Response Paper
International politics cannot be understood independently without involving the states and nations that come up with such agencies and organizations. The fact that international politics operate independently without outside interference or rule is an intriguing question. How can such politics affect world politics without a source of such orders? It means that some form of groupings have hidden themselves into the structure with intent to benefit from international politics while at the same time hiding such state intents. This paper will look at how anarchy and hierarchy can be used to explain and understand international politics.
The big question under consideration is whether international politics can be understood through a single system theory excluding economic, social domains. Using social structure, domestic and international politics looks at the interaction between the units of the whole system. Here, one seeks to understand the variables units from the system they make. That is looking at the units independent of each other. This includes disregard for environment, situation and contextual factors that usually affects the system. Is such a theory really workable? It would be contrary to popular belief and knowledge to ignore political leaders, social and economic situation, culture, military interaction between states in trying to understand international politics. These attributes and interactions cannot be omitted (Jann, 2006).
According to this theory, looking at how units in a system are arranged and positioned in relation to one another brings the characteristic of the system and not looking at how they relate with each other. Further the theory claims that, the real picture of a society can be painted well when personality of actors in that society, their behaviors and how they interact is left out. This is because personality’s traits and behaviors vary by structures remain. Disregarding peoples’ personality has an effect on the understanding of international politics. This is because such relations are shaped by individuals who bring their personalities to the table when forming international treaties, alliance and agencies (Jann, 2006).
As the theory states, the definition of a structure remains the same as long as the arrangement of the parts remains, and hence theories from such a situation are applicable with slight modifications to other systems. One theory cannot be applicable to the same situation even with slight modifications. This is because different international organizations and agencies have different objectives, plans and goals which means they come up with their own (Fox, 1999).
Structures are an arrangement of political institutions, not a collection of them. To understand international politics, one must grasp domestic structures, which are defined by 1) ordering of principles, 2) how they are different and specific in functionality, 3) and how capabilities are distributed in the units. Domestic political systems are aimed at give commands while others should obey those commands since they are centralized and hierarchical in nature while those of international politics for coordination. That is they are anarchic and decentralized where each political system is different and the opposite (Fox, 1999).
Internationally, whenever some form of authority appears it is reduced to some form of capability. However, international politics lack the order and organization associated with the structure. This means that there cannot be orders out of blues without the source of such orders. International politics are formed by a group of self regarding political units in a given period such as nations, empires, cities. States relate with each other to create international political systems although they do not wish to be constricted by such systems. This comes to ensure their survival, or to conquer the world or to feel autonomous. This is a precondition for achieving national goals where the security of states is not made certain (Jann, 2006).
This allows states not to act completely to ensure their survival, which allows them to pursue higher goals than just survival such as forming unions with other states. This helps to hide and control some weaknesses and hinders external influence such as from multinational companies and on state actors over the nation state. International political structures are made up of states, which manipulate economics for political and military gains; and political and military means for economic purposes. This is a true reflection of the real world politic of many states where organs and units interact well to bring out a complete picture of the whole system depending on the intended and desired goals (Fox, 1999 & Jann, 2006).
Some states are mostly economic units but some are not, although this has no effect on international politics since the main states determine the status quo. The sovereignty of states as independent political units is reflected in international politics where the trends are similar and only differentiated by states’ capacities. International political systems are differentiated by their less or great power, unlike in hierarchic systems where the parts are differentiated by their function capabilities (Walker, 1992).
Unlike in states where changes in a system are influenced by capability distribution among units, where domestic units can perform the same task, internationally, similar units, perform, unlike duties and tasks (Walker, 1992). Capability is given high regard since it is used to compare between the powers of various units. International politics are characterized by legitimate and competent government anarchy while at the same time having an influence of alliances, trade networks and multinational companies. The world political system can be seen as a “no government” with disorder and chaos without peace. World politics has institutions which follow orderly procedures, which makes anarchy less popular especially when states increase cross border interactions, form alliances, and increased international agencies (Jann, 2006).
Anarchies and hierarchies cannot be used to fully describe and explain the whole of social systems. This is because they deal with similar units, which are not similar (anarchies). Some units have specialty in their nature. Also, social division of labor in units specified given tasks while some units are similar and performs and produces the same tasks and goals (hierarchies). A society can be in one area more anarchical and less hierarchical, or more hierarchical and less anarchical (Walker, 1992).
References
Fox, W. (1999). The Uses of International Relations Theory. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press
Jann, B., (2006) Classical Theory in International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Walker, R. (1992) International Relations as Political Theory. Cambridge Journals
