Theoretical Perspective View on International System

All realists characterize the international

system as anarchic, and this anarchic
structure has critical implications for the
possibility of enduring peace among
states.
Realists also argue that states should
constantly seek power because, in an
anarchic system, the only true guarantee
of security must come from self-help.
Its key feature is that states are all
sovereign (meaning no other state may
legitimately intervene in any other state’s
1.Realism internal affairs) and, in this sense, equal.

  Realists rely on the concept of polarity to

characterize the possibilities of war and
peace in the international system, which
this system polarity describes the
distribution of capabilities among states in
the international system by counting the
number of “poles” (states or groups of
states) where material power is
concentrated.
Additionally, the nature of the change in
the system can be reduced to the
distribution of peace and war between
great powers (small and medium powers
matter less) according to realists.

2. Liberalism For liberals, the international system is

less consequential as an explanatory
 
level of analysis.
The international system is not as a
permanent structure but rather as an
interdependent system in which multiple
and fluid interactions occur among
different parties and where various actors
learn from the interactions.
In their book Power and
Interdependence, the political scientists
Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye
 describe the international system as an
interdependent system in which the
different actors are both sensitive to
(affected by) and vulnerable to (suffering
costly effects from) the actions of others.
Liberal also sees the international system
as a specific international order. As John
Ikenberrry in After Victory argues, the
acknowledged goal of dominant power in
this the international order is to establish
rules that are “both durable and
legitimate, but rules and arrangements
that also serve the long-term interests of
the leading state.”
On the other hand, neoliberal
institutionalists see the international
system as anarchic and acknowledge that
each individual state acts in its own self-
interest, similar to realist thinking.

3. Radical Radicals describe the structure of the

international system by stratification.
 
Stratification refers to the uneven—and
relatively fixed—division of valued
resources among different groups of
states.
The international system is stratified
according to which states have valued
resources, such as oil, military strength,
or economic power.
Stratification of resources and hence
influence has implications for a system’s
ability to regulate itself and system
stability. When those states challenge the
dominant powers just below them, the
system may become highly unstable
regarding access to resources.
For Marxists and most other radicals,
crippling stratification in the international
system is caused by capitalism.
Radicals believe that the greatest amount
of resentment will arise in systems where
 the stratification is most extreme.

Constructivists argue that the whole

concept of an international system is a
European idea that, over time, became
accepted as a natural fact (at least
among Europeans and North Americans).
They hold that we can explain nothing by
international material structures alone.
Constructivists see not a material
structure in the international system but
rather a socially constructed process.
Constructivists agree with other theorists
that power matters in the international
system, but they propose that the
meaning of “power” can change over
time. As Finnemore writes, “[W]hat made
4.Constructivism 1815 a concert and 1950 a cold war was
not the material distribution of capabilities
but the shared meanings and
interpretations participants imposed on
those capabilities.”
Constructivists reject the notion that the
international system exists objectively or
gives rise to objective rules or principles.
They are interested in understanding the
major changes in the normative structure:
how the use of force has evolved, how
the view of who is human has changed,
how ideas about democracy and human
rights have internationalized, and how
states have been socialized—or resisted
socialization—in turn.