Does an International Political System exist?

Does an International Political System exist? Adding Another Page to the International Political System’s History Book The International Political System’s existence has been questioned in every way, and a plethora of studies have been conducted either to verify its very presence or reject it. It has gone through countless criticisms and praises. But even if we identified the truth about its existence, what would be the importance of knowing if such a system existed? Perhaps it is to make the obscure world a little bit clear. We get to learn things in the system better and possibly even predict what can happen in the future. The only tough task I presume is to classify them since the scope is immense. This paper aims to dwell into the subject matter and prove that one does exist. The first part of the paper will tackle the definitions of the words, â€Å"international,† â€Å"political,† and â€Å"system,† and how they constitute a set of elements peculiar to others. Having put together their definitions, I will turn my focus to the underlying topics that conform to the International Political System’s existence. And lastly, I will provide a conclusion that is going to sum up all my points in this paper. The term â€Å"international† was popularized by a political philosopher named Jeremy Bentham at a time when nation-states were perceived to be prominent actors in the world arena.[1] Using a less authoritative definition, it is â€Å"existing, occurring, or carried on between nations,† according to The English Oxford Dictionary. Furthermore, what is political, according to David Easton, refers to the â€Å"distribution of social values[2].† Systems, however, as defined also by David Easton, are just â€Å"constructions of experiential values, impartial and are not defined by ideology.[3]† Although we are more familiar with defining systems as, â€Å"sets of interacting parts that comprise a whole.† In addition, Hedley Bull also defined international system as a union of states bounded by interaction. This interaction, though, should have a significant amount of impact on another’s behavior[4]. Therefore, an International Political System inv olves two or more states bounded in common interaction with relation to the allocation of social values. To further elaborate the specifics of defining a system, especially one that is political, I will be using David Easton’s Systems Analysis and Categories for the Systems Analysis of Politics. With Easton’s given definition of a system above, it is said to be an open and adaptive system. He suggests that social systems create an open system. An open system is a system that responds to the environment’s influences and vice versa[5]. David Easton argues that a system cannot exist in a void. He claims that system requires an environment for it to exist[6]. And this environment, which is composed of the physical, sociological, social, and psychological, should enclose a system. Therefore, the identification of boundaries is clear. The environment is divided into two parts: intra-societal and extra-societal. The intro-societal consists of systems quite similar to that of the political. These may include a system that is economic, social, etc. While on the other hand, the extra-societal encompasses systems that do not belong within the society. Systems that are international in scope fall under this category – extra-societal (also called â€Å"super systems†). Thus, an international political system is one of the said systems. Now that the definitions have been provided, I will now give topics that indirectly claim that an international political system exists. They are its very foundation of today’s system. Moreover, topics such as structure-functionalism and the identification of patterns will be discussed. A factor to consider whether or not an international political system exists is the presence of intergovernmental organizations. These organizations address the problems of its members and solve them[7]. Having said so, there is a constant interaction between states. This is accomplished through the building of institutions or modifying the old ones. Take the United Nations for example, the European Union, and the World Bank, too. The United Nations have been participating in peacekeeping missions around the globe[8]. Consequently, it is an instrument for regulating power in the international system, acts as arbitraries in pacts or agreements between states, inspires political change, builds norms, ensures development of states. The ability to intervene in the politics of others is interaction. The European Union, however, evidently presents the interdependence of each member in the system. Thus, conflict would be avoided. It is also known not just to prosper financially and politica lly, but to observe human rights and see things in a democratic manner[9]. The World Bank however hopes to eradicate poverty across the globe and provide impartiality in the progressing world[10]. All of which have goals that are not centered in just one state. The scale ranges from a regional collective to an international/world collective. Thus, intergovernmental organizations give way to the existence of an international political system. With the inevitability of intergovernmental organizations, comes the existence of international laws. In neorealism, there exists a structure occupied by anarchic units. And in order to maintain stability and remain organized within the system, established rules are to be followed[11]. These rules make up the international laws. Although the only downfall of having such international laws is the fact that it invades the sovereignty of the states; therefore, international laws are being observed with consent of the state. The state might feel threatened that its sovereignty would be at stake. Transnational institutions are able to connect people in different places, strengthening ties between them. These are corporations that are â€Å"transnational.