POl 540 Global Political systems

Polarity

What Polarity looks like inside the international system?

Phillip Mitchell

11/1/2015

This journal determines how power is measured inside the international system by determining balance-of-power frameworks that determine how power and influence are structured within the international system. The journal goes to explain that the balance-of-power frameworks are determined by polarity in the sense that international economic zones structure power within the international system creating different layers of polarity making the practice of international politics hard to predict at times leading to instability in preserving international order. Finally, at the end of the journal, I structure polarity and power as provide evidence that a multipolar world serves the international system a better shot at achieving a more peaceful international order by producing increased economic and political institutions to help create prosperity opportunities for all states inside the international system.

In the current world of international politics and affairs, global connectedness and

integration are shifting how the international system functions by affecting how the balance-of-

power is affecting the global and regional system within the international system. This means

that the current balance-of-power (equilibrium) is west to east meaning that the degree of power

and influence inside the international system is controlled by the west inside the international

system creating the framework for how the international system should look (Rourke, J.T., 2008,

p. 44, 93). However, as the balance-of-power shifts from the west to the east, it is creating an

imbalance within the international system of producing more of a McWorld scenario (where

states are becoming highly integrated due to the rapid growth of economic interdependence and

globalization) which is creating polarity shifts in how international relations are viewed inside

the anarchic structure of international politics (Rourke, J.T., 2008, p. 54). Polarity inside the

international system can be described in three different ways: unipolar, bipolar, and multipolar

which dictate how States are described based on their hegemonic status to determine how they

compete inside the anarchic structure of international relations. This triangle shape of polarity

determines how the international system functions determining how strong and weak states are

formed which means that each system plays an important part in creating balance-of-power

models that reflect current regime status and power inside the international system.

As mentioned, polarity determines the rules of international politics. This unfortunate

reality produces an imbalance within the international system because it creates a lone

superpower or a unipolar system made up of a single country because its power and influence

allows it to achieve global hegemony status (Rourke, J.T., 2008, p. 93). In addition, the structural

imbalance inside the current multipolar world of the international system, a bi-polar world of

structures exist as well meaning that poles (economic zones) determine how two equal actors are

divided inside the international system (Rourke, J.T., 2008, p. 45). These same economic zones

determine how the structure of a multi-polar world exist as well meaning that power is held by

four or more international actors (States) in determining how to structure of power is balanced

inside the international system creating how status and legitimacy is distributed among

advanced, strong, failed and weak states in determining the right achieved status (Rourke, J.T.,

2008, p. 42).

These economic poles are equitable within the international system which determines

how polarity is distributed. This means that the major powers determine how sovereignty rights,

and sovereignty issues are distributed throughout the international system which creates

jurisdiction over territorial land and sea which helps determine how economic zones emerge

making boundaries and imaginary lines possible to create the multipolar world that exists within

the international system today (Berkman, P. , 2015). In addition, these economic zones centers

power within the international system which promote stability and within the anarchic structure

helping make sense of polarity to determine which type of polarity is the best choice for the

international system (James & Brecher, 1988, p. 31, 32). In turn, polar statuses determine how

economic power is achieved within the international system, helping to distribute how

poles/clusters, power centers/autonomous actors are aligned within the anarchic structure making

the practice of international relations stable and predictable (James & Brecher, 1988, p. 33-34).

In essence, polar statuses determine how military power and political decisions are made

allowing different poles to take shape in determining how power can be stratified in determining

how hegemony is asserted by state actors while achieving stability and international order to

create an ideal balance-of-power model that reflects all economic, political, and military

attributes of individual States inside the international system (James & Brecher, 1988, p. 35-38).

