Karen_A._Mingst,_Ivan_M._Arregu_n-Toft]_Essentia

130 CHAPTER fouR ■ The InTernaTIonal SySTem

reflect power realities from the nineteenth century to the early years of the twenty- first,

that idea is disputed because of its Eurocentric bias, its neglect of the international

systems of “ others,” and the empirical difficulties involved in differentiating the inter-

national system and its component parts.

In sum: from the International system to the state

Of all the theoretical approaches, the international system level of analy sis receives the

most attention from realists and radicals. For realists, the defining characteristic of the

international system is polarity; for radicals, it is stratification. In both perspectives,

the international system constrains state be hav ior. Realists generally view such con-

straints as positive, depending on the distribution of power, whereas for radicals, the

constraints are negative, preventing eco nom ically depressed states from achieving equal-

ity and justice. Liberals view the international system from a more neutral perspective

as an arena and pro cess for interaction. Constructivists take an evolutionary approach,

emphasizing how changes in norms and ideas shape what the system means, seeing

little differentiation between international and domestic systems and discounting the

importance that other theorists attach to international system structure.

States and foreign policy decision makers operate within the confines of the inter-

national system. In the next chapter, we examine the state, models of state decision

making, and challenges to the state.

Discussion Questions

1. Is the international system like physical or biological systems? How are these
   systems similar? How are they diff er ent?


2. Realists, liberals, radicals, and constructivists view sovereignty differently.
   Explain.


3. The realist view of the international system has been criticized as oriented to
   the status quo. To what extent is that critique valid? Is that characteristic desir-
   able or not?


4. Neorealists and neoliberals agree on an essential characteristic of the interna-
   tional system. How do they disagree? Why is that disagreement impor tant?


5. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, some theorists argued that Marxism
   had been discredited and was, in fact, dead. Do you think that argument is

ESSIR7_CH04_106_131_11P.indd 130 6/14/16 10:05 AM