Contending Perspectives on the International System 111In a stable multipolar system— a balance- of- power system— the essential norms
are clear to each of the state actors. In systems in which these norms are shared and
observed, alliances are formed for a specific purpose, have a short duration, and shift
according to advantage rather than ideology. Any wars that do erupt are expected to
be limited in nature, designed to preserve a balance of power. As we saw in Chapter 2,
however, when an essential actor ignores the understood norms, the system may become
unstable.
Bipolar systems are those in which the distribution of the power to conquer is con-
centrated in two states or co ali tions of states. In the bipolar system of the Cold War,
each of the blocs (the North Atlantic Treaty Or ga ni za tion, or NATO, and the Warsaw
Pact) sought to negotiate rather than fight, and to fight proxy wars, rather than major
wars, outside of Eu rope. In a bipolar system, alliances tend to be longer term, based on
relatively permanent interests, not shifting ones. Unlike in a multipolar system, each
bloc in a bipolar system is certain about the direction and magnitude of its biggest
threat. In a tight bipolar system, international organ izations either do not develop or
are relatively in effec tive, as the United Nations was during the height of the Cold War.
In a looser bipolar system, international organ izations may develop primarily to medi-
ate between the two blocs, and individual states within the looser co ali tions may try
to use the international organ izations for their own advantage. During much of the
Cold War era, particularly in the 1950s and 1960s, the international system was
bipolar— the United States, its Eu ro pean and Asian allies (NATO, and Japan, South
Korea, South Vietnam [ until 1975], the Philippines, and Australia, respectively) faced
the Soviet Union and its Eu ro pean and Asian allies (the Warsaw Pact, and the People’s
Republic of China, North Korea, and North Vietnam, respectively; and after 1962,
Cuba). But over the course of the Cold War, the relative tightness or looseness of the
bipolar system shifted, as power ful states such as the People’s Republic of China, India,
and France pursued in de pen dent paths.
A unipolar system is one in which the power to conquer all other states in the system
combined resides within a single state. Realists of all sorts still disagree about whether
the world has actually seen a true unipolar system (which, if it were to happen, would
abrogate anarchy and its interstate conflict implications). But immediately after the Gulf
War in 1991, many states, including the United States’ closest allies and virtually all
developing states, grew concerned that the international system had become unipolar.
After all, its chief rival bloc— the USSR and Warsaw Pact— had collapsed, U.S. defense
expenditures were greater than those of the next 15 states combined, and its economy was
three times stronger than the next three economies combined. With that superior-
ity, other states were worried there might be no effective counterweight to the power of
the United States. This concern remains in the twenty- first century. There is little debate
about whether the United States still commands overwhelming material capabilities,
but there is much more discussion over whether the United States can translate thoseESSIR7_CH04_106_131_11P.indd 111 6/14/16 10:04 AM