112 CHAPTER fouR ■ The InTernaTIonal SySTemcapabilities into effective dominance. In relative terms, U.S. power is on the decline.
China, Japan, and the Eu ro pean Union are rising eco nom ically, as are Brazil and
India, even though U.S. dominance in military expenditures has gone largely unchal-
lenged, save perhaps modestly by China and Rus sia. The trend clearly suggests that
not only is the global distribution of material power widening, but that material power
itself may be less impor tant than many assume, especially as compared to other sorts
of power such as the power of ideas.
The type of international system in place at any given time has implications for sys-
tem management and stability. Are certain polarities more manageable and hence
more stable than others are? Are wars more likely to occur in bipolar systems, multipolar
systems, or unipolar systems? These questions have dominated much of the discussion
among realists, but so far, studies of these relationships have proven inconclusive.
Bipolar systems are very difficult to regulate formally, because neither uncommit-
ted states nor international organ izations can reliably direct the be hav ior of either of the
two poles. Informal regulation may be easier. If either of the blocs is engaged in disrup-
tive be hav ior, the consequences are immediately evident, especially if one of the blocs
gains in strength or position as a result. The neorealist theorist Kenneth Waltz, for one,The Berlin Wall, which divided Soviet- controlled East Berlin from Allied- controlled West Berlin,
was one symbol of the bipolar system that characterized the Cold War. Despite the tension
between the two poles, the Cold War stayed “cold,” which some realists take as evidence
of the stability of a bipolar system.ESSIR7_CH04_106_131_11P.indd 112 6/14/16 10:04 AM