International System Theory, also known as systems approach, systems theory, or system analysis, emerged as a framework to understand how the global structure shapes the behavior of states. Unlike individual-level or domestic politics-focused theories, this perspective emphasizes the distribution of power within the international system as the primary determinant of foreign policy.
The theory argues that international politics is structured in systems of balance, which can take the form of unipolarity, bipolarity, or multipolarity. While the approach provides valuable insights, critics point out its limitations in explaining the roles of civil society and the diverse behaviors of states.
{inAds}
Concept of System and Core Assumptions
A system refers to a set of elements with regular interactions and interdependent relationships. Systems can be biological (human body), social (family), political (state), or global (international system).
Key assumptions of International System Theory include:
- The international system consists of political, social, and economic subsystems.
- Systems naturally seek balance, though equilibrium can be stable or unstable.
- Subsystems influence and are influenced by the larger international system.
- Geographic subsystems: e.g., the Middle East, Western Europe
- Functional subsystems: e.g., NATO, the United Nations.
Major Models of International Systems
Richard Rosecrance
- Distinguished between stable and unstable systems.
- Emphasized the role of organizations like the United Nations as regulatory mechanisms.
K. J. Holsti – Five Models
- Hierarchical System
- Balance of Power System
- Loose Bipolar System
- Tight Bipolar System
- Multipolar System
Morton A. Kaplan – Six Models
- Balance of Power System
- Loose Bipolar System
- Tight Bipolar System
- Universal System
- Hierarchical System
- Unit Veto System
Kaplan also highlighted five variables shaping the system:
- Rules of maintaining balance
- Rules of system change (e.g., new actors emerging)
- Structural features of actors
- Military, technological, and economic capabilities
- Communication and information levels
Key International System Models
1. Balance of Power System
- Requires at least five states of relatively equal strength.
- No single state can dominate the system.
- Diplomacy and shifting alliances are crucial.
- The main principle: counter hegemonic ambitions.
2. Loose Bipolar System
- States cluster around two poles but allow neutral states.
- Example: Cold War (NATO vs. Warsaw Pact), with neutral actors like India, Egypt, and Indonesia.
- Nuclear deterrence prevented direct conflict.
3. Tight Bipolar System
- No neutral states exist.
- All states align with one of the two major blocs.
4. Universal System
- States integrate into a confederal whole, seeking political, economic, and administrative unity.
- Example: aspirations of a strong global governance model.
- Failure to resolve crises leads to reversion to bipolarity or balance of power.
5. Hierarchical System
- Can be democratic or authoritarian.
- Functional organizations (economic, military, cultural) matter more than geography.
- Integration is strong enough to prevent secession.
6. Unit Veto System
- Emerges with the presence of nuclear weapons.
- No state can decisively defeat another through a single strike.
- Stability rests on mutual deterrence.
Evaluation of the Theory
International System Theory highlights how systemic structures influence foreign policy, but it has several shortcomings:
- Overemphasis on external structures, neglecting domestic politics and leaders’ choices.
- Assumption that states behave similarly under similar conditions is unrealistic.
- Some models are based on historical experiences (e.g., balance of power, loose bipolarity), while others are theoretical constructs (e.g., unit veto, tight bipolarity).
Despite its limitations, the theory remains essential for understanding the structural constraints and opportunities in global politics.
