118 CHAPTER fouR ■ The InTernaTIonal SySTemtopic of the international agenda. In the twenty- first century, transnational concerns
such as human rights, the environment, and health have assumed a much more promi-
nent role. These are fundamental changes in the international system, according to most
liberal thinking.
Third, change may occur when new actors, including multinational corporations,
nongovernmental organ izations, or other participants in global civil society, augment or
replace state actors. The vari ous new actors may enter into new kinds of relationships and
may alter both the international system and individual state be hav iors. These types of
changes are compatible with liberal thinking and are discussed by liberal writers. And,
like their realist counter parts, liberal thinkers also acknowledge that change may occur in
the overall power structure among the states. In contrast, radicals advocate major changes.
On the critical question of whether war is something we must live with, liberals are
distinct from realists in arguing that a dif er ent feature of human nature— besides fear
and greed— helps explain how we might transcend and eradicate war. In the liberal
view, the economic or material self- interest of states can lead to cooperation, including
cooperation across what were once considered zero- sum issues. For example, in the lib-
eral view, cooperation to reduce tarif barriers to trade, after a while, may lead to
cooperation on professional standards, immigration controls, and even, eventually,
security cooperation. Change in the system, and in the likelihood of war in the sys-
tem, then comes after de cades, even centuries, of painstaking, at times reversed, but
ultimately more comprehensive cooperation. In sum, whereas realist theory remains
pessimistic about the possibilities of transcending perpetual war, liberal theory holds
out an optimistic possibility of an evolution toward perpetual peace.the International system according to radicals
Whereas realists define the international system in terms of its polarity and stability,
radicals seek to describe and explain the structure in totally dif er ent terms.
Radicals describe the structure of the international system by stratification. Strati-
fication refers to the uneven— and relatively fixed— division of valued resources among
dif er ent groups of states. The international system is stratified according to which states
have valued resources, such as oil, military strength, or economic power. Stratification
parallels a Marxist emphasis on social class within states: developed, wealthy, advanced-
industrial cap i tal ist states represent the bourgeoisie, and developing, poor, agrarian
states represent the proletariat. Because, just as in the within- state critique of labor
exploitation, the distribution of wealth is fixed and supported by violent force, strati-
fication in the international system is the key to understanding the radicals’ notion of
the system and pathways to change (see Figure 4.2).
Dif er ent international systems have had varying degrees of stratification. Histori-
cally, system stratification is extensive. According to one set of mea sures, several of theESSIR7_CH04_106_131_11P.indd 118 6/14/16 10:04 AM