Article Review: Polarities in International System

• Polarity and International System Consequences by Alida TOMJA

• Bipolarity, Multipolarity and Free Trade by Joanne Gowa
• FROM Unipolarity to Bipolarity The global system in transition by Raymond L.
Brown

1. Polarity and International System Consequences by Alida TOMJA

In this article, the author engages in the concepts of polarity as variables at play in
demystifying the relationships of states in the international system. As the starting
point, she defines polarity as implying to a certain relationship, one or several actors
are so important, that their leaving or entering the system will change the architectural
structure of the international system itself. Specifically, the determinants of the status
of power include political power, economic power, military power, and technological
power. The changes in polarity are is contextualized in the three-time periods of
modern Western civilization. Firstly, in the period before 1945, there were more than
three countries that qualified as poles, thus creating a multi-polar international system.
Secondly, the period after World War II wherein later on only two states were at the
right level to be determined as polar actors by making the system of international
relations recognize the classical case of a bipolar world. Thirdly, in the early 1990s
which is the fall of the USSR marked the end of the Cold War and left the U.S as the
only pole of power, thus creating a unipolar system. The main argument being put
forward is that unipolar paves a more peaceful and stable order. In that context, the
question of sustainability and the peaceful character of polar systems arise. The
classical theories such as the theory of hegemonic stability and balance of power
theory both predict that the unipolar system is more peaceful but collide on
sustainability. On sustainability, the theory of hegemonic stability provides that the
international system is more stable when a nation-state is the only polar actor or
hegemon because the dominating position of a single power provides more security,
peace, and stability at the global level. On the part balance of power theory, they
provide caution that although unipolarity creates less opportunity for rivalry, hence
offering more security for great powers, this system does not mean the end of any
conflict. In conclusion, indeed the U.S as a unipolar sustain its supremacy now for
more than a century already, however, the entry of major powers specifically the rise
of China as well as the increasing role of other major powers such as India, Brazil,
Japan, and Russia posed a threat or a challenge to the stability of the unipolar
system.

2. Bipolarity, Multipolarity, and Free Trade by Joanne Gowa

The articles deal on the role of free trade in the systems of polarity as well in which of
the polarity will free trade benefit states. Firstly, it argues that free trade is more likely
among allies than adversaries because of greater security externalities. Additionally, it
is more likely under bipolarity than multipolarity because of less credible exit threats
as well as stronger incentives to engage in altruism or self-sacrifice. Secondly, to
support her argument she utilizes the Hegemonic Stability and Optimal Tariff theories.
On the one hand, Hegemonic Stability, characterized free trade system is a public
good provided by a hegemonic state, but the problem is with free riding states. On the
other hand, Optimal Tariff argues that large states that can influence their terms of
trade maximize their real income by imposing an optimum tariff. Eventually, if all the
countries use this optimal tariff individually and collectively suboptimal results will be
the outcome. The bottom line is that both theories present free trade as the Prisoner's
Dilemma which the author primarily wanted to demonstrate. In the Prisoner’s
Dilemma representation used by the literature focuses exclusively on the real income
gains from trade. But, this approach ignores the security externalities of trade. The
idea is that trade increases the potential military power of any country that engages in
it. Moreover, the relative gains concern makes states worry about the relative balance
of power effects of trade. With that security externality and relative gains concern, free
trade is more likely among allies than adversaries. In principle, security externalities
prevent states from fully enjoying the benefits of trade under both multipolar and
bipolar systems. However, free trade among allies is more likely under a bipolar
system than multipolar. The sum-up reason is that in its interest, a great power may
choose to forgo the use of an optimum tariff against its smaller allies because an
attempt to exploit its power in the short run may undermine that power over time. In
conclusion, the actions of states are always the manifestation of their interest, hence
regardless of the world order, it is expected for states to always aim to the powerful or
gain relative advantage or benefits over the other. The systems of bipolarity just
present how the two powers can maintain their position being in the context of trade
wherein whether they like it or not they would be engaged in trade with each other for
their mutual gain and benefits.

3. Chapter 2: FROM Unipolarity to Bipolarity The global system in transition

by Raymond L. Brown

Indeed, we now live in a fast-changing world where change seems to happen just like
the speed of light. Here, the author tries to picture out the change in the international
arena especially the seeming transition from unipolarity to bipolarity. As a starting
point, the subject of the discussion is between the United States as the only major
power after the demise of the USSR and China primarily as a rising power or nay says
the contending power as well as some major powers like India, Russia, Brazil, and
Japan. In the sphere of economy, no one can deny that today Chinese products are
everywhere, thus they were able to surpass the economy of the U.S. Hence, in the
economic sphere, we can conclude that China is a qualified contender to have a
bipolar system. However, in the sphere of military and culture, it is still the U.S that
claimed supremacy. The U.S military spending remains manifold greater compare to
the combined spending of the other major powers of today. Moreover, the soft power
or cultural influence of the U.S seats at the top compare to China. Even though the
Chinese currently conduct an effort to increase their cultural influence, the certainty of
achieving the same influence of the U.S remains out of reach. Interestingly, it is
important to note the competition of the China and U.S over the African continent as it
was observed that if that context continues the possibility of Africa as a global
manufacturing hub will take place. In that case, China should have the most initiative
and drive to secure that Africa will be on their side or maneuver. In conclusion, I
support the idea that China indeed becomes a contender to have a bipolar system. To
the realist, it is possible as states always help it to develop especially its military
capability. With that, the rise to supremacy or even exceeding the U.S is possible in
the international arena; the same logic goes to other major states which continue to
develop their economic, military, and cultural capabilities. But the uncertainty also
lurks, as the U.S will eventually not give up its present position easily or at most extent
will not ever give the position.