Examining Change in the Structure of the International System: Based on a Modified Structure from the Waltz Model

Document Type : Original Article from Result of Thesis

Authors

1 PhD student of Assistant Prof. at International Relations Department , Faculty of Humanities, Shahrood Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrood, Iran.

2 Assistant Prof. at International Relations Department , Faculty of Humanities, Shahrood Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrood, Iran.

Abstract

Investigating the possibility of change in the structures of the international system by modifications in the Waltz model of the structure is the main goal of this research. The main question is how to make Waltz's model capable of explaining the structural change in the system. In order to answer this question, the concepts and variables affecting the international outcomes are identified by evaluation and doing a review of Waltz theory and the critics and commentators to offer the proposed plan of this research while being loyal to the Waltz model for a better understanding of the change of structures in the international system. Our results show the stillness of Waltz's model to changes in the structures of the international system, especially in the ordering principles and functional specification. Also, the results show that the Waltz model needs modification due to the lack of the structure of the process. We define a tolerance within two extremes for ordering principle in the first element of the political structure of the system and units, then we change the direction from the principle of difference and similarity to the principle of differentiation and separation in the second element of the political structure of the system and units and finally, we add a third structure called the structure of the process. The triple structure of the international system is presented as the solution of this research to explain the structural change and the emergence of alternative systems.

Highlights

Introduction

The limitations of Waltz's model in explaining the possibility of transformation in the structures of the international system, is the main debate within critics and commentators of neorealism. While some emphasize the origin and emergence of the alternative international, others focus on structural continuity of the system. Perspectives such as critical perspectives, constructivism, liberal institutionalism, and postmodernism emphasize structural change and alternative systems, while neorealist, materialist perspectives and positivists focus more on the continuity of existing structures.

The main question is what variables, and how affects the change in the structures of the international system and what is their implications for the emergence of alternative structures. By opening up the first two principles of the political structure of the system and units and adding the third structure under the name of the structure of the process, this research tries to overcome the limitations of the Waltz model system structure.

 

Methodology

In data collection, we review the existing literature and we analyze the collected data based on theoretical and conceptual framework of the research. The level of analysis in this research is structural in term of political structures. Other levels of analysis, both vertical and horizontal, one of which is from the system to individual and the other is by crossing the boundaries of different branches of social sciences, are not considered in this research. The collected data is conceptual and qualitative and the method is theoretical development and new conceptualization. This research seeks to contribute to theoretical development and is not based on a case study.

 

Results

In the obtained results, we find that the Waltz model identifies three elements having effects on the structure and there is inverse relationship between the elements of the system structure and the structure of the units. Waltz's critics, such as keohane, Cox, Ruggie, Ashley, and Buzan, provide alternative models that focus on concepts such as cooperation, international institutions, dynamics and change, material capabilities, ideas and institutions, and deep structure and distributive structure. Buzan and his colleagues also introduce the concept of "attributive power" in their model, which highlights attributive power and structural changes. From their point of view, states are intermediate that connect the structure of the system and sub-national units. In summary, while Waltz's model examines the stability and continuity of structures, his critics introduce dynamic and multifaceted factors to provide alternative ways of understanding the international system.

In discussing the change and dynamics of the structures of the international system, Gilpin identified three types of changes in the international system: systemic change, system change, and change in interactions. These changes affect the governance structure, the actors, and their interactions. On the other hand, Holsti gives four indicators of change: main events, trends, structure of the system and international institutions. He considers the emergence of behavioral patterns, norms, laws, customs, discourse, and ideas as a necessary condition for institutionalization. He introduces fundamental institutions and procedural institutions as two types of institutions with different priorities. Finally, considering the institutional changes, he emphasizes on examining the dynamics of the system structure to predict future changes and challenges.

