International Encyclopedia of Political Science

International System

Contributors: Author:Kjell Engelbrekt

Edited by: Bertrand Badie, Dirk Berg-Schlosser & Leonardo Morlino
Book Title: International Encyclopedia of Political Science
Chapter Title: "International System"
Pub. Date: 2011
Access Date: October 11, 2020
Publishing Company: SAGE Publications, Inc.
City: Thousand Oaks
Print ISBN: 9781412959636
Online ISBN: 9781412994163
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412959636.n298
Print pages: 1323-1325
© 2011 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This PDF has been generated from SAGE Knowledge. Please note that the pagination of the online
version will vary from the pagination of the print book.
SAGE SAGE Reference
© 2011 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

The international system is made up of individual, constituent units and an ordering principle that arranges
the structure of those units, together forming a whole toward an outside environment. A third defining
characteristic of the international system is the interaction that continuously occurs between the level of the
individual units and the overall structural level. This notion, comprising three basic elements (units, structure,
and unit–structure interaction), suffices to describe a limited, structural conceptualization of the international
system. An alternative definition that also encompasses the connections between the units (units, structure,
unit–structure interaction, and unit–unit relations) may be referred to as a broader, relational conceptualization
of the international system. The use of the concept, in either version, is justified as soon as the system exhibits
properties that individual units do not.

After a brief note on the intellectual heritage of the concept of the international system, this entry offers
a discussion of four sets of issues found pertinent to the subject in contemporary political science and
international relations scholarship. The four sets of issues that will help elucidate key aspects of the concept
of the international system are (1) the properties of units and structure; (2) its origins and historical evolution;
(3) understandings of change, transformation, and breakdown; and (4) the inherent potential and limitations
of the concept.

When it comes to the basic figure of thought, it can be argued that some idea of an international system was
envisaged in the Amarna letters of ancient Egypt during the Late Bronze Age and is implicit in the classical
writings of Thucydides, Kautilya, Sun Tzu, and others who commented on the subjects of diplomacy, trade,
and war. Several of these authors described periods of rather intense interaction between political units and
a wider political or economic structure, outside of which there was significantly less such interaction. The
international system, however, is a concept that emerged in the early-modern era in the treatises of prominent
lawyers and philosophers. Following in the footsteps of Jean Bodin, Hugo Grotius, and Thomas Hobbes and
their respective works on sovereignty, state equality, and political order, Samuel Pufendorf explicitly referred
to the states system as several states that are connected as to seem to constitute one body but whose
members retain sovereignty. During the 20th century, the rise of new academic disciplines made its mark on
all concepts containing the component “system,” and structuralist authors of organicist, process-oriented, or
functionalist persuasion subsequently applied systems theories to virtually all branches of the nascent social
sciences. Arguably, this intellectual trend had a profound effect on the academic field of international relations.

Properties of Units and Structure

Relational concepts of the international system ascribe most importance and explanatory power to the units
that together form a whole, as well as to the mutual bonds that are forged among them. Realist balance-of-
power theories provide a good illustration of this, as do liberal theories that attribute significance to the internal
organization of political units such as city-states, empires, or (modern) states. The idea inherent to the latter
is that the internal organization of individual political entities affects the way in which they interact and conduct
business with their peer entities.

Structural concepts of the international system assume that unit-level action is essentially shaped and
conditioned by the overarching incentive structure, which is why causes are difficult to locate at lower levels
of analysis (and abstraction). At the unit level, we merely find the attributes and interactions of the constituent
parts. At the system level, a powerful structuring principle arranges the positions of the units and thereby
predisposes the mode of interaction among them.

Depending on the characteristics of the particular theory, the international system is a concept infused with
some ontological premise as to its purpose, function, or design. This aspect was underdeveloped in much
realist theorizing during the post-1945 period but has received more attention in recent years. The same
theoretical neglect long applied to the system/environment distinction and to the means of upholding that
difference.

International Encyclopedia of Political Science

Page 2 of 5
SAGE SAGE Reference
© 2011 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

Origins and Historical Evolution

The differentiation between the international system and its environment, the latter typically involving
peripheral/nonrecognized units and asymmetric/low-density interaction, is critical to any account of the origins
of that system. Some have argued that a trade relationship constitutes a prerequisite for other types of ties
between political entities (units). Others believe that political or strategic ambitions may be just as common
as the first step toward creating a significant level of interaction and therefore toward a new unit joining
the international system. Once established, many agree, the system is self-reproducing in that units sustain
(boundaries between) themselves and fend off systemic intrusion.

Several important contributions regarding the origins and historical evolution of the international system were
provided by scholars associated with the so-called English School of international relations. Informed by
diplomatic history accounts of political relations, these scholars described how the international system arose
in Renaissance Italy and then progressively expanded via Western Europe to North America, Turkey, and
other Middle East countries and later to Asia, Australia, Africa, and South America.