Territorial land blocs are determined by polarity status, which makes alliance and node

patterns harder to structure inside the international system. This means that with international

cooperation less likely to form from the international system, hegemonic interests will arise

creating instances of war and instability, leading to chaos and other instable factors inside the

anarchic structure of international politics, making polarity hard to predict and manage within the

international system (James & Brecher, 1988, p. 38-40). In turn, the increase in hegemonic

interests could go on for long periods of time making the international system vulnerable to

prolonged instability and global unrest such as prior periods of prolonged conflict; like in the

1960’s during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Second World War (1945-62), and during the USSR in

the 1980’s which had similar power and land blocs which determined how polarity was achieved

after these periods of long conflict eroded (James & Brecher, 1988, p. 38-40). In essence,

prolonged conflict of territorial land blocs create unpredictability of polarity status within the

international system because complex political, economic, and military affairs define the

anarchic structure of international politics and any disruption to land blocs and territorial assets

means a disruption in how economic, political, and military decisions are determined making the

international system more chaotic and unpredictable.

State strength determines how power is assigned inside the international system. Power is

assigned by structures. This means that advanced democracies (countries with institutionalized

democracies and high levels of economic development); failed states (states with weak political

structures collapse, leading to anarchy and violence); strong states (state’s ability to fulfill basic

tasks, such managing its territory, managing the economy, and making and enforcing rules); as

well as weak states (state’s inability to fulfill basic tasks, such as managing its territory, and

other domestic policy issues); determine how relative power is distributed within the

international system (O’Neil, P.H., 2010, p. 318, 320, 325). In turn, each international state

structure determines how relative power is measure which means that power is measured in

comparison with other international actors inside the international system creating how

resources, and assets are distributed throughout the international system among States (Rourke,

J.T., 2008, p. 235, 237).

Since resources and assets are distributed in terms of relative power within the

international system where polarization becomes a major problem in determining how States

manage their hegemonic status within the international system. This means that international

polarization is affected by domestic internal policy struggles such as the case here in the United

States where policymakers are not tackling issues such income inequality, allowing the power

elites (plutocrats, oligarchs, and ultra-elites who have policy preferences inside political and

social institutions) to undermine how relative power is managed (Bafumi & Parent, 2012, p. 1-

35). In turn, these domestic policy challenges allow other international actors to take advantage

of internal state weakness to challenge polar status within the international system. In turn, this

means in theory another strong state with roughly equal status inside the international

community could challenge the unipolar status of the United States which would change how

poles are maintained within the international system creating changes within power and status

which could affect how harmony is shaped inside the international system (Bafumi & Parent,

2012, p. 1-35). In sum, a change in polarity would change how political power within political

institutions would be distributed by allowing structural changes such as defining roles, statuses

of legislative-policymaking branches of government such as Congress to take shape inside

political institutions to manage the change in polarity could challenge the economic status of

elites inside the international system, leading to the erosion of unipolarity creating a increasing

complex multipolar world within the international system (Bafumi & Parent, 2012, p. 1-35).

This possible erosion of unipolarity could create a fundamental shift inside the

international system which affect how relative power status is administered among other strong

and advanced democracies. In addition, the erosion of unipolarity status by the United States

would provoke balancing coalitions to join against the United States in competing for its status

within the international system using hegemonic means and capabilities to further de-legitimatize

the economic and political status of the United States by defining its new role inside the

international system (Bafumi & Parent, 2012, p. 1-35). However, this means that autonomy and

state hegemony could be structured different in terms of capacity, relative power, and role status

within the international system creating domestic institutional stalemates within the United

States and global competitors wielding their status to become equal to that of the United States or

greater which would fundamentally shift the current balance-of-power model from West to East,

to East to West (Bafumi & Parent, 2012, p. 1-35). In turn, these international shifts in power and

polarity would determine how multilateral relations are identified and shared throughout the

international system creating a new identity within the structure of global politics which would

be structured by EU members determining how economic statuses and political power where

distributed among states within the international system (Tocci & Alcaro, 2014, p. 366-389).