† They go beyond what it is to be a state or a nation. Although they are not states which we usually identify as units in an international political system, they do have what it takes to interact which undeniably still affects the system. Hence, they can be seen as units of analysis on this context. Existent before and today, diplomacy has been a big factor to prove that an international political system exists. Diplomacy is the peaceful relations among state[12]. It has existed throughout the course of history, preventing wars and promoting peace within the system. Without the will of states to communicate or interact, diplomacy then would be rendered useless. And had there not been diplomacy when interaction occurred, the options would have been to ignore or to go to war. Evidently, whatever choice a state pursues inevitably affects the behavior of the others. Thus, diplomacy is vital in conforming to the presence of an international political system. Treaties are written forms wherein states agree to something. This may include two or more states. It is also ruled by international law. Then again, this is political, and it includes two or more states which are our current units of analysis. Moreover, they do constitute a system. Treaties have been prevalent throughout the course of world history. Some of them include the Westphalian Treaty, which gave the birth of the definition of a state. Armistices which are also referred to as a ceasefire among warring states, contributes to the development of an international political system[13]. Today, we can see the armistice North Korea and South Korea which has been going on for a while now. Another feature is war. War is deeply connected to culture and is even as old as man himself. Although in contemporary times, when everything is quite organized, and wars occur due to the failure of politics[14]. Conflicts spawn when interests contradict, and this is political. World War II for example, came into being because of an immense sense of pride – Nazism. This ultra-nationalistic idea had interests which contradicted many, and so a war was brought into existence. What are usually associated with wars are the formations of alliances. There could exist two factions or a bipolar system where the power rests on two parties. From a liberalist’s perspective the increasing power of an ally isn’t much of a threat and neither do you feel threatened. In fact, you feel more secure. Somehow, this interaction shows an acknowledgment of one state to recognize the other. Hence, from a liberalist’s standpoint, as opposed to realism, cooperation is best, and interaction is greater[15]. Those who conform to this conceive of an absolute gain, or a positive or a negative sum game. Wherein both parties may have a win-win situation or a lose-lose situation. Unlike from a realist’s standpoint, it is always a zero sum game where one wins and the other loses. Hence, realists believe solely on self-interests, where liberalists, on the other hand, believe in shared interests[16]. Since the structure of the international system is anarchic, as conformed to neorealism, conflicts favor the system[17]. Observing the behavior of states, they appear to be relative such as how power that exists is. States normally try to balance their power to whoever has much, or surpass them[18]. Since systems promote stability and unity, the balance of power is intrinsic to the subject matter. This is done out of security purposes, which is in fact, political. Another issue to be tackled is the existence of its boundaries. The international political system, I suppose, should be an open and adaptive system, as what David Easton envisioned for a political system[19]. It should be able to accept whatever the environment has to offer and adapt to it. In order to identify the environment, we must first know the boundaries which separate it from the system. The fact that there exists an international economic system, suggests that it is a different field from the international political system. We can already identify a hint of its environment this way. Instead of focusing on how much the international political system has, we draw our attention more on what it lacks; then systematically, we can easily identify what belongs to its environment. Many critics though such as Lampert believe that the system is too immense that it leaves no space for the environment. But then again, it has all the qualifications of a system; it is only what the syste m lacks that is part of the environment. These aforementioned topics tell us that the system does exist. Now, I will be moving to the structure-functionalism theory. It is often called as â€Å"scientific analysis[20].† It often asks the questions: 1. What patterns exist in the study? 2. What are the conditions that these pattern produce? 3. What processes exist? First, I will define what a structure is. Structures are patterns to which a process is taking place. Functions, however, is defined as â€Å"a condition resulting from the activity performed by a unit[21].