INTERSTATE

SYSTEM
LESSON 4
 OBJECTIVES:
• Define interstate system.
• Explain the structural characteristics of the system.
 INTERSTATE SYSTEM
• It refers to the relationship between different state union. It also includes all the cultural
aspects and interaction networks of the human population. Most studies of war that take
the interstate system as the unit of analysis begin with assumptions from the ’realist’
paradigm. States are seen as unitary actors, and their actions are explained in terms of
structural characteristics of the system. The most important feature of the interstate system
is that it is anarchic. Unlike politics within states, relations between states take place in a
Hobbesian ’state of nature.’ Since an anarchic system is one in which all states constantly
face actual or potential threats, their main goal is security. Security can only be achieved in
such a system by maintaining power. In realist theories, the distribution of power in the
interstate system is the main determinant of the frequency of war.
 THE NOTION OF A SYSTEM
• A system is an assemblage of units, objects, or parts united by some form
of regular interaction. In the 1950s, the behavioral revolution in the social
sciences and growing acceptance of political realism in international
relations led scholars to conceptualize international politics as a system,
using the language of systems theory.
THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM ACCORDING TO REALISTS

• All realists characterize the international system as anarchic. No authority

exists above the state, which is sovereign. Each state must therefore look
out for its own interests above all.
 POLARITY
• system polarity refers to the number of blocs of states that exert power in
the international system. There are three types of polarity:
• MULTIPOLARITY
• BIPOLARITY
• HEGEMONY
 MULTIPOLARITY
• if there are a number of influential actors in the international system, a balance-of-
power or multipolar system is formed.
• In a balance-of-power system, the essential norms of the system are clear to each
of the state actors. In classical balance of power, the actors are exclusively states
and there should be at least five of them.
• If an actor does not follow these norms, the balance-of-power system may become
unstable. When alliances are formed, they are formed for a specific purpose, have a
short duration, and shift according to advantage rather than ideology.
 BIPOLARITY
• in the bipolar system of the Cold War, each of the blocs (the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization, or NATO, and the Warsaw Pact) sought to negotiate rather than fight,
to fight minor wars rather than major ones, and to fight major wars rather than fail
to eliminate the rival bloc.
• Alliances tend to be long term, based on relatively permanent, not shifting, interests.
• In a tight bipolar system, international organizations either do not develop or are
ineffective. In a looser system, international organizations may develop primarily to
mediate between the two blocs.
 HEGEMONY
• one state that commands influence in the international system.
• Immediately after the Gulf War in 1991, many states grew concerned that
the international system had become unipolar, with no effective
counterweight to the power of the United States.
 SYSTEM MANAGEMENT AND
STABILITY
• Realists do not agree among themselves on how polarity matters.
• Bipolar systems are very difficult to regulate formally, since neither uncommitted
states nor international organizations are able to direct the behavior of either of the
two blocs. Informal regulation may be easier.
• Kenneth Waltz argues that the bipolar system is the most stable structure in the long
run because there is a clear difference in the amount of power held by the two poles
as compared to that held by the rest of the state actors.
• John Mearsheimer suggests that the world will miss the stability and predictability
that the Cold War forged. He argues that more conflict pairs would develop and
hence more possibilities for war.
• Theoretically, in multipolar systems, the regulation of system stability ought to
be easier than in bipolar systems. Under multipolarity, numerous interactions
take place among all the various parties, and thus there is less opportunity to
dwell on a specific relationship or respond to an arms buildup by just one party
in the system.
• Paul Kennedy argues that it was the hegemony of Britain in the nineteenth
century and that of the United States after World War II that led to the greatest
stability. When the hegemon loses power and declines, then system stability is
jeopardized.
 REALISTS AND INTERNATIONAL
SYSTEM CHANGE
• Changes in either the number of major actors or the relative power
relationship among the actors may result in a change in the international
system. Wars are usually responsible for changes in power relationships.
• An example of a system change occurred at the end of World War II. The
war brought the demise of Great Britain and France, and signaled an end
to Germany’s and Japan’s imperial aspirations. The United States and
Soviet Union emerged into dominant positions; the multipolar world had
been replaced by a bipolar one.
 REALISTS AND INTERNATIONAL
SYSTEM CHANGE
• Robert Gilpin sees another form of change, where states act to preserve
their own interests and thereby change the system. Such changes occur
because states respond at different rates to political, economic, and
technological developments.
• Exogenous changes may also lead to a shift in the system. Advances in
technology not only have expanded the boundaries of accessible
geographic space, but also brought about changes in the boundaries of the
international system. With these changes came an explosion of new actors.
 REALISTS AND INTERNATIONAL
SYSTEM CHANGE
• In the view of realists, international systems can change, yet the inherent
bias among realist interpretations is for continuity.
 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM
ACCORDING TO LIBERALS
• The international system is not central to the view of liberals. Thus, there
are three different conceptions of the international system:
• Not as a structure but as a process, in which multiple interactions occur
among different parties and where various actors learn from the
interaction.
• Actors include, not only states, but also international governmental
organizations, nongovernmental organizations, multinational corporations,
and substate actors.
 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM
ACCORDING TO LIBERALS
• Each actor has interactions with all of the other ones. Thus, a great many
national interests define the system, including economic and social issues
and not just security.
 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM
ACCORDING TO LIBERALS
• Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye describe the international system as
interdependent.
• An English tradition of international society: in an international society,
the various actors communicate and consent to common rules and
institutions and recognize common interests.
• Actors share a common identity, a sense of “we-ness”; without such an
identity, a society cannot exist.
 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM
ACCORDING TO LIBERALS
• This conception has normative implications: the international system is an
arena and process for positive interactions
• An anarchic one in which each individual state acts in its self-interest: This
is also called neoliberal institutionalism, a view that comes closer to realist
thinking.
• But, unlike many realists, they see the product of the interaction among
actors as a potentially positive one, where institutions created out of self-
interest serve to moderate state behavior.
 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM
ACCORDING TO RADICALS
• Radicals seek to describe and explain the structure of the system in terms
of stratification: the uneven division of resources among different groups
of states. The system is stratified according to which states have vital
resources.
• From the stratification of power and resources comes the division between
the haves, characterized by the North, and have-nots, positioned in the
South. Economic disparities are built into the structure and all actions are
constrained by this structure.
 THE IMPLICATIONS FOR
STRATIFICATION
• When the dominant powers are challenged by those states just beneath
them in terms of access to resources, the system may become highly
unstable. The rising powers seek first-tier status and are willing to fight
wars to get it. Top powers may begin a war to quell the threat.
• For Marxists, crippling stratification in the system is caused by capitalists.
• Radicals believe that the greatest amount of resentment will be felt in
systems where stratification is most extreme.
 CONSTRUCTIVISM AND
INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM CHANGE
• Constructivists argue that the whole concept of an international system is
a European idea. Nothing can be explained by material structures alone
• Martha Finnemore suggests that there have been different international
orders with changing purposes.
• Constructivists believe that what does change are social norms.
 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE
INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM AS A LEVEL OF ANALYSIS

• ADVANTAGES:
• Allows comparison and contrasts between systems
• Comprehensiveness: it enables scholars to organize the seemingly disjointed parts
into a whole.
• Systems theory is a holistic approach.
• DISADVANTAGES
• The emphasis at the international system level means that the “stuff of politics” is often neglected,
while the generalizations are broad and obvious.
• The testing of systems theories is very difficult. Most theorists are constrained by a lack of
historical information and thus the ability to test specific hypotheses over a long time period is
restricted.
• The problem of boundaries: does the notion of the international system mean the political system?
What factors lie outside the system? What shapes the system?
• The idea of a single international system is largely a creation of European thought. It may be better
to think of multiple international systems over time
IMPORTANCE OF INTERSTATE SYSTEM

• A hegemon is a core state that has a significantly greater amount of

economic power than any other state, and that takes on the political role of
system leader .
• When one state has hegemony in the world system, it has both the
incentive and the means to maintain order in the system. It is not
necessary for the most powerful state to fight wars, since their objectives
can be achieved in less costly ways, and it is not rational for other states to
challenge a hegemon with overwhelming power.
 THE BIRTH OF THE INTERSTATE
HIGHWAY SYSTEM
• Among these was the man who would become President, Army General 
Dwight D. Eisenhower. During World War II, Eisenhower had been stationed
in Germany, where he had been impressed by the network of high-speed roads
known as the Reichsautobahnen. After he became president in 1953,
Eisenhower was determined to build the highways that lawmakers had been
talking about for years. For instance, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944
had authorized the construction of a 40,000-mile “National System of
Interstate Highways” through and between the nation’s cities, but offered no
way to pay for it.
 FACTORS AFFECTING INTERSTATE
HIGHWAY SYSTEM
• Economic Factors- it shows how freight and passengers travel demand
patterns are shifting in response to temporal, spatial, and sectoral changes
in U.S. business and population activity patterns, as well as evolving
technology shifts that are affecting industry productivity, buying and
selling, transportation patterns. These factors are changing economic
activity locations as well as freight and passenger traffic patterns.
 FACTORS AFFECTING INTERSTATE
HIGHWAY SYSTEM
• Trend Effects- it utilizes a long-term history, and a series of alternative
long-term economic forecasts to show how the above-cited shifts in
spatial, sectoral , and productivity characteristics of the economy have
affected past, and will affect future. Interstate highway system freight and
passenger travel demand( including VMT patterns and trends).
 FACTORS AFFECTING INTERSTATE
HIGHWAY SYSTEM
• Economic Outlook Alternatives- it portrays economic outlook forecasts
reflecting alternative assumptions about changes in future economic
drivers such as fuel prices, trade, and economic productivity. It uses the
alternative forecasts to illustrate uncertainty factors, and their range of
possible impacts on future interstate Highway System travel demand.