutionalism. (International Organization: The MIT Press, 1988), 493
10
D’Anieri, Theories of international relations (see footnote 7)
11
Taliaferro, J. W. (2012). Neoclassical realism and the study of regional order. International relations
theory and regional transformation, 74-103.
The relevance of creating a concept of system is simply the detachment of political

activities from other social activities so one can see the border lines and consider it as

an entity influenced by its environment where one operates.

Now the definitions, boundaries, and perspectives are set, one already has a basis

of what is a system and going back to the question of whether an international

political system exist or not the answer would be yes there exist an international

political system. A system that is composed of overlapping systems that are centered

around issues where each differs on structure as it involves actors that are only

concerned on that particular issue and will involve actions that are dependent only on

that particular issue. Systems involved within the framework should not be confused

to what we call a subsystem as a subsystem only refers to a system that are entirely

swallowed up by another system, 12 a case that most likely never will happen on the

concept of constant and complex system overlappings. One can used the metaphor of

game tables to understand the nature of the systems. Think of the international system

as “An international system that is composed of a series of game tables with different

games with different variations of stakes. Players within does play a game or two

while others does play simultaneously. Now think of every game as interdependent

with one another so that a play in one game influences the players or the play of the

others”.13

What case would be a better example than the nested and overlapping systems in

the transatlantic banana trade dispute. The banana dispute will illustrate the legal and

political complexities instigated by the overlapping commitments and interactions of

systems. The term ‘nesting’ is used to refer to “the situations where regional or

issue-specific international institutions are themselves part of multilateral frameworks

that involve more states or multiple issues where institutions are perceived as

12
Lampert, Falkowski, & Mansbach, Is there an international system? (see footnote 5)
13
Morgan, P. M. (1987). Theories and approaches to international politics: what are we to think?.
Transaction Publishers.
imbricated entities in concentric circles.”14 In this case, these are European Union

which is part of the world trade organization and are composed and formed by the

European states which are also members of the International Labour Organization or

ILO. This shows how international institutions are part of bilateral agreements and

how the probability of overlapping commitments and conflicting rules and violations

can easily encompass within these situations. Even though nations are engaged in

multiple international agreements and even though diplomacy is one of the key term s

in politics, discourses about the subject maintain to be elusive in the field of political

science as although literature that focuses on elements related to the politics of

overlapping institutions are common such as the analysation of how different typ es of

institutions have different politics, 15 factors that shapes whether the government will

react to a particular challenges by dealing with it through its current structure or by

generating new institutions, 16 and descriptions of strategies how shifting from one

institution forum to another can be successful, 17 identifying overlaps or overlapping

as the main focus of discussion still does not receive its due respect on the field.

In general, the so called “banana wars” is the pinnacle of a six-year trade quarrel

between United States and the European Union. An issue that is a concern not just for

EU in general but also traders or importers that are involved. The US complained that

an EU scheme giving banana producers from former colonies in the Caribbean special

access to European markets broke free trade rules. The controversy rotates around the

European Union’s administrative regime for imported bananas particularly known as

the Common Market Organization for Bananas or CMOB legislated the year 1993. It

was an effort to combine its commitments into a single European market. Preceded

from this enactment was the existence of EU’s states having their own banana import

14
Alter, K. J., & Meunier, S. (2006). Nested and overlapping regimes in the transatlantic banana trade
dispute. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(3), 362-382.
15
Hooghe, L. and Marks, G. (2001) Multi-level governance and European integration, Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, MD.
16
Aggarwal, V. K. (1998) Institutional Designs for a Complex World: Bargaining, Linkages and
Nesting, Cornell University Press, Ithaca.
17
Abbott, K. and Snidal, D. (2003) In The Impact of International Law on International
Cooperation(Eds, Benvenisti, E. and Hirsch, M.) Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge
administration. The CMOB only gave the privilege of entry to selected countries

including several in Latin America where US companies predominate. Under this

multifaceted administration, banana imports were subjected to a multilayered

framework of quotas based on the origins of each country. Going back to its roots, it