Key protagonists of the English School nevertheless felt that the structural conception of the international
system strongly downplays the social dimension of interaction and launched a relational notion called
international society. They insisted that the latter reflects a more demanding level of political and diplomatic
exchange than a “mere system,” in that states perceive that they are bound by a common set of rules and
institutions.

Most of today's scholars do not heed this distinction but appear to have subsumed part of the arguments
forwarded by the English School into more nuanced understandings of the international system. Indeed, even
structural realists who stress material factors and interests of powerful actors as explanatory variables operate
with some notion of socialization and cognitive adaptation to the actions and preferences of other actors.

Another increasingly influential body of work highlights the constitutive role of legal precepts, interstate
accords, international organizations, and jurisprudence in fashioning the institutional framework within which
governments and other actors pursue interests and promote values. An older view of international law as little
more than positive morality, akin to the dress code of a private club (as one philosopher put it), is thus giving
way for a more comprehensive understanding that acknowledges the expanding body of private and public
law in the international realm. It is further accepted that the United Nations, for all its flaws and limitations, has
played a constructive and at times crucial role in de-escalating conflicts between great powers.

Theoretical Understandings of Change, Transformation, and Breakdown

One of the chief criticisms of structural conceptions of the international system concerns its weak explanation
of change or major transformation. According to the most influential account, the international system is
anarchic, lacking an institution of central authority, and can only shift to a hierarchical system if functional
differentiation among political entities is greatly enhanced and the distribution of capabilities (powers)
becomes more even.

That prospect, though, is theoretically implausible. Instead, the law of inertia perpetuates the existing
international system, with minor fluctuations on the margins. New members are socialized into the system
through learning and mimicking the practices of more successful peer entities. Even though the present
international system is characterized by an unprecedented degree of interaction, trade, and communication,
proponents of a structural conception of the former maintain that most signs are of continuity and incremental
change, the latter induced by states or possibly by transnational advocacy networks and international
organizations.

Advocates of relational concepts of international system, in contrast, are more open to the possibility of large-
scale change induced by interacting units. Transformative processes, some say, have occurred in connection

International Encyclopedia of Political Science

Page 3 of 5
SAGE SAGE Reference
© 2011 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

with the two World Wars of the 20th century and can ensue whenever major powers fundamentally alter the
way in which they deal with each other. More radical perspectives project the eclipse of U.S. preeminence
within the next 20 to 25 years and believe that a new constellation of powers led by China will become
predominant by that time. In fact, some doubt that 21st-century citizens will remain loyal to a single state or
nation and predict the onset of an era of cosmopolitanism or “new medievalism.”

A new medievalism with overlapping authorities and multiple loyalties would not necessarily be turbulent or
violent, but the latter notion gently approaches the most dramatic type of scenario, that of a breakdown of
the international system. Two alternative tragic visions of the future seem to have gained currency in recent
years, and inform the security and defense policies of many individual states (especially in the West). One
is that of an epic confrontation along religious, cultural, and/or civilizational lines, pitting the Euro-American
transatlantic community of countries against challengers predominantly in Asia and the Middle East.

The second tragic vision is that of ecological disaster on a scale not previously experienced. While this is a
devastating prospect, the difference lies in the nonantagonistic character of the latter threat. A breakdown of
the international system prompted by environmental damage could conceivably therefore help usher in a new
era of global cooperation over and beyond previous political boundaries, jurisdictions, and mandates.

Inherent Potential and Limitations of the Concept

The international system is one of several theoretical notions that paved the way for studies with a global
reach by playing down the importance of political borders and helping wind down the methodological
nationalism characteristic of older social science. The structural conception of the international system,
though subject to critique in this entry, was clearly instrumental in widening this research agenda to what used
to be viewed as peripheral regions and issues. Relational conceptualizations, meanwhile, are less likely to
reify structure or overemphasize the system level at the expense of explanations that account for unit-level
actors and institutions.

The “international” element in the concept of international system, however, cannot reasonably transcend the
state-oriented focus associated with either version of the argument. And just as states and governments are
privileged as unit-level actors, both the structural and the relational conceptions typically rely on an implicit
notion of the primacy of politics. In that sense, the international system is a concept that may not remain
analytically relevant in the 21st century to the same degree as in the 20th, as the realities it was created to
depict have altered substantively.

• international system
• realism
• international relations
• international law
• actors
• political organizations
• Middle East

Kjell EngelbrektSwedish National Defense College Stockholm, Sweden

http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412959636.n298
See also

• Anarchy
• Balance of Power
• Diplomacy
• International Society

International Encyclopedia of Political Science

Page 4 of 5
SAGE SAGE Reference
© 2011 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

Further Readings

Bull, H., & Watson, A. (1985). The expansion of international society. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Buzan, B., Jones, C., & Little, R. (1993). The logic of anarchy: Neorealism to structural realism (chaps. 3–4).
New York: Columbia University Press.
Kaplan, M. (1957). System and process in international politics. New York: Wiley.
Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of international politics. Reading, PA: Addison-Wesley.
Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612183

International Encyclopedia of Political Science

Page 5 of 5