Change In The International System

Ole R Holsti

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9780367022327
• eBook ISBN: 9780429728365
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Political Economy
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Unlike most texts on the international system, which stress continuities, this volume focuses on changes- what has caused them, where they will stop, and perhaps most important, where they will take us. Designed to initiate and structure inquiry into the dynamics of international change, the book is organized to reflect three main dimensions of sys

Part 1
Change in the International System

1
Prerequisites for the Study of System Transformation

DINA A. ZINNES

The literature on international systems has two intriguing characteristics. First, the number of studies that analyze international systems is relatively small. Although the area contains a core of devoted scholars, the number of books that have appeared in the last ten years can almost be counted on both hands, and the number of articles is not much greater. Second, those studies that have appeared, with only a few exceptions, are largely static. Most studies of international systems concentrate on identifying and describing types of systems.

One interpretation of these two characteristics is that the field is young. Fledgling areas of inquiry often begin with static descriptions by a few scholars. But such an interpretation cannot account for the sporadic and essentially noncumulative appearance of analyses of international systems over the course of the last twenty-five years. Of interest is how separated in time are some of the major works in this field (Kaplan appeared in 1957, Rosecrance in 1963, Luard in 1976) and even more surprising is the fact that there is so little reference from one study to another, as if each writer were working in a vacuum. If international systems is a blossoming new field one would anticipate a greater concentration of studies in time and considerably more interaction and building from one to another. Perhaps then the two characteristics should be interpreted differently.

The limited attention to, and largely static treatment of, international systems could indicate a basic lack of clarity within the subject matter. Ambiguities in concepts and the absence of explicit research questions could well deter analysts from devoting time to an area of inquiry. Thus the sparse treatment of system transformation may be the consequence of a fuzziness in the use of concepts and the posing of research questions. This is the problem that will be explored in the following pages. What are the prerequisites for studying system transformation, to what extent does the literature meet these requirements, and what needs to be done to enhance the development of this area of research?

How Do We Know One When We See One? The Unit-of-Analysis Problem

Clearly the first prerequisite for the study of system transformation is the ability to identify an international system. What is the meaning of the concept “international system”? The term has appeared frequently in the literature and a number of analysts have presented definitions. Unfortunately, however, these are of rather little help. It is not that analysts do not know what the word “international” means. The difficulty lies in the concept “system” and its coupling with the word “international.” Consider a few excerpts from key writers in the field. Kaplan proposes:

The materials of politics are treated in terms of systems of action. A system of action is a set of variables so related, in contradistinction to its environment, that describable behavioral regularities characterize the internal relationships of the variables to each other and the external relationships of the set of individual variables to combinations of external variables.¹

And later and a bit more simply: “The study of systems involves the study of relationships between variables.”² This definition suggests that systems are distinguishable from environments so that presumably if “environment” were understood it would be possible to know what was not a system. Beyond that, however, the definition only specifies that systems are relationships between variables that describe “internal” behavioral regularities. What is meant by “internal,” what kind of variables describe internal behavioral regularities, and what kind of relationships are implied?

In McClelland’s volume on Theory and the International System an initial, somewhat more explicit, definition is given: “The conception of the international system is an expanded version of the notion of two-actors-in-interaction. A view of the whole phenomenon is involved.”³ But this emerging clarity becomes clouded as we read further:

A system of whatever kind is an ensemble of parts or subsystems capable of changing from one state to another state. It is the ability to change that is interesting to the observer and that allows the ensemble to be considered a system. Any system is a structure that is perceived by its observers to have elements in interaction or relationships and some identifiable boundaries that separate it from its environment.⁴

Apparently an international system requires two nations, an important first clue. But what is “interaction”? To define a system in terms of subsystems is somewhat circular while to define it in terms of something that is “capable of changing” presents an almost infinite range of possibilities.

Finally Rosecrance proposes “the subdivision of international relations into distinctive patterns, each enduring for a limited period of time and demarcated by significant changes in diplomatic style. … In this sense international relations might be conceived in terms of separate ‘systems.’”⁵ Obviously this definition requires yet another to be useful: we need to know how “distinctive patterns” are to be identified.

The above definitions by no means exhaust the range that can be found in the literature, but they are sufficient to illustrate the fact that the literature has not been very helpful in identifying the unit of analysis. If it is not possible to unambiguously identify what it is that is being studied is it surprising that there have been so few studies devoted to this topic? Yet the fact is that there have been some studies of international systems. Despite the above attempts to provide an analytic definition, researchers have proceeded to study the attributes and consequences of international systems. Clearly then, while we cannot precisely define the unit of analysis, we do seem to have an intuitive feel for what is and is not an international system.

In February 1979 China invaded Vietnam. This single event can be seen from two totally different perspectives: (1) the so-called nation-state or decisionmaking focus in which the unit of analysis is the nation-state or (2) the systems perspective in which the unit of analysis is an international system. It is interesting to contrast the two perspectives within the context of this event. The analyst working at the nation-state level would observe that in 1978 there had been a surging interest within China for a major economic drive forward. Manifestations would include the sending of emissaries abroad to develop ties throughout Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, the signing of a trade agreement with France, a treaty with Japan and a willingness to look the other way with respect to Taiwan to permit normalization of relations with the United States. Coincident with this campaign of “outreach” to obtain resources and expertise there was evidence that all was not well within the Chinese capital. The China wall-poster campaign suggested internal dissatisfaction and there were signs that a power struggle might be in the making. Putting these pieces together the analyst might draw an analogy with a new company seeking extensive economic backing. Cambodia had been an ally. China had to show that it was a viable international entity, a nation that could not be ignored and with whom cooperation and exchange was both possible and profitable. “China felt that Vietnam had threatened its credibility as a great power and that it had to prove it was no paper tiger.”⁶ An explanation for China’s behavior was largely sought within the Chinese nation-state: The desire of the Chinese leaders to achieve dramatic internal economic development led—according to this explanation—to China’s move into Vietnam.

Consider now a second analyst who looks not only at China, but also at the relationships between China, Japan, Vietnam, Cambodia, and the Soviet Union. China and Japan signed a historic peace treaty on 23 October 1978 that contained a clause stating that both countries opposed hegemony in Asia by any country. China insisted on the clause as a signal against Soviet moves in Asia; Japan agreed, but with some misgivings as it had no desire to be pulled into the Sino-Soviet contest. The clause infuriated the Soviet Union. Shortly after this treaty was signed the Soviets signed a treaty with Vietnam and military aid flowed into Vietnam. Not long after, Vietnam invaded Cambodia. The Pol Pot regime in Cambodia was backed by China. If the Soviet-backed Vietnamese could invade Chinese-backed Cambodia with impunity then China would loose several points of credibility in its worldwide struggle with the Soviet Union. A quick “surgical” expedition into Vietnam would show the Soviets that China would not stand idly by while its allies were overrun. It would also show other Soviet-backed powers the true meaning of Soviet friendship since the Chinese believed that the Soviets would not interfere if China engaged in a punitive expedition without taking territory. In this case the explanation for the Chinese invasion was found through an examination of the relationships between a set of nations; thus the implicit unit of analysis is a system (or subsystem).

The contrast between these two examples illustrates that on purely intuitive grounds it is possible to classify studies into those which do and those which do not focus on an international system. Furthermore, a relationship can be seen between the definitions cited previously and the contrast between the two explanations of the Chinese invasion. McClelland’s criterion that there be two nation-state units is certainly one characteristic that distinguishes the first from the second explanation. And if “relationships between variables” corresponds to “ensembles of parts capable of change” and “distinctive patterns” then these characterizations of another attribute of an international system can be seen in the brief sketch of the relationships, and the dynamics of those relationships, between the five nation-states considered. In short, although there currently does not exist a completely satisfactory analytic definition of “international system,” this problem is not paralyzing.

Given the above discussion, three criteria can be used to define the unit of analysis. Studies of international systems must consider nations, these studies must focus on at least two entities, and the analyses and questions must concentrate on relationships between the units. However, implicit in these three defining criteria are two further questions. First, is an international system considered a system only if there are two or more nations? Given McClelland’s definition and the contrast developed between the two studies of the Chinese invasion the answer would be yes. Yet an affirmative answer is not entirely satisfactory. It suggests, for example, that the Holy Roman Empire could not be considered an international system, a somewhat strange conclusion. Furthermore, it belies the description of two of Kaplan’s international systems. In the hierarchical system “the national actors will lose their primary role function of transmitting the rules of the national systems. National actors will be territorial subdivisions of the international system rather than independent political systems.”⁷ While less integrated than the hierarchical system the universal system would also appear to be something of a single unit system: “With respect to some functions, it will determine the jurisdictional boundaries of its members … [although it] … is unlikely to do this for all decisionmaking functions.”⁸ When there are two national units it is reasonable to identify an international system. The question is whether the existence of a single unit implies that there is no international system. What is needed is a criterion that permits a distinction between a nation-state, like China, and an entity like the Holy Roman Empire.

The second question concerns the word “relations.” What exactly does it mean to say that the study of an international system is a study of relations between two or more units? The Chinese example suggests that when we examine alliance ties, or, more generally, bonds of hostility and friendship, we are looking at a system. The implication is that systems are definable only in terms of bonds or directed behaviors. Yet discussions of specific international systems like the balance of power or the bipolar system consider more than ties or bonds. A key characteristic of either a balance of power or bipolar system is the distribution of power over the members of the system. Thus the concept “relations” requires additional clarification.

The literature helps us to identify two broad classes of variables that capture different connotations of the term “relations.” The first set of variables might be termed configurational. These variables define systems in terms of the ties, or directed behaviors, between nations. The degree of polarity and the tightness or looseness of the poles are examples of configurational variables. They reflect levels of interaction between units. Composite variables, on the other hand, characterize international systems by summarizing the attributes of the n...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of Figures and Tables
• Preface
• Introduction
• The Contributors
• Acronyms
• Part 1 Change in the International System
• Part 2 Sources of Change in the International System
• Part 3 Constraints upon Change in the International System
• Index