1
International Theory
Author’s Name
Department/University
Course number
Course name
Instructor’s Name
, 2
International Theory
Discussion Points
1: Stability in Bipolar vs. Multipolar Systems
According to Karl W. Deutsch and J. David Singer (1964) (pp. 392-394) the distribution
of power across numerous states creates stability by expanding opportunities for state relations
which yields contradictory pressures that make major conflicts less probable. According to their
analysis power distribution across multiple states creates barriers to systemic wars because states
form alliances that stabilize the system through different interests. Through complex diplomatic
interactions, states develop coalition possibilities that function to reduce open conflicts between
them.
The proposed hypothesis linking multipolarity with stability gains additional backing
from considerations of available attention against conflicts. The increase of independent actors in
the system results in inevitable reductions of dedicated attention shared by each nation toward
other states. While the argument does not require exact attention distribution and equal attention
magnitudes between actors and established actors it still holds property (Deutsch and Singer,
1964, p.396). International system expansion produces distribution patterns regarding state
attention and resources due to multiple independent actors. New actors emerging as sovereign
states and transnational organizations and influential non-state entities force established states to
share their diplomatic economic and security-based attention among a wider network of
relationships. The spread of concentrated attention across multiple countries reduces the level of
exclusive support which states can give to each other singularly. Although complete equality in
attention distribution among all actors is not required the essential rule remains solid: an
increasing number of participants automatically reduces the depth of individual or group
, 3
interactions. The growing numbers of state players redirect established states away from their
primary foreign policy priorities which they previously based on strategic interests and economic
ties and security concerns.
Waltz (1964) argues that bipolar systems achieve better stability by removing external
states because they establish simple and unobstructed relations of power control between the two
superpowers (pp. 881-884). Bipolar systems maintain the highest level of international stability
because both major powers remain continuously informed about each other's activities through
their direct engagement according to Waltz. Waltz maintains that minimal intermediary states
make alliances less complex which decreases unintentional conflict expansion risks (p. 885). The
mind-versus-fact contradiction regarding multipolar stability compared to bipolar stability leads
scholars to explore system conditions for promoting or risking international peace. Does alliance
flexibility under multipolar dynamics create comparable stability systems as the strictly binary
systems in bipolarity for managing disputes?
2: Power Transitions and the Likelihood of War
According to A. F. K. Organski and Jacek Kugler (1980), major wars happen when
challengers become equal in power to a dominant regime and want to change the existing order
(pp. 13-15). According to this theory, the time when both powers are equal in power emerges as
the most dangerous phase because the ascending power might want to change its current political
status yet the ruling power looks to avoid alteration through early action.
The identity of the aggressor in a serious international dispute becomes clear to all when
such conflicts threaten a major outbreak. The identity of the aggressor party will become obvious
to all observers during times of war to all. This seems very uncertain, however. Multiple nations
have declared other countries to be aggressors in incidents of international disputes. The
International Theory
Author’s Name
Department/University
Course number
Course name
Instructor’s Name
, 2
International Theory
Discussion Points
1: Stability in Bipolar vs. Multipolar Systems
According to Karl W. Deutsch and J. David Singer (1964) (pp. 392-394) the distribution
of power across numerous states creates stability by expanding opportunities for state relations
which yields contradictory pressures that make major conflicts less probable. According to their
analysis power distribution across multiple states creates barriers to systemic wars because states
form alliances that stabilize the system through different interests. Through complex diplomatic
interactions, states develop coalition possibilities that function to reduce open conflicts between
them.
The proposed hypothesis linking multipolarity with stability gains additional backing
from considerations of available attention against conflicts. The increase of independent actors in
the system results in inevitable reductions of dedicated attention shared by each nation toward
other states. While the argument does not require exact attention distribution and equal attention
magnitudes between actors and established actors it still holds property (Deutsch and Singer,
1964, p.396). International system expansion produces distribution patterns regarding state
attention and resources due to multiple independent actors. New actors emerging as sovereign
states and transnational organizations and influential non-state entities force established states to
share their diplomatic economic and security-based attention among a wider network of
relationships. The spread of concentrated attention across multiple countries reduces the level of
exclusive support which states can give to each other