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.