 

Discussion

The stated goal of this research is to develop a modified version of Waltz's model, which combines the ideas of other theorists to explain how systems develop over time. The reasons stated in the statement of the results are that some aspects of Waltz's model are insufficient in explaining the structural change and it needs modifications and reconceptualization. The modified model includes three political structures: political structure of system, political structure of units and political structure of international process. The political structure of the system and units are composed of three elements: the ordering principle, the functional specification, and the principle of distribution of capabilities. The modified model of the research, provides the possibility for fluctuation in the ordering principle and from this point of view, it allows structural change. The functional specification principle is also open to change and from this point of view, it provides the possibility of structural change. Moreover, the structure of the process including three elements such as ideas, capabilities and institutions, is the final addition of this model, which opens another window to explain the change of structure. Modified model of the research, taking into account the limitations of Waltz's model, incorporates the ideas of other theorists to provide a more comprehensive and consistent reform to explain the evolution of the structure of the system and structural change in the international system.

 

Conclusion

The purpose of this study is to provide a modified model to explain structural changes in the international system. This research uses Waltz's structure model as a theoretical framework that is the basis for this research. On the other hand, this research examines the criticisms to the limitations of neorealism in the research literature. It also examines and analyzes the views and main concepts of other experts regarding the structural changes of the international system. By combining the reviewed and key concepts of Waltz's model, we proposed a new conceptual perspective. The modified model includes three political structures: the political structure of units, the political structure of the system, and the political structure of international process. We make changes in the political structure of the system and units, both qualitatively and conceptually. This study focuses on functional differentiation based on the principle of differentiation and separation. On the other hand, we examine the fluctuation in the ordering principal both in the political structure of units and in the system. The combination of all the above factors gives the degree of anarchy in the international system. The modified model of this research is an attempt to develop Waltz's theory of neorealism, to provide the possibility of predicting alternative systems and structural changes. This study focuses on theoretical development and does not include case studies.

