Karen_A._Mingst,_Ivan_M._Arregu_n-Toft]_Essentia

116 CHAPTER fouR ■ The InTernaTIonal SySTem

actor. Put differently, we might say that most states prefer in de pen dence (sovereignty)

and some risk of war, over a guarantee of peace under the absolute rule of a single state.

Thus, in real ity, the neorealist argument may reduce to the claim that because uni­

polarity will not actually happen, and unipolarity is necessary to suspend anarchy and

war, we can never be entirely at peace in the international system but must always

remain prepared to defend ourselves. This argument explains why, for realists, peace in

the international system must prove elusive.

the International system according to liberals

For liberals, the international system is less consequential as an explanatory level of

analy sis. Therefore, it is not surprising to find at least three diff er ent conceptions of the

international system in liberal thinking.

The first conception sees the international system not as an unchanging structure, but

rather as an interdependent system in which multiple and fluid interactions occur among

diff er ent parties and where vari ous actors learn from the interactions. Actors in this pro­

cess include not only states but also international governmental organ izations (such

as the United Nations), nongovernmental organ izations (such as Human Rights Watch),

multinational corporations, and substate actors (such as parliaments and bureaucracies).

With so many diff er ent kinds of actors interacting with all of the others, a plethora of

national interests defines the liberal international system. Although security interests, so

dominant for realists, are also impor tant to liberals, other interests, such as economic

and social issues, are considered, depending on the time and circumstance. In their book

Power and Interdependence, the po liti cal scientists Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye

describe the international system as an interdependent system in which the diff er ent

actors are both sensitive to (affected by) and vulnerable to (suffering costly effects from)

the actions of others. Interdependent systems have multiple channels connecting states;

these channels exist among governmental elites, nongovernmental elites, and transnational

organ izations. Multiple issues and agendas arise in the interdependent system. Military

force may be useful in some situations, but it is not useful for all issues.^10

Negotiating and coordinating in the liberal international system often occurs

through multilateralism. Multilateralism is based on core princi ples, one of which is

the collective security system. Briefly, collective security rests on the idea that peace is

indivisible: a war against one is a war against all, meaning that the international commu­

nity is obligated to respond. That idea will be examined in greater detail in Chapter 8;

it is a key liberal approach to war and strife. Thus, the possibility of coordinating

be hav ior through multilateralism is a critical component of the liberal view of the inter­

national system.

A second liberal conception sees the international system in terms of a specific inter­

national order. Building on the tradition of Immanuel Kant and  U.S. president

ESSIR7_CH04_106_131_11P.indd 116 6/14/16 10:04 AM