Polarity in international relations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article or section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please help improve this article or replace this tag with a more specific message. This article has been tagged since July 2006. (help, talk) |
Polarity in international relations is a description of the distribution of power within the international system. There are three types of systems, Unipolarity, Bipolarity, and Multipolarity. The type of system is completely dependent on the distribution of power and influence of states in a region or internationally.
Contents |
[edit] Unipolarity
- See also: Hegemony
Unipolarity in international politics describes a distribution of power in which there is one state with most of the cultural, economic, and military influence. This is also called a hegemony or hyperpower.
[edit] Examples of Unipolarity
- Mongolian Empire in the 13th and 14th centuries.
- The United States of America from 1991 to the present.
- The Roman Empire from 31 BC to the 5th century.
- Sparta in Greece after the Peloponnesian War.
[edit] Bipolarity
Bipolarity in international politics describes a distribution of power in which two states have the majority of economic, military, and cultural influence internationally or regionally. Oftentimes, spheres of influence would develop. For example, in the Cold War, most Western and democratic states would fall under the influence of the USA, while most Communist states would fall under the influence of the USSR. After this, the two powers will normally maneuver for the support of the unclaimed areas.
[edit] Examples
- India and China were two superpowers during ancient time.
- Carthage and the Roman Republic prior to the Punic Wars
- Spain and Portugal during the 1400s and 1500s (thalassocracies)
- Spain and England during the reign of Elizabeth I and Phillip II
- The United Kingdom (later Great Britain and Ireland) and France from the Act of Union 1707 to the Napoleonic Wars (with periods of other powers rising and waning)
- The United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War
[edit] Regional Examples
- Russia and Japan, up until the Russo-Japanese War of 1905, causing bipolarity in spheres of influence in several parts of China, Korea, and Mongolia.
- Russia and the Ottoman Empire in struggles to attain regions surrounding the Black Sea, from the early 1700s until World War I.
- Israel and Egypt could be considered regional powers in the Middle East during the Arab-Israeli Conflict from 1948-1978
[edit] Multi-state examples of Bipolarity
The bipolar system can be said to extend to much larger systems, such as alliances or organizations, which would not be considered nation-states, but would still have power concentrated in two primary groups.
In both World Wars, much of the world, and especially Europe, the United States and Japan had been divided into two respective spheres - one case being the Axis and Allies of World War II (1939-1945) - and the division of power between the Central Powers and Allied Powers during World War I (1914-1918). Neutral nations, however, may have caused what may be assessed as an example of tripolarity as well within both of the conflicts.
- See also: Superpower
[edit] Multipolarity
Multipolarity in international politics describes a distribution of power in which more than two nation-states have nearly equal amounts of military, cultural, and economic influence.
Pre-Nuclear weapons, this system is considered the least stable of all, but due to the complexity of mutually assured destruction scenarios, with nuclear weapons, however, the opposite may be true. This system tends to have many shifting alliances until one of two things happens. Either a balance of power is struck, and neither side wants to attack the other, or one side will attack the other because it either fears the potential of the new alliance, or it feels that it can defeat the other side.
One of the major implications of an international system with any number of poles, including a multipolar system, is that international decisions will often be made for strategic reasons to maintain a balance of power rather than out of ideological or historical reasons.
The 'Concert of Europe,' a period from after the Napoleonic Wars to the Crimean War, was an example of peaceful multipolarity (the great powers of Europe assembled regularly to discuss international and domestic issues). World War I, World War II, the Thirty Years War, and the Warring States Period are all examples of a wartime multipolarity.
[edit] Multipolarity in the Cold War
Multipolarity could be used to describe the relationship of the three Great Powers of the Cold War: the Peoples Republic of China, the Soviet Union and the United States. The period of tripolarity in the Cold War context is often recognized to have begun with the Nixon's "opening" of China and ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.
