Many theories have been developed regarding the international system. As such, different groups of people ranging from realists, liberals to radicals have their own point of view. According to Kenneth Waltz (1979), the international system is characterized as anarchic. In his point of view as a realist, Waltz argued that no power exists above any sovereign state. It implies that each sovereign state must, therefore, strive to keep its’ own interests above any other thing.
In a theory known as “Neorealism,” Waltz states that the international system structure is based on two main principles. The first principle is referred to as anarchy (lack of formal governance). In this principle, there is no higher authority above a sovereign state. The outcome of this structure is that there will be a formation of autonomous states. This is because; there exists the principle of distribution of capabilities and the variation in power amongst states of the world leading to the difference in the intensity of structural checks.
Also, as the second principle, Waltz (1979) argues that the nature of international system compels all states to concentrate on maintaining their sovereignty by virtue of creating complementary coalitions as opposed to making the most of their own power. In anarchic systems, structural differences do occur due to the dissimilarity in power distribution among constituent states. Waltz argues that the distinct structures of sovereign states define the arrangement of the international system at any given time. In this perspective, international systems are somewhat decentralized to some extent. It should be noted that the distribution of power is a system-wide concept.
In another point of view, Gilpin (1981) argues that states are the primary actors in an international system. As primary actors, sovereign states have the control of legitimate force to resolve disputes within its boundaries as well as internationally. In this regard, non-sate actors such as multinational firms and international organizations are also recognized in neorealism; though as secondary actors. A sovereign state is a unitary actor (Gilpin 1981). In the international arena, a given state is perceived as an integrated unit through its recognized government. Further, Neorealism recognizes states as goal oriented; meaning a state is a rational actor. As such, states opt for alternatives that will maximize their benefits. Neorealism also assumes that states are defined as self-help agents. In this regard, states are deemed to ensure that national security is prioritized and cannot be interfered with by other nations.
In his assumptive prospects for enduring peace and cooperation, Waltz (1979) used the bipolar balance of power model. Bipolar system (as in the Cold War) entails each of the warring blocs to seek for peace instead of fighting; to engage in minor wars rather than big ones and also to stage big fights rather than fail to eradicate the rival. Waltz perceives keeping peace by reducing interdependence in the system as well as decreasing dangerous liabilities.
Further, Waltz (1993) predicted China’s growth and emergence to be an economic powerhouse. He predicted an imminent “cold war” between the United States and China. Currently, with China’s tremendous economic growth, there have been silent wars emerging between the two states. For instance, the U.S has literally banned some Chinese technology on its soil. In response, China prioritizes to utilize their local made technologies and products to put off foreign dominance in the local market.
References
Gilpin, R. (1981). War and change in world politics.
Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
Waltz, K. N. (1993). The Emerging Structure of International Politics. Retrieved from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0162-2889%28199323%2918%3A2%3C44%3ATESOIP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R International Security
