CATEGORIZATION OF THE STATE SYSTEM - INTERNATIONAL RELATION



In strict legal consideration, the  states of   the international  system are said to be equal one to another. This  is  what is normally referred   to as  “sovereign equality”  as  provided for in  article  2 of the charter of the united nations  in reality, however, vast inequality exists among the states  of the international system.
As  already pointed out,  differences or inequality could be observed in various areas  ranging from population  size, geographical expanse, natural resource endowment,  economic buoyancy, patriotic zeal and nationalism;  to military   capability  and national  morale.  In this section, we are concerned with categorizing and   classifying the state system in the power   political context.

This  presents a number of problems. As was noted during the consideration of  national power, the power  position of a state is the result  of many variable- tangible  and intangibles. However,  certain general yardsticks can be  employed in determining the various cadres into which states may be categorized in their power index.
Before attempting the categorizations, it is necessary to determine how many such categories exist.  States  have been classified into  great powers or major powers and small powers or lesser powers, we do also speak of  “world  pwers”,  “super powers”,  “middle powers” and  what Palmer and Perkins refer to as ‘powers of uncertain status’.22  These  classifications would l appear more historical than  contemporary. The state system in the contemporary period  (at least since 1945)  can be delineated or categorize into four  main groups –super powers, great powers  or major powers,  medium powers  and small or nominal powers.  
In deciding which state falls under which category , certain  are usually used. This  brings us back to the national power  paradigm. Thus  the ability/inability  of a state  to  impose its will with a credible measure of coercive sanction to compel compliance  from the greatest number  of states and non-state actors in the international environment ,  remains a clear determinant to its positioning in the various categorizations mentioned above.
Using the above criteria, it is  thus axiomatic that the  super powers are at the apex of a pyramidal configuration of   the  states system in the power political context. This  is  because they are well –placed and endowed  with  requisite  national power to compel compliance from the greatest  number of states to either do their will or refrain from openly opposing them in international political arena.  Some writers refer to super power    as those states that had or have ‘worldwide possessions and interests”. This is not saying anything different from our previous contention, retaining the ability to be considered as have worldwide possessions and interests is a function of a states national power.
Between 1945 and 1989, the world played host to  two super powers – the untied states of America (USA)   and the  Union of Soviet socialist republics (USSR).  In the   period  before 1945, the  term  super power had not come into general  use, it was not   that there were no powers that came close to  meeting the  general requirements of that status,  commentators  of that period preferred to refer to them as ‘world powers”.  Colonial great Britain, France, Portugal, Belgium, Spain, including the Netherlands could be included in this categorization in descending order of importance
A more appropriate terminology and one ‘sanctified by long historical usage’ is the great power or major power.  The nation –building careers of Otto Von Bismack  in  Prussia  and Carvour in Italy, saw   the emergence of Germany and  Italy  as  great powers.  The duo joined great Britain, France,  Russia and later Japan in the rank of the great powers of the 19th century international system.
With the advent in 1945 of the UN system the  international system  began to experience some  metamorphosis –the  two super powers (already referred to )  fused with three other powers –France , Britain  and china  to form the five permanent members of the security council with  vetores or casting vote.  Thus  as part of the “dividends”  of their roles in World War II, Germany and Japan lost their status as great pwers of the post –war international system. This was, of course, a direct consequence of the victory of the allies against the axis powers in World War II. It is necessary to note that Germany effectively joined the rank for the great power following its victory in the Franco-Prussian war of 1871. In the same vein, Japan almost completely eclipsed Russia’s claim to great power  status following its decisive  victory in the  1904/05 Russia-Japanese war.
While  one can declare with   some measure of confidence that in the  19th century international system,  victory in major conflicts  remained one of the clearest  determinants in upward mobility of states on power categorizations. The opposite also remained a sure way of losing such status, the contemporary international system does not appear to have shown any marked departure from  the above scenario. It is obvious, for instance, that if Iraq had   defeated the world coalition thrown against it, thereby making   good its claim or  Kuwait as its  19th  province, it would have emerged not only a major  power  within the Middle-East , but more importantly, a major world player in energy politics and  the armaments that  would  be needed to advance and protect  its  interests ion those areas.  The fluidity of power and the vicissitudes that attend its deployment and management make precise categorizations of states in the power political context problematic. A great power today could became a  medium or nominal  power tomorrow, and vice  versa.
The situation became peculiarly hazy following the post world war ii emergence of the US and the USSR as super power as indicated earlier. With  the  emergence of the  untied states as the sole superpower following the  diminution of soviet power in 1989,  the situation appear a bit  clearer, the seven most industrialized  states – Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, U,S,A Canada  could be considered as   the great powers  of the contemporary era.  The medium   powers would then be the regional influential.  That is  those states whose influence is preponderant in their various  regions –India, Pakistan in West Asia ; Japan and China in North Asia, Indonesia, South East Asia,  Brazil,  Argentina  Chile, South America, Israel ,  Saudi Arabia, Middle East;  Nigeria, West Africa, Egypt, North Africa, South Africa ,  Southern Africa; Kanya, Tanzania, East Africa ; etc.
The small  powers or normal state have  been described as “powers  with the means of defending only limited interests”.23 With this categorization, small states  will   include all the state of the international system except the  great and medium powers, perhaps we may state for purposes  of emphasis that most of the categorization indicated above  are made  purely for analytical purposes  and they  do not   in  any  way represent it closed  case  of taxonomical classification of the entire state system in their power index.
Share on Google Plus

Declaimer - MARTINS LIBRARY

The publications and/or documents on this website are provided for general information purposes only. Your use of any of these sample documents is subjected to your own decision NB: Join our Social Media Network on Google Plus | Facebook | Twitter | Linkedin

READ RECENT UPDATES HERE