Why is the concept of a system a powerful descriptive and explanatory device in IR?
Why is the concept of a system a powerful descriptive and explanatory device in IR?
The Encyclopedia Britannica defines a system as a "set of formal legal institutions that constitute a "government" or a "state." This is the definition adopted by many studies of the legal or constitutional arrangements of advanced political orders." By encapsulating the power of the state into a system, scholars distill a complex nation-state down to its primal essence: a structure with a working dynamic. Put succinctly, a nation is a system. The systemic nature of governmental structures has dominated international theory since its inception. Analysis of the system's political functions and the "underlying realities of governmental forms" have defined international theory and brought forth a huge wealth of insight and information. (Ibid.)
Identifying the structure and function of the nation-state is the essence of international theory. The prevailing idea in this post-Cold War world is that of the "realist": that a unipolar system exists, with the United States at its head. Clearly the United States is the most powerful, hegemonic nation on earth. Though the state is sovereign, it exists in on a playing field without any rules and must therefore act in its own interests. Other nations' interests are beneficial but secondary. "No authority exists above the state; the state is sovereign... Anarchy is the basic ordering principle and each state in the system must, therefore, look out for its own interests above all" (Mingst, 86).
System and structure are synonymous, with polarity and stability the talking points.
Sources:
Mingst, Karen A. Essentials of International Relations. 3rd Edition, New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2004.
"Political System". Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9108574. Accessed 22 March 2006.