UNIPOLARITYA structural PerspectiveBy :Samin VossoughiRad

& Solomeya Shiukashvili

WHAT IS THE UNIPOLARITY?

Polarity in international relations is any of the various ways in which power is distributed within the international system. It describes the nature of the international system at any given period of time.One generally distinguishes four types of systems: unipolarity, bipolarity, tripolarity, and multipolarity for four or more centers of power. The type of system is completely dependent on the distribution of power and influence of states in a region or globally.

Definition:Unipolarity in international politics is a distribution of power in which one state exercises most of the cultural, economic, and military influence.• Unipolarity is an interstate system and not an

empire. Robert Jervis argues that “unipolarity implies the existence of many juridically equal non-states, something that an empire denies.”

• Unipolarity is anarchical. Anarchy results from the incomplete power preponderance of the unipole.

•  Kenneth Waltz argues that a great power cannot “exert a positive control everywhere in the world.” Therefore, relatively weaker countries have the freedom to pursue policy preferences independent of the unipolar. The power projection limitations of the unipole is a distinguishing characteristic between unipolar and   hegemonic systems

• Unipolar systems possess only one great power and face no competition. If a competitor emerges, the international system is no longer unipolar.  Kenneth Walt's maintains that the United States is the only “pole” to possess global interests

Why polarity matters• More stable – less prone to war• Bipolar orders are simple to manage.• Multipolar orders can slip into war due to

‘chain-ganging’ (WWI) and ‘buck-passing’ (WWII).

Unipolarity = peace• No hegemonic rivalry• International institutions and hegemonic

self-restraint (Inkberry)• Social foundations of hegemony (Reus-

Smith)

Why US unipolarity is stable

1. Totality of power gap2. Geography – ‘stopping power of

water’3. No rising challengers: EU, Japan,

China

• Even though the superpower can restrain the development, at least in the short run, the power will eventually be weakened as a consequence of dominating other states.• The USA has as an example, tried to

clinch hegemonic power by keeping 100,000 troops stationed in Asia and Europe. By guaranteeing the safety of its allies, the USA has subdued the need for security for other states.

Long-range forecasting: reasons to be cautious

• Leaders and their ideas matter• Economic volatility and political

change• Geopolitical rivalry and

discontinuities

THE STATES

states value what they cover more than what they currently possessThey will employ military force to change the status quo and extend their values

1. We agree that today’s unipolar balance of power is robust. At present time no state seems able to challenge the USA militarily.

2. We also agree with Waltz that the USA will become weakened over time due toits over-commitment.

OUR CONCLUSION

The multipolar system was less stable than the bipolar, and resulted in two world wars. The bipolar era meant more stable international politics due to the dominance of the USA and the Soviet Union. The transition to today’s unipolar power structure has brought major changes to world politics, with the USA emerging as the sole superpower. The total number of armed conflicts has decreased, despite the increase in number of terror attacks. However, it can be argued that the world could again become militarily multipolar, with China and Russia as possible challengers to U.S. hegemonic dominance.