It could also be argued that the world in the Cold War resembled more of a blurred tripolar system than a bipolar one, with the Non-Aligned Movement as a third power (see also third world). According to this theory, the depiction of the Cold War as a pure bipolar system is a simplification of the actual much more complex situation.
[edit] Multipolarity Today
A multipolar world can be contrasted with a unipolar international system, such as the US global preponderance of power. According to this widespread view, the USA is so powerful that it can afford to ignore the international community. Of course this view is completely incompatible with multipolarity.
Multipolarity has two possible main views. A "superpower is something of the past" view holds that the USA and USSR in the Cold War were in fact superpowers, but argues that due to the complex economic interdependecies on the international scale and the creation of a global village, the concept of one or more states gaining enough power to claim superpower status is antiquated. There is also the view that through out the Cold War, neither the USA or the USSR were superpowers, but were actually dependent on the smaller states in their "spheres of influence."
While it is not doubted that the US has a great deal of economic clout and has greatly influenced the culture of various nations around the globe, their dependency on foreign investors, resources from developing nations, and foreign trade have created a mutual economic dependency between developed and developing nations. According to those who believe in a modern multipolar system, this interdependency means the US can't be called a superpower as it isn't self-sufficient and relies on the global commonutity to sustain it's people's quality of life. These interdepencies also apply to diplomacy. Considering the complex state of world affairs and the military might of some developing nations, it has become increasingly difficult to engage in foreign policy if it is not supported by other nations. The diplomatic and economic factors that bind the global village together have created a state in which no nation or union could dominate the others, according to those who believe in multipolarity.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
[edit] Measuring the power concentration
The Correlates of War uses a systemic concentration of power formula to calculate the polarity of a given great power system.
- N = the number of states in the great power system
- Sit = the proportion of power possessed by state i at time t (must be a decimal figure)
- S = the proportion of power possessed
- i = the state of which the proportion of control over the system's power is being measured
- t = the time at which the concentration of resources (i.e. power) is being calculated
= the sum of the proportion of power possessed by all states in the great power system
The closer the resulting concentration is to zero, the more evenly divided power is. The closer to 1, the more concentrated power is. There is a general but not strict correlation between concentration and polarity. It is rare to find a result over 0.5, but a result between 0.4 and 0.5 usually indicates a unipolar system, while a result between 0.2 and 0.4 usually indicated a bipolar or multipolar system. Concentration can be plotted over time, so that the fluctuations and trends in concentration can be observed.
[edit] Linguistic Complaint
It is often argued that the term 'multipolar' (and 'unipolar' for that matter) is an oxymoron since the term originate from the Greek 'polos' meaning 'axis', or more specifically, 'one of two ends of an axis going through a sphere'. This contrasts with terms '____lateral', from the Greek 'latus' meaning 'side,' which can accommodate any number.[citation needed]
[edit] See also
| Power in international relations | |
|---|---|
| Power statuses | Middle power | Regional power | Great power | Superpower | Hyperpower |
| Emerging superpowers | China | India | European Union |
| Future geopolitics | African Century | American Century | Asian Century | British Moment | Chinese Century | European Century | Indian Century | Pacific Century |
| Types of power | Soft power | Hard power | Political power | Power (sociology) | Power politics | Power projection | Polarity in international relations |
| Other | BRIC | BRIMC | BRICS | BRICET | Energy superpower | Second superpower | SCO |
[edit] References
- Thompson, William R. On Global War: Historical-Structural Approaches to World Politics. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1988, pp. 209-210.
[edit] External links
- ^ The Global list (No superpower).
- ^ Washington Post (No superpower).
- ^ Huffington Post (No superpower). Retrieved on 2006-06-11.
- ^ Globalpolicy.org (No superpower). Retrieved on 2006-06-11.
- ^ Townhall.com (No superpower). Retrieved on 2006-06-11.
- ^ A Times (No superpower). Retrieved on 2006-06-11.
- ^ Captol Hill Blue (No superpower). Retrieved on 2006-06-11.