As mentioned, international shifts in power and polarity could lead to a new identity

forming within the international system making different economic systems take the place of

capitalism. As Tocci & Alcaro illustrate recent shifts in transatlantic relations such as the recent

shift in U.S. foreign policy to Asia and the Pacific allow this new identity to become a realistic

possibility in creating the twenty-first century structure within the international system of

multipolarity (Tocci & Alcaro, 2014, p. 366-389). This shift is possible because the relationship

status between the United States and the EU has eroded, which means that the once strong

partnership is not as strong as it used to be because of strong forces within the international

system such as the annexation Crimea, Ukraine, the negotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership

trade deal, the civil war in Syria, among other international forces have shaped the framework

for how the international system functions (Tocci & Alcaro, 2014). These international forces

include inclusive international political institutional ties and node networks which determine

how rational actors inside the multipolar world would function, where the “United States would

serve as an Asian power, and the EU would serve as an Asian partner,” which means economic

interests will be mutually inclusive creating new poles of economic opportunity, security, and

regional power balance inside the multipolar world which exists (Tocci & Alcaro, 2014, p. 366-

389). These new poles of international structures would create an enduring partnership that

would transform the domestic political systems inside Asia to being more liberal and create

greater international cooperation by pursuing structured horizontal relationships that are

decentralized and independent in determining how common identities and interests are aligned

inside the international system (Tocci & Alcaro, 2014, p. 366-389).

In short, these new identities that are multipolar in nature would determine how policy

domains and institutional alliances are formed inside the international going forward. This new

dynamic of a multipolar system would produce a more soft power approach to international

politics in the sense that multiple advanced and strong states within the international system

could wield their traits and power effectively to create institutional and economic alliances which

could further the impact soft power has on the international system. This could produce

increasing opportunity for failed states to become strong states and start managing their

economies to create increasing stability and predictability inside the international making this

new multipolar system beneficially to all states inside the anarchic structure making the

international system more peaceful, stable and prosperous inside the international system. In

conclusion, a multipolar shift in international relations means that power and status shifts would

be for the betterment of the whole international system to preserve the anarchic structure of

international relations in using multiple state attributes to determine how polarity and soft power

are defined within the confines of the new (mulitpolar) international system.

References:

Tocci, N. & Alcaro, R. (2014). Rethinking transatlantic relations in a multipolar era.

International Politics, 51(3), 366-389. Palgrave-Macmillan. Retrieved from

https://www.search.proquest.com.ez.proxy.snhu.edu/docview/1524692574?pq-

origsite=summon&accountid=3783 on November 1, 2015.

Bafumi, J. & Parent, J.M. (2012). International polarity and America’s Polarization.

International Politics, 49(1), 1-35. Palgrave-Macmillan. Retrieved from

https://www.search.proquest.com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/docview/916804450?pq-

origsite=summon&accountid=3783 on November 1, 2015.

James, P. & Brecher, M. (1988). Stability and Polarity: New Paths for Inquiry. Journal of

Peace Research, 25(1), 31-42. Retrieved from

https://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.snhu.edu/stable/423979?pq-

origsite=summon&seq=8#page_scan_tab_contents on November 1, 2015.

Berkman, Paul, Dr. (2015). Race for the Arctic: Let the North Pole be a pole of peace.

Global: the International Briefing. Retrieved from https://www.global-briefing.org/2011/07/let-

the-north-pole-be-a-pole-of-peace/ on November 1, 2015.

Rourke, J.T. (2008). International Politics on the World Stage. Twelfth Edition, 42, 44,

45, 54, 93, 235, 237. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

O’Neil, P.H. (2010). Essentials of Comparative Politics. University of Puget Sound.

Third Edition, 318, 320, 325. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Baev, P. (2007). Russia’s Race for the Arctic and the New Geopolitics of the North Pole.

The Jamestown Foundation, 3-12. Retrieved on November 1, 2015 from

https://www.jamestown.org/uploads/media/Jamestown-BaevRussiaArctic_01.pdf.