INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM (HISTORY AND 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.     
Structure of the International System:
It has sometimes been  surmised that the international system is characterized by anarchy. This is with regard to the  nature of the interaction  between the nation-states in the   system. This interaction is seen to be characterized by   power and the pursuit of interests by the states. In the absence of an  executive authority, as in  the domestic environment, states  in  the international arena  appear to be imbued with an unfettered  latitude in pursuing these co-called interests, which  are  themselves determined by the states. This appears to be a major  recipe for chaos; since the individual  determination of   interests by sets works to ensure not only a conflict of  interests, but more sinisterly the determination or predilection  to achieve such interests at the  obvious  expense of another or  other states’ interests. This was the attitude that characterized the  European  state system of the 19th and early 20th  centuries.
But as professors Olusola Ojo and Amadu essay have once  again pointed out, “the absence of a central government authority  does not in any way make the international system  synonymous with anarchy or chaos”.9  this  assertion would  appear   more appropriate with regard to the  international   system  of  the period beginning from the end of the First  World War- (what is sometimes referred to as the  contemporary international system).  From this period  onwards, two  universal organization  -  the  league of nations  and the  united nations evolved: not only  to attempt a more  rigorous regulation of state conduct and inter-state  interactions, but also , and   more importantly, to create some form of sanctions in  case of infractions or any violent   violations of such norms of international behaviour agreed  upon and adopted by member nations of the organizations. This  was the harbinger of the so-called sanctions regime, and   other forms of collective security mechanisms as enunciated  in chapter VII 10  of the UN Charter.
            Prior to this   period, the international  system, especially in the  19th and early 20th century Europe was characterized by  combative nationalism which was manifesting in unhealthy   rivalry and competition geared towards  the acquisition of  territories and  sources of raw materials and markets for the  products of the home industries of the various powers. In this period, no organization retained any universal judicial and or executive authority to compel adherence to any universally accepted norms of behaviour by the nation-states.  This does not mean, however, that such norms never existed until contemporary times. The Italian city-states had adopted and  popularized some norms of diplomatic practice in the late  middle ages11. Building on the foundations laid  by the city   states of  ancient  Greece, and  laying the foundations  of modern norms of inter-state  relations in various respects. But  the  ‘combative nationalism’ of  the 19th century Europe,  earlier  referred to, ensured that these norms were largely observed in the breach.
The practice of periodic conferences by the  Europe powers in the early 19th century, the so-called concert  of   Europe (1815)  which aimed at preserving some level of  sanity  in  inter-state  relations following the horrors  of the Napoleonic   and revolutionary wars,  could not achieve much before  it  collapsed  barely a decade later, having  been overwhelmed by  the same germ of virulent nationalism.
Even in the so-called contemporary international system, one  has continued to observe more of  anarchy  than  order. Collective security measurers to redress aggressions  tend to apply only against small and medium powers – Korea  (1950), Iraq (1990), etc .  aggression by great powers  have  been allowed to continue to accentuate the anarchic nature  of   the international system –Soviet-Hungary (1956),  Czechoslovakia (1968),  Afghanistan (1979), US-Grenada (1983) ,  Libya (1987), Iraq (2003)  Italian –Ethiopia (1936) ,  etc. these  and more are all instance of egregious violations   of  the  sovereignty of small stat4s by   great powers which  have  attracted little or no sanction by the international community. 
It is thus reasonable to surmise that the absence of an effective and independent executive authority within  the  international system has tended to accentuate the anarchic nature and structure of the system, rather ameliorating it. It is  indeed true that norms of international behaviour and conduct exist in various  spheres of inter-state  interactions, but these  norms have never been  allowed to apply or operate across the board.  State interests pursued in terms of  ‘power’  have continued to be a hindrance to this.
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