Andrew Leahey

POLI-225 Exam Essay Questions

Essay #1

There are several types of international systems, when classifying these

systems based on the number of power poles they have. Power poles can be

defined as individual actors, or sovereign states, powerful enough to impact

international policy, as well as alliances and inter-government organizations (IGOs)

such as the United Nations or the European Union (54). The number of power poles

can range from one, in a unipolar system, to two competing poles in a bipolar

system, or many, in a multipolar system.

The simplest system to explain is a unipolar system, that is, there is one actor

that holds more sway than any of the others. To some degree this can be said to be

the system in which we currently exist. No entity wields a sufficient enough amount

of political power to seriously challenge the United States on the world stage.

However, that is not to say that there are no challenges from other subordinate

powers (57). The European Union has been said to be created to “[create] a single

European superstate to rival America on the world stage” (54). Unipolar systems,

like all of the other international systems, have specific rules of operation. They

tend to dominate the military and economic world, and consequently are usually

employed to settle international disputes between subordinate actors. Additionally,

they must suppress attempts by subordinate actors to challenge their position (55).

If the EU continues on its path to rival the American superpower, it could

progress towards the creation of a bipolar system. A bipolar system exists when

there are two competing power poles, each wielding equal, or close to equal,

international power. Like unipolar systems, bipolar systems have specific rules by
which they operate. By default, there tends to be a hostility between the two

competing poles (55). This can be seen in the tension between the USA and the

USSR, during the Cold War era. Emerging out of World War II, there were two central

power poles on the international stage. Each side had the desire to eliminate the

other, but had the good sense to avoid outright conflict. Since a bipolar system is

marked by two near-equals competing for the same space, it is unwise for the poles

to engage in direct conflict. The best way to consolidate power and attempt to

undermine the other pole is by expanding your area of influence. This is seen in the

USSR’s expansion across Europe in the years follow WWII, and the USA’s

involvement in the Vietnam Conflict, attempts to expand influence and prevent that

expansion (known in the USA as the containment doctrine), respectively (32).

If both the EU and the USA were to be members of a bipolar system, and a

third state or IGO was to arise, that system might progress in to a tripolar system. A

tripolar system exists when there are three poles, each wielding near-equal power,

and influence, on the international stage. The rules get a little bit more dicey when

you progress passed two poles. The objective for each individual pole is to, at worst,

have a working relationship with the other two actors. At the same time, however,

each pole must be weary of the other two poles forming an alliance, and upsetting

the balance of power. The balance of power is maintained in a tripolar system, so

long as each pole maintains the status quo. As long as no member attempts to

consolidate power with another, against the third, the tripolar system is stable.

The multi-polar system works in a similar way to the tripolar, just scaled up

beyond three poles. The rules for a multi-polar system, like that of the tripolar, are

to oppose any alliances or consolidations of power that would upset the balance of

power (55). In essence, the name of the game is keeping everyone down, so no one
actor wields more power than the rest. It would be preferable to expand your

influence and power, but it is necessary to at least maintain your power (55).

In my opinion, the polar system most likely to bring about global “peace”

would be a multi-polar system. If our goal is to achieve peace and prosperity to the

largest number of people, relative to those that are denied it, this configuration is

definitely preferable. In a unipolar system, every actor save for the power pole is in

a constant struggle to keep its head above water. At the same time, the unipolar

power is struggling to keep them from gaining any meaningful influence (56). In

addition, human nature comes in to play. Subordinate powers will continually

struggle against the power pole, due if nothing else, to pride (56). This of course

would always be the case, as even in a multi-polar system, there will be actors

struggling to become equal to those poles already established. However, limiting

the number of “out” actors by maximizing the number of “in” actors, in a system,

should inherently limit pride conflict.

Furthermore, real life examples of the failing of a unipolar system are plainly

visible today. When the US declared war on Iraq, there were many countries that

refused to back them (57). They more than likely were not pro-Saddam Hussein,

they were just not about to assist the sole power pole, and in so doing prolong that

pole’s dominance. If nothing else, pride prevents meaningful cooperation in a

unipolar system.
 Essay #2

There are two central theories of international relations. These theories are

based on competing ideas as to what causes actors in international relations to act

the way they do. The first thing that should be noted is that the terms are largely

self-appointed by the people that subscribe to it. Therefore, when one discusses the

“realist” (as opposed to the “idealist”) school of thought, one should not mistake the

definitions to mean that the realists operate within the confines of reality, and the

idealists are merely wishful thinkers. A more accurate assessment would be that

realists are pessimistic in regards to human behaviors impact on international

relations, while idealists are optimistic (12).

To say realists are pessimistic, the definition must be clarified. Realists base

the future on the past, and largely see human beings as self-serving individuals,

always acting in their own best interest (13). Unfortunately, history tends to bear

out this assessment. Realists argue that power is the beginning and end, when it

comes to international relations, and security. They tend to lean much more on the

side of peace through power, and believe that wars are inevitable, and can only be

limited by their swift execution. The father of realist thought is Thomas Hobbes (14),

who surmised that humans are, by nature, dominant creatures. He argued that
enemies are created when two individuals, or two groups, desire the same thing,

but both cannot have it (14). This policy is employed in international relations by a

reliance on sovereign states competing for power. The idea here is something like

political Darwinism (16). Those groups that gain the most power, deserve that

power, and all the security that comes with it. Consequently, the best way for a

realist head of state to increase security, is to increase power (15).

Likewise, clarification of the term “optimistic” as a definition of idealists is

required. Idealists (sometimes confusingly referred to as liberals) believe that

humans are capable of cooperation, and are not inherently aggressive by nature

(15). They may concede that historically we have acted out of a greed for power,

but that we must not give up a press towards cooperation and diplomatic relations,

over conflict. Idealists take many of their philosophical beliefs from Jean-Jacques

Rousseau, who argued that human beings as a species formed groups because

operating alone, in each individuals best interest, was no longer working. He further

surmised that, just as we faced extinction if we did not find ways to work together

for our mutual betterment, we again would have to find ways to cooperate if we

wanted to stave off destruction (15). Idealists believe that the application of power

is not the driving force behind international relations, and that ethical

considerations, and an emphasis on principles, must reign over power in policy (16).

Realism has very likely been the more dominant mode of thought for a few

key reasons. First, political entities are made up of human beings, so it follows that

one would find the application of an understanding of their nature beneficial

towards the understanding of politics. Additionally, if we operate solely by judging

future performance by past behavior, the application of realist policies makes sense
(19). Competition, not cooperation has shaped the course of human progress. This

is true on the individual, as well as group, or state-level.

Even during times of peace, many times that peace is held in the balance

only by a realist ideal, the inability to fight a winnable (19). It is understandable

then, that heads of state would not want to risk destruction by relinquishing their

state’s power and adopting an idealist policy. The adoption of an idealist policy

would require a worldwide agreement to adhere to its standards. And, with no state

having any power to enforce the agreement, how long would it be before some

group deviated?

I do believe, however, that if more countries adopted an idealist policy, more

peace would follow. At the very least, it would avoid an ever-increasing power

struggle like that of the Cold War. Also, there is something to be said for

cooperation, and idealism, not being in direct conflict with realism. There are

certainly times where it is in the best interest of all involved to act within idealistic

principles (19). This can be seen by the decrease in wars fought internationally, as

well as the increase in interdependence among states (18). As each individual state

more relies on others for its existence, the benefits of adopting more idealist

policies increase. No longer, then, is it a zero-sum game. Other states prosperity

can be beneficial to your state, as well (18).