all originated on the Treaty of Rome which founded the European Economic

Community (EEC). It removed all internal trade barriers between its members as well

as the removal of tariff imports to achieve its ambiguous goal of achieving a ‘true

market’ however despite the efforts, the market still remained fragmented. Thankfully,

the 1986 Single European Act at least remedied the situation where it called for the

completion of the true market where people can benefit by allowing goods and

services to freely move within till the end of 1992.18

Although banana is one of the fragmented markets within Europe, it was still one

of the most demanded products in European countries as it can be owed to the

countries’ past relationships with imperialists and their adoption of their own cultural

practices and preferences in products. 19 By the time of the Single European Act, three

regimes were developed that especially concerned itself on the imports of bananas.

Under the first was where France and Spain offered countries either from the EEC or

African-Caribbean-Pacific (ACP) tariff protections through the Lome Convention. In

effect France was able to receive supply of bananas without restrictions from its

overseas departments such as Guadeloupe and Martinique. Spain on the other hand

was also able to receive its share by local productions in the Canary Islands. Through

the convention, imported bananas freely revolved and passed between ACP and EEC

countries.20 The second regime is in charge of the entry of Bananas in Belgium,

Denmark, Luxembourg, Netherlands, and Ireland. The regime simply imposed 20%

tariff on imports concerning bananas. Finally, under the third was were Germany was

18
European Parliament. (n.d.). Retrieved October 02, 2017, from europarl:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourservice/en/displayFtu.html?ftuId=FTU_1.1.2.htm
19
Sutton, P. (1997) The Banana Regime of the European Union, the Caribbean, and Latin America
Journal of Inter-American Studies and World Affairs, 39, 5-36.
20
Gruhn, I. V. (1976). The Lomé Convention: inching towards interdependence. International
Organization, 30(2), 241-262.
able to enjoy the guaranteed free access to bananas from Central and Latin America

after fierce negotiations on the development of the ‘banana protocol ‘attached to the

Treaty of Rome.21

Trouble started to fall when requirements established by the Single European Act

started to crisscross and have effect with the existing multiple institutions and treaty

obligations. The demands of the policy with an aim to unify the multiple banana

import practices burdened the group with an obligation of reconciling institutions and

policies involve into one whole while consequently maintaining the single market,

staying committed to the Lome Convention, maintaining the protection of banana

exports from ACP countries, continue the banana protocol guaranteeing the

continuous access of Germans on bananas, while doing its obligations under the

GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) to provide special imports only to

selected countries.

A new regime was enforced through to solve the issue after a number of

negotiations and lobbying on ACP Caribbean producers. A structure that is

characterized as a multi layered of rules and administrative oversights that in general

give stronger preferences to EEC and ACP countries than the Latin American

producers was established. Eventually, an additional feature of the policy was

introduced but only to be rejected by Germany, Denmark, and Portugal. The reaction

led to several changes so the Agricultural Council can meet the new regulations

halfway. The modification however still not satisfied the Germans. Followed by

Belgium and Netherlands, the three continued to disagree and continued to vote

against it. The regulation however was eventually passed after receiving support of

from Denmark and the EEC president. 22

21
The Banana War - a Case Study in Trade Restrictions. (n.d.). Retrieved October 02, 2017, from staff:
https://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/david.harvey/AEF811/AEF811.9/Banana.html
22
Read, R. (2001). The Anatomy of the EU/US WTO Banana Trade Dispute [1]; The Initial Legal Challenges
to the EU Banana Trade Regime. The Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, 2(2), 257.
 In summary, the EU policy implementations concerning banana imports became

controversial under the regulations of WTO because it allowed preferential access of

banana imports to selected countries. The status of being a ‘nest’ of European states as

members of EU and EU as being a member of WTO contested the general policies of

each groups regarding imports and the nested nature of the policy made compromising

and taking side more complicated for the European legal and political decision makers

which allowed the issue to fester for 10 years.

