niwa rahmad dwitama

8/8/2019 Niwa rahmad Dwitama

1/3

Dinamika Kekuatan Global: Review I

Nama : Niwa Rahmad Dwitama / 0906524274

Jurusan : Hubungan Internasional FISIP UI 2009

Sumber : Barry Buzan, Richard Little,

The Idea of "International System": Theory Meets History accessed fromhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0015-7228%28199821%290%3A110%3C29%3AIROWMT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-

International Systems through the Lens of Realist and Neorealist

How one defines international systems is thus about how one defines

international relations as a discipline. Based on Buzan and Little journal and

comparative books, reviewer, hereby, will try to explain definition of international

system in IRs and elaborate the distinctive difference throughout the analytical

lens (approach) of Realist and Neorealist. At the end, the reviewer concludes that

characteristics and interactions of behavioral units (internal factors) are

considered as the direct cause of political events by realist while neorealist

argued that systemic constraints of each country (external factor) rather than

their internal composition.

Bull and Watson's formulated that Int. system is "a group of independent

political communities forming a system, in the sense that the behaviour of each

is a necessary factor in the calculations of others. There is also the more formal

definition by Waltz that the international system comprises units (states),

interactions and structur. These authors implied that states must be in

sufficiently close and intense contact and an international system does not come

into being until quite high levels of (strategic) interaction exist.

In fact, the historical record suggests that international systems range from

very small, through regional and inter-regional to global in scale. During the

ancient and classical era, it is easy to find examples of international systems on a

quite small scale. During the first half of the third millennium BC, Sumerian

civilization was organized as a system of city-states. This is recognizably an

international system, having independent units, diplomacy, war and trade. Later

in nineteenth and twentieth century, one finds larger regional international

systems.

According to Buzan and Little, The historical record suggests that four types

of interaction are significant for any broadly conceived understanding of

international relations: military, political, economic and cultural . Since the idea of

system is an analytical concept, one has the right to set the criteria for it in an

arbitrary manner. The point is that these choices have consequences for how we

understand and interpret the historical record. If the criteria for defining

international systems are set in a tight and restrictive way (military/ political

1


2/3

interaction), then we will see fewer such systems. If the criteria are more open

and less restrictive, we will see more international systems and find them earlier.

Waltz's (1979) understanding of political structure suggests that

international systems always have structure. For Waltz, "a system is composed of

a structure and of interacting parts." He divides political structure into three

tiers: the organizing principle (anarchy), the functional differentiation of units

(units alike in terms of functionality), and the distribution of capabilities (how

many great powers are in the system)1.

The distinctive difference of international relations analysis will be

explained through comparing Morgenthau and Waltzs arguments. Classical

Realists (Morgenthau) analyze that international systems are caused by factors

focusing on action and interaction of unitsprinciple of human nature, the idea of

interest are defined in terms of power, the attitude of statesmen, rather than

highlighting the systemic constraints of international politics. Power is rooted

from human and statesmen2. The Behavioral methodology of realists explains the

political impact by assessing the main parts of the political system. In other

words, the characteristics and interactions of behavioral units (internal factors)

are considered as the direct cause of political events.

Neo-realists (Waltz) Denied the statement of classical realist that it is

possible to predict the condition of international politics by assessing the

country's internal composition. Waltz opposed with a question: Why is the

country's foreign policy showed the same attitudes despite different political

systems and ideological conflict (i.e. US and USSR: Their Deeds and policy along

Cold War are similar)?3

Realist can not handle the cause at stage of the above countries: ignoring

the important impact of the structure as the forces that shape and encourage

units within the international system. The answer to this question can further be

found in the systemic constraints of each country (external factor: above

countries) rather than their internal composition, because this systematic force

equate foreign policy stance by placing themselves between the countries and

their diplomatic stance (the largest contribution of neo-realism to the traditional

theory). This is based on the power coming from the international anarchist who

became systematically from a state requirement. The theory postulates that the

1

Scott burchill, Andrew Linklater, Teori-Teori Hubungan Internasional (Bandung: Nusamedia, 2009).page 1182Ibid. page 1163Ibid.

2


3/3

driving force behind decisions in international relations is the fact that states are

trying to respond to changes in international systems in order to survive.4

4 Criticisms of classical realism through neorealism accessed fromhttp://selfdevelopmentedge.com/critisms-of-classical-realism-through-neorealism/onSept 27th, 2010, at 01.00 am

3
http://selfdevelopmentedge.com/critisms-of-classical-realism-through-neorealism/http://selfdevelopmentedge.com/critisms-of-classical-realism-through-neorealism/

niwa rahmad dwitama

Documents