Main Subjects

References

  1. Ashley, R. (1986). The Poverty of Neorealism. In K. Robert O (Ed.), Neo-Realism and its Critics. Columbia UP.
  2. Ashley, R. (1995). The Powers of Anarchy: Theory, Sovereignty, and the Domestication of Global Life (1988). International theory: critical investigations, 94-128.
  3. Ashley, R. (1996). 11 The achievements of post-structuralism. International theory: Positivism and beyond, 240.
  4. Ashley, R. K. (1984). The poverty of neorealism. International Organization, 38(2), 225-286. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300026709
  5. Ashley, R. K. (1988). Untying the sovereign state: a double reading of the anarchy problematique. Millennium, 17(2), 227-262.
  6. Buzan, B. (1993a). 4. Beyond Neorealism: Interaction Capacity. In The Logic of Anarchy (pp. 66-80). Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/doi:10.7312/buza93756-005
  7. Buzan, B. (1993b). From international system to international society: structural realism and regime theory meet the English school. International Organization, 47(3), 327-352. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300027983
  8. Buzan, B., & Albert, M. (2010). Differentiation: A sociological approach to international relations theory. European Journal of International Relations, 16(3), 315-337.
  9. Buzan, B., Jones, C. A., Little, R., & Richard, L. (1993). The Logic of Anarchy: Neorealism to Structural Realism. Columbia University Press. https://books.google.com/books?id=qLVWxnZwsCYC
  10. Cox, M. (2012). 26914 After the West? Toward a New International System? In G. Lundestad (Ed.), International Relations Since the End of the Cold War: New and Old Dimensions (pp. 0). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199666430.003.0015
  11. Cox, M., Dunne, T., & Booth, K. (2001). Empires, systems and states: great transformations in international politics. Review of International Studies, 27(5), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210501008002
  12. Cox, R. (1986). States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory. In K. Robert O (Ed.), Neo-Realism and its Critics (pp. 158-204). Columbia UP.
  13. Cox, R. (1981). Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory. Millennium, 10(2), 126-155. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298810100020501
  14. Cox, R. W. (2007). 'The International' in Evolution. Millennium, 35(3), 513-527. https://org/10.1177/03058298070350030901
  15. Donnelly, J. (2012). The differentiation of international societies: An approach to structural international theory. European Journal of International Relations, 18(1), 151-176. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066111411208
  16. Durkheim, É., & Simpson, G. (2013). The Division of Labor in Society. Digireads.com Publishing. https://books.google.com/books?id=yjNRngEACAAJ
  17. Gilpin, R. (1981). War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge University Press. https://books.google.com/books?id=2iKL7zr3kl0C
  18. Gilpin, R. G. (1984). The richness of the tradition of political realism. International Organization, 38(2), 287-304. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300026710
  19. Green, D., & Green, D. (2016). 135How the International System Shapes Change. In How Change Happens (pp. 0). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198785392.003.0009
  20. Griffiths, R. D. (2018). The Waltzian ordering principle and international change: A two-dimensional model. European Journal of International Relations, 24(1), 130-152. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066117700478
  21. Havercroft, J., & Prichard, A. (2017). Anarchy and International Relations theory: A reconsideration. Journal of International Political Theory, 13(3), 252-265.
  22. Herrera, G. L. (2012) Technology and International Transformation: The Railroad, the Atom Bomb, and the Politics of Technological Change. State University of New York Press. https://books.google.com/books?id=rVtquMX_hCUC
  23. Holsti, K. (2016). Governance Without Government: Polyarchy in Nineteenth-Century European International Politics. In Kalevi Holsti: Major Texts on War, the State, Peace, and International Order (pp. 149-171). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28818-5_11
  24. Holsti, k. J. (1998). The Problem of Change in International Relations Theory. Institute of International Relations, 26.
  25. Holsti, K. J., & Holsti, K. J. (2004). Taming the Sovereigns: Institutional Change in International Politics. Cambridge University Press. https://google.com/books?id=Jh6gjr-2ho8C
  26. Holsti, O. R. (2007). International Systems, System Change, and Foreign Policy: Commentary on “Changing International Systems”. Diplomatic History, 15(1), 83-89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7709.1991.tb00120.x
  27. Keohane, R. (2011). Neoliberal institutionalism. In Security Studies (pp. 157-164). Routledge.
  28. Keohane, R. O. (1986). Neorealism and its Critics. Columbia University Press.
  29. Keohane, R. O. (Ed.). (1986a). Neorealism and Its Critics columbia university press.
  30. Keohane, R. O. (1986b). Theory of World Politics: Structural Realism and Beyond. In K. Robert O (Ed.), Neo-Realism and its Critics (pp. 158-204). Columbia UP.
  31. Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (2001). Power and Interdependence. Longman. https://books.google.com/books?id=VG8kAQAAIAAJ
  32. Lechner, S. (2017). Why anarchy still matters for International Relations: On theories and things. Journal of International Political Theory, 13(3), 341-359. https://doi.org/10.1177/1755088217713764
  33. Moolakkattu, J. (2009). Robert W. Cox and Critical Theory of International Relations. International Studies, 46, 439-456. https://doi.org/10.1177/002088171004600404
  34. Moolakkattu, J. S. (2011). Robert W. Cox and Critical Theory of International Relations. International Studies, 46(4), 439-456. https://doi.org/10.1177/002088171004600404
  35. Parker, M. W. (2016). The Limits of Structural Realism: Evaluating the Sovereignty-Supremacy Debate. International Studies Review, 18(4), 559-579.
  36. Quinn, R., & Gibson, B. (2017). An Analysis of Kenneth Waltz's Theory of International Politics. Macat Library. https://books.google.com/books?id=-EkrDwAAQBAJ
  37. Ruggie, J. (1986). Continuity and Transformation in the World Polity: Toward a Neo-Realist Synthesis. In K. Robert O (Ed.), Neo-Realism and its Critics (pp. 134-148). Columbia UP.
  38. Ruggie, J. G. (1983). Continuity and Transformation in the World Polity: Toward a Neorealist Synthesis. World politics, 35(2), 261-285. https://doi.org/10.2307/2010273
  39. Ruggie, J. G. (1993). Territoriality and beyond: problematizing modernity in international relations. International Organization, 47(1), 139-174. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300004732
  40. Waltz, N. (2010). Theory of international politics. Waveland Press.
  41. Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391-425. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300027764
  42. Wendt, (1999). Social theory of international politics (Vol. 67). Cambridge University Press.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics