A Holistic Approach to the Study of
International Relations
In international
relations, states are said to constitute a system. It is contended that this
system determines their behaviour both within their territorial borders and in
the environment outside their boundaries. Additionally, it is
equally given that the
nation-states operate and interact among
themselves in the environment outside their borders. This environment is what
theorists in international relations refer to as the international environment.
the interactions within the
international environment is however not restricted to nation –states, non- state actors also participate. But before we delve
in
to the details of actors and participants in the system, we need to be sure
of what we mean exactly by a system,
and whether the so-called international
system qualifies as one.
A system has
been defined as “an autonomous unit capable of adaptive behaviour” . Another
definition sees it as “a set of complexes standing in interatction”.1
This theorist. Ladwing Bertalanffy goes
on to state that each set of elements in the system is living and dynamic and
has an environment. The dynamism of the
system, according to this reasoning, is created by the interactions among the
system’s elements, and that between the system itself and its environment,
among others. These interaction promote the system’s adaptive behaviour. It is thus submitted that
a system is an organized whole in
dynamic interaction.2
The
international system which is at times called international political system is
therefore conceived as an organized
whole in dynamic interaction. Reynolds (1971).
See it as “the totality of all boundary-crossing interactions of whatever kind among whatever units”, while William D. Coplin conceives of it more precisely as
“a decentralized political system dominated by competing, relatively
autonomous, territorially based
political organizations”.3 These
“political organizations” are of course the nation states. So, as we stated in our opening statement in
this chapter, the nation-states constitute the main units of the international
system.
Having established
the fact that the nations-states operate
and interact in the environment outside of their borders, that is in the
international environment, in an organized manner, can we then say that they constitute an organized whole and therefore a system? If
yes, what is the nature of that system?
As indicated by
Olusola Ojo and Amada Sesay, in their
concepts in international relations, most theorists in international relations have tended to equate
or liken the international system with the biological systems in a human
body or other organic matter4. In their words: the analysts in their analogy have tended to liken the international system to the biological systems, imputing that just as the biological system of the human body for instance can be
divided into sub-stems, such as the digestive sub-system, the respiratory
sub-system, etc; the international system
can also be sub-divided into sub-systems or sub –regions such as Africa,
the Middle East, Europe, Asia , etc.5
In spite of
these similarities, Ojo and Sesay contend that the international system cannot,
strictly speaking be referred to as a
system, as important differences exist
between it and a biological system. These “important differences”
according to them include the fact that whereas a biological system is
‘natural’, the international system is artificial, it is equally argued that the international system is a ‘cultural’
and ‘conceptual’ creation of the international relations analyst, and theorists. Besides, the
authors go further to contend
that the international system is ‘voluntaristic’ unlike the
biological system. Additionally, it is submitted that ‘the sub-systems
of a biological system are more closely knit and coherent than their counterparts in the international
system’,6 such that what they refer to as ‘imperfect
interdependence and relationships’ are observed to be most important features of
the international system.
While we may
agree with some aspects of the identified differences as highlighted above, it must be stated that
the fact that such differences exist
between the biological and international
and social system, does not in any way
detract form the existence of the international system. As a biological system has its peculiarities, so
does the international system and other social systems. In the domestic
environment, for instance, we do
have some administrative and social
system- the health system, the
financial system, the educational
system, etc. that these do not behave, or
are structured as the biological system of the human body, do not make
them any loss a system. As pointed out
earlier, certain basic requirements are
needed for a structure to be conceived
of as a system. First, there must
be units. Secondly, those units must be in dynamic interaction.
Thirdly, the interaction must take place
or be taking place within a defined
environment; and fourthly, the whole structure must be in an organized
framework. The above conditions are clearly
met by the interactions which
take place between and among nation-states in the interaction environment . it is in recognition of this that Hedley Bull
declares that “a system of state
(or international system) is formed when
two or more state have sufficient impact
on one another’s decision to cause
them to behave at least in some measure as parts of a whole”7
Furthermore, some of the reason adduced to substantiate the so-called differences
between a biological system and the international system do not
seem to appear infallible. For
instance, the assertion that the international system is ‘a ‘cultural’ and ‘conceptual’
creation of the international
politics and international relations analysts’,8 do not appear borne out by the facts of contemporary international life. This is
because states exist as a social
reality. Their interaction in the international environment is also a social reality. If the analysts
observe these interactions as
constituting a system, then the disputation
out to be whether or not they do
actually constitute a system.
Similarly, the
sub-system paradigm also calls certain
assumptions to question. It is given that the sub-systems in the international
system are so loosely connected that
even in a period of ‘unprecedented
globalization”, the rest of the system can afford to carry on and function normally, even when a
particular sub-system is experiencing different levels of cataclysm or upheaval. Instances of American and Chinese isolationist policies are
indicated as having not had any profound
impact on the international system . nor wars, such as Iraq/ iran, Vietnam,
Korean, different versions of sanctions regimes- Iraq, libya,
former Yugoslavia, etc had any impact on
the rest of the international system, as say, a
breakdown or total isolation of the respiratory sub-system of a
biological system will have on the entire
biological system concerned.
It must be
recognized that such isolations as was made reference to above concerned only
some aspects- especially socio-
political and overt economic
multilateral interactions with the rest
of the international system. International aviation was only minimally hampered or not hampered
at all. Commercial vessels were still
crisscrossing the territorial waters of
the countries concerned. International telecommunications was not seriously
hampered. Even in the high tide of the cold war between east and west blocs, inspite of the
so-called “iron curtain”, human and goods traffic were not completely
cut off from any particular part of the
international system. Even tin
times of war in any particular country or region , the above situation largely
obtains. So any comparism of the
situations to a breakdown of a
sub-system in a biological system may
not only be inappropriate, but
misleading. This is because in such a scenario, the entire sub system is
completely removed from the system; and
so the system must collapse if it is indeed a system. In the same vein, if any
sub-region of the international system such as
Africa, the Middle East,
Asia, Europe, America , etc. is completely removed from the rest of the
international system, the system must either collapse completely or suffer
serious convulsions.
We are thus of
the considered opinion that must as the international system must either collapse completely or
suffer serious convulsions.
We are thus of the considered opinion that much as the international system may differ in some respects from a biological system, both are systems,
though they parade certain peculiarities.