Karen_A._Mingst,_Ivan_M._Arregu_n-Toft]_Essentia

Contending Perspectives on the International System 113

argues that because of this visibility, the bipolar international system is the most stable

structure in the long run: the two sides are “able both to moderate the other’s use of

vio lence and to absorb possibly destabilizing changes that emanate from uses of vio­

lence that they do not or cannot control.”^2 In such a system, a clear difference exists in

how much power each pole holds compared with what other state actors hold. Because

of the power disparity, each of the two poles can focus its activity almost exclusively on

the other. Each can anticipate the other’s actions and accurately predict its responses

because of their history of repeated interactions. Each tries to preserve this balance of

power to preserve itself and the bipolar system. In 2012, Waltz reprised a similar argu­

ment in “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb.” He argues that Israel’s nuclear capability

is destabilizing the region: “If Iran goes nuclear, Israel and Iran will deter each other,

as nuclear powers always have.” That would bring stability.^3

Pointing to the stability attained in the bipolar Cold War system, John Mearsheimer

provoked controversy by suggesting that the world would miss the stability and pre­

dictability that the Cold War had forged. With the end of the Cold War bipolar sys­

tem, Mearsheimer argued, more interstate conflicts would develop and hence more

possibilities for war. He felt that deterrence would be more difficult and miscalcula­

tions more probable. He drew a clear policy implication: “The West has an interest in

maintaining peace in Eu rope. It therefore has an interest in maintaining the Cold War

order, and hence has an interest in the continuation of the Cold War confrontation;

developments that threaten to end it are dangerous.... A complete end to the Cold

War would create more prob lems than it would solve.”^4 Most analysts did not agree

with this provocative conclusion, partly because factors other than polarity can affect

system stability. Yet others have pointed to the Rus sian Federation’s recent forceful

annexation of the Crimea from Ukraine as evidence that Rus sia’s current president,

Vladimir Putin, both understands the importance of bipolar rivalry for international

stability and has begun taking steps to reenact that rivalry.

Of course, both bipolar and multipolar systems are, or can be, “balance of power”

systems. According to realists, multipolar systems can be very stable so long as the sys­

tem’s key actors internalize norms of competition and cooperation. For neorealists, how­

ever, balance of power is more difficult in multipolar systems because they involve more

inherent uncertainty about where and when a threat might emerge (including the threat

of a given state ignoring impor tant balance of power norms). For this reason, neorealists

argue that bipolar systems are likely to be more peaceful. Again, the empirical evidence

is mixed.

In contrast, hegemonic stability theorists claim that an approximation of

unipolarity— hegemony— may be sufficient to create and maintain a stable interna­

tional system. So long as the hegemon— a word coming from the Greek “to lead”—is

able and willing to act, and act in ways that benefit t hose it leads as well as itself, enduring

and prosperous peace can result. In The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, historian

Paul Kennedy argues that the hegemony of Britain in the nineteenth century and the

ESSIR7_CH04_106_131_11P.indd 113 6/14/16 10:04 AM