This case example just shows how complex in nature the existing international

systems can get; on how from an issue will a whole other system will develop over

existing systems. Behavior served as the systems' properties as these are revealed

through interaction where the capabilities and attitudes of individual actors are

translated into. Just as selected actors whose attitudes are only specific and limited to

a set of situations, actors will also only be limited and specific to a set of issues. 23

Following this, in other words, the participating actors and the issue involved will

serve as the discriminating factors between systems and will serve as the point where

one can examine whether a system did overlapped over the other or others.

Because of its nature, this makes the system more complex as its structure

exposes it to higher probabilities of instances where overlapping of participant actors

and formations of specific issues that are central to several systems can occur. This

not just make the system more complex however as it also makes the system more

linked. The more common actors start to be involved, the more systems will be linked

and the more each one is linked, the more they will be interdependent. 24 This

interdependency is what makes the case of the concept being a 'system' stronger.

Hence from this it can also be concluded that the system are in an environment mainly

defined by the existence of other systems in the arena.

23
Lampert, Falkowski, & Mansbach, Is there an international system? (see footnote 5)
24
Ibid.
 2015080398

In conclusion, the conceptions dominating in the field ever since the Treaty of

Westphalia should be abandoned as the identification of actors that are autonomous

behaviorally but not particularly something as states such as government or

nongovernmental and national or transnational organizations is one step toward

understanding the discriminations between existing systems in the world of politics.

Indeed, it is only timely that scholars should open their perspectives other than viewing

nation-states as the most prominent point in viewing global politics as it doesn’t imply

necessarily to be true.
References:

Buzan, B., & Little, R. (2000). International Systems in World History: Remaking the Study of International
Relations. New York: Oxford University Press.

Guzzini, S. (2013). Realism in International Relations and International Political Economy: the continuing
story of a death foretold. Routledge.

Rousseau, D. L. (2006). Identifying threats and threatening identities: The social construction of realism
and liberalism. Stanford University Press.

Lampert, D. E., Falkowski, L. S., & Mansbach, R. W. (1978). Is there an international system?. International
Studies Quarterly, 22(1), 143-166.

Paul D’Anieri, Theories of international relations: realism and liberalism, in International Politics: Power
and Purpose in Global Affairs. (Boston, USA: Cengage Learning, 2017), 74

Joseph Grieco, Anarchy and the limits of cooperation: a realist critique of the newest liberal
institutionalism. (International Organization: The MIT Press, 1988), 493

Taliaferro, J. W. (2012). Neoclassical realism and the study of regional order. International relations theory
and regional transformation, 74-103.

Morgan, P. M. (1987). Theories and approaches to international politics: what are we to think?.
Transaction Publishers

Alter, K. J., & Meunier, S. (2006). Nested and overlapping regimes in the transatlantic banana trade
dispute. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(3), 362-382.

Hooghe, L. and Marks, G. (2001) Multi-level governance and European integration, Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, MD.

Aggarwal, V. K. (1998) Institutional Designs for a Complex World: Bargaining, Linkages and
Nesting, Cornell University Press, Ithaca.

Abbott, K. and Snidal, D. (2003) In The Impact of International Law on International

Cooperation(Eds, Benvenisti, E. and Hirsch, M.) Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge

European Parliament. (n.d.). Retrieved October 02, 2017, from europarl:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourservice/en/displayFtu.html?ftuId=FTU_1.1.2.htm

Sutton, P. (1997) The Banana Regime of the European Union, the Caribbean, and Latin America
Journal of Inter-American Studies and World Affairs, 39, 5-36.

Gruhn, I. V. (1976). The Lomé Convention: inching towards interdependence. International Organization,
30(2), 241-262.

The Banana War - a Case Study in Trade Restrictions. (n.d.). Retrieved October 02, 2017, from staff:
https://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/david.harvey/AEF811/AEF811.9/Banana.html

Read, R. (2001). The Anatomy of the EU/US WTO Banana Trade Dispute [1]; The Initial Legal Challenges to
the EU Banana Trade Regime. The Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, 2(2), 257