† Therefore, structure-functionalism ultimately refers to the foundation of theories to which they explain a comprehensive system framework. In light of the situation of determining the existence of the international political system, the structure would refer to the disturbances that affect the behavior of the units involved. Patterns usually provide us foresight. It is the importance of studying the international political system in order to predict what could possibly happen in the future. Since it clears what is obscure, it could help us establish norms that conform to the patterns that the structure provides. Wars, for example, have been countless results of patterns. From a realist’s point of view, there exist polarities. Power, which every unit struggles for, is a social value. It is their interest and patterns such as balancing of power, offensive realism, defensive realism, come into play[22]. Whatever deviates from these patterns triggers war. It is plausible that almost anything can be quantified today. By providing a set of actions to political actors inevitably mean that system exists. Therefore, without an international political system, patterns would not be provided and understanding the political phenomena in society will be difficult. This is one of the reasons why an international political system should exist. It will provide a framework that will guide political scientists or scholars who specialize in the field of international relations. It is to provide a political map and understand the underlying causes as each situation occurs. Consequently, should this field be taken as a discipline of study, future scholars could possible devise multiple theories which can benefit the entirety of the system. Furthermore, discontinuities can pose no threat to the missing links or the gap that development took a leap. And even better, this leap could spring forward to an even farther destination. Conclusion: Of the given topics above, I have attempted to prove that an international political system exists. From the very definitions of these terms that make up the subject matter, to intergovernmental organizations that exist within the system, to international laws by which states respect and ultimately follow with consent, to transnational institutions or actors that expand or go beyond a state level of analysis, to how diplomatic relationships refer to the preservation of their respective politics without conflict, to wars that eventually happen due to the patterns provided by the international political system, to how formation of alliances meddle with the interactions of states and the influences abroad, and to the realist’s perspective of an anarchic system. Further discussion about the scope of the system has been talked about, identifying the boundaries of All these topics are involved in the activities that comprise the international political system. To identify the origins of the system, I have used the structure-functionalism theory and Systems analysis. Structure-functionalism is a foundation to many systems. It provides the patterns found in the study and used the structure-functionalism theory. I have found it useful to incorporate this field to conform to the system’s existence since it has been a foundation to many systems in the environment. It starts off by identifying patterns found in the political phenomena. Consequently, it determines the functions of each element included in the structure. Having done so, a system is created. David Easton’s analysis however of a political system states that it is adaptive and open. Moreover, he states that systems are not bounded by an ideology. Furthermore, he states that environment which encloses the political system can be divided into two: intra-societal and extra-societal. He further states that the intra-societal environment consists of systems similar to that of the political; while extra-societal, on the other hand, involves supra systems, or systems international in nature. And lastly, I have provided instances why an international political system exists and should exist. I have stated multiple assessments that could either help us get through international matters in a good way or the opposite, all depending on the existence of an international political system. Bibliography European Union. (n.d.). Retrieved August 29, 2014, from European Union Web site: http://europa.eu/about-eu/index_en.htm Hamilton, K., Langhorne, R. (1995). The Practice of Diplomacy. New York: Routledge. McCormick. (2004). Comparative Politics in Transition. Indiniapolis : Cengage Learning. Susser, B. (1991). Approaches to the Study of Politics. New York: Prentice Hall. The World Bank. (n.d.). Retrieved August 29, 2014, from The World Bank Web site: http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2013/04/17/ending_extreme_poverty_and_promoting_shared_prosperity Wansbach, R., Rhodes, E. (2000). Global Politics in a Changing World. Houghton Mifflin Company. Young, O. (1968). United Nations and the International System. International Organization, Vol. 22 No. 4. [1] Richard W. Mansbach and Edward Rhodes, Global Politics in a Changing World (Boston:2000) [2] Bernard Susser, Approaches to the Study of Politics (New Jersey, 1991) [3] Ibid. [4] Hedley Bull, Anarchical Society (New York, 1977) [5] Bernard Susser, op.cit. [6] Ibid. [7] Richard W. Mansbach and Edward Rhodes, op. cit. [8] Oran R. Young, United Nations and the International System (Madison: 1968) [9] Retrieved August 29, 2014, from http://europa.eu/about-eu/index_en.htm [10] Retrieved August 29, 2014, from http://www.worldbank.org/en/about [11] David Kinsella, Bruce Russett, and Harvey Starr, World Politics: The Menu for Choice (Boston, 2010) [12] Keith Hamilton and Richard Langhorne, The Practice of Diplomacy (New York, 1995) [13] John McCormick, Comparative Politics in Transition (Indianapolis, 2007) [14] Richard W. Mansbach, op.cit. [15] Bruce Russett, Harvey Starr, and David Kinsella, op.cit. [16] Ibid. [17] Ibid. [18] Ibid. [19] Bernard Susser, op.cit. [20] Ibid. [21] Ibid. [22] Bruce Russett, Harvey Starr, and David Kinsella, op.cit. Sociology: Attack On Biological Determinism Sociology: Attack On Biological Determinism Biological determinism is a theory that tries to explain a persons behaviour and other aspects of life in relation to his or her genetic makeup. This theory was encompasses the work of various prominent scientists such as Mendel, Charles Darwin and Francis Galton. Biological determinism abnegates the idea of the surrounding influencing the characteristics and behavioural aspects of an individual. For decades, this theory has been expounded in order to explain human behaviour comprehensively. Charles Darwin proposed heritable characteristics are determined through natural selection. Darwin was of the opinion that an individual would inherit the optimal characteristics that would ensure his survival or have a reproductive advantage. However, sociologists have strongly criticized the biological determinism theory because it does not take into account the environmental factors that affect behaviour (Banyard and Grayson, 2000). This article aims to discuss the concept of biological determ inism and the opinion of sociologists on this concept. Discussion Biologists, when referring to different behaviours and roles of individual in the society, agree that a set of predetermined biological process determine these behaviours. Therefore, people think and act in different manner because they have different development in their brains (Velden, 2010). Biological theorists are of the opinion that the chromosomes and hormones in his body control brain cell formation. For example, the male in the society are equipped with both the Y and X chromosomes whereas the women only have the X chromosome. The Y chromosome in men leads to production of testosterone and other male hormones. Therefore, the male brain develops differently from that of a woman due to the difference in genetic material in the sexes. Biologists have gone further to use the differences in male and female brain to explain the difference in behaviours between the sexes (Kronfeldner, 2009). Biological determinism operates on the assumption that all behaviours have particular causes, which are mainly genetic or related to biological functions and processes. Experiments done by Raine et al (1997) focused in the abnormalities found in the brain of murderers. Raine et al (1997) tried to find determine the common factor in murderers who had put a plea of not guilty by virtue of insanity. In the experiments, Raine et al (1997) looked at the PET scans of murderers and observed their cortical and sub-cortical brains. This experiment aimed to determine whether having brain dysfunction and abnormalities like schizophrenia are linked to the violent behaviours exhibited by the murderers. Raines experiment only focused on the innate factors while it ignored the external factors such as the environments that may control the behaviours of an individual. Biological determinism also focuses on reductionism. Reductionism views individuals as divided into hierarchical groups. Therefore, the biological determinists view the inequalities between sexes, nations, classes as intrinsic rather than extrinsic (Carolan, 2005). Therefore, this theory portrays the picture that if one person is less successful than the other is, it is s not because of the contributing factors in the environment, but because the other person is intrinsically incapable of being successful. Biological determinists therefore believe that men in the society are dominant because they are intrinsically more aggressive and rational than women. According to this theory, biologically inheritable material and not the surrounding environment determine division in the society (Carolan, 2005). It is the opinion of most sociologist that it is irrational to consider social classification as a genetic factor. This is because human from different divides and social backgrounds have been known to interact and live in similar classes. It is also logical to assume that the environment and the surrounding enforces some traits and leads success or failure of an individual in a society. It is from this mode of thinking that sociologists have formulated their theories on human behaviour and societal interaction. The external environment contributes greatly to the behaviour of a person in the society. In fact, according to sociologist the surrounding environment solely regulates behaviour. Although biologists believe that only biological processes influence behaviours, there are various flaws in this perspective. Biologists tend to ignore cognitive behaviours exhibited by individuals in their theory of biological determinism. This is where sociologist criticizes the biological determinism theory. Sociologists believe that people exhibit different behaviours depending on the surrounding environment. For decades, the sociologists view on biological determinism has been that of disapproval. Most sociologists are uneasy with the biological determinism theory because it does not fully explain behavioural exhibition in people (Carolan, 2005). Sociologists disapproval of determinism is justifiable to a given extend especially when such disapproval is guided by ideologues that seek to validate, and rectify, the status quo of the biological determinism. The argument advanced by sociologist is based on the fact biological determinists have a fear that there is a probability of l osing the genic capacity. Therefore, sociologists believe that looking very deep into the realm bio physiology to explain social phenomenon is irrational and rather irresponsible. Social scientists such Skinner believe that all behavioural aspects of a person are determined by the external stimuli (Boeree, 2006). Skinner in his theory concluded that the concept of free will is just an illusion and a persons behaviour will usually conform to his surrounding rather than be genetically determined. Skinners theory on behaviour was majorly based on operant conditioning. Skinner believed that an organism or a person operated in a specific environment with various stimuli that contributed towards specific behaviours. Therefore, skinner believed that when a person or organism is exposed to certain environment a stimulus known as the reinforcer contributed towards his repeated behavioural exhibition (Boeree, 2006). From Skinners theory, we can deduce that a behaviour followed by a reinforcing stimulus has a higher likelihood of being repeated or not. Skinner used the example of a rat in a cage with a bar or pedal. In case the rat presses the pedal or the bar, it leads to release of food pellet. Assume the rat is bouncing in the cage and accidentally presses the bar then the food pellet is released. Therefore, this rat will tend to repeat this behaviour not because it inherited such traits but because it there is a reinforcing stimulus in the environment (Boeree, 2006). Watson John supports Skinners opinion by also showing that the surrounding environment governs an individuals behaviour.   Watson assumes that behaviour exhibited by an individual can be correlated to other observable occurrences in the environment. In Watsons opinion, there are usually definite occurrences that precede and follow exhibition of certain behaviours. Watsons behaviourism theory attempts to explain the relation between stimuli in the environment and an individuals response (behaviour). Watson like Skinner borrowed his idea on behaviour from Pavlovs conditioning experiments. Watson believed that individual learned through stimuli substitution and similarly behaviours in individual are exhibited according to change in stimuli rather than genetic predispositions (Winfred, 2010). Watson became one of the many sociologists to oppose the mentalist concept. He believed that the early neuroscientists were very ignorant on how the nervous system and the brain functioned. At that time, biological determinism was widely accepted as an explanation to behavioural exhibitions. However, Watson changed this opinion by using contiguity to explain how organisms learned. Watsons theory assumed that emotions were complex expression of classical conditioning and therefore complex behaviours only came about due to combination of recognisable reflexes (Winfred, 2010). Like Skinner, Watson believed that repeated activity strengthened the learning process and the learning process is what creates the difference between human behaviour. Despite the fact that Watsons position did not explain the concept of human learning, his theory is currently considered as one of the pioneers to learning sciences. Conclusion In the society, the most obvious feature is inequality. It is obvious that some individuals have great wealth while others are poor Different groups explain these inequalities according t their preferred theory. Biological determinists believe that inequality in the society is as a result of the intrinsic factors. Sociologists on the other hand believe that social differences are as a result of extrinsic factors. Both these arguments are passionate and provide interesting view into the human behaviour and social organization.Sociologists try explaining the relation between human beings and their surrounding while neglecting the concept of biological determinism. However, socialism alone cannot explain some behavioural patterns neither can biological determinism. It is necessary for both the sociologist and biologists to move towards a relatively dynamic theory, which is open to interrelation of theories from both sides of the divide. No matter how much the sociologist may wish to sti ck to their theory, they cannot evade the complex nature of biological organisms. As much as the environment influences the behaviour, it is necessary to note that chemical reactions and hormonal changes also influence how organisms and human behave. Currently, it would be absurd to support only one theory due to the evidence available. Social theories provide their arguments, which are as compelling as the arguments provided by the biological determinists. It is therefore irrelevant for sociologist to wage war against biologists since booth theories have weaknesses, which can be augmented if the theories are combined to form a grand theory that explains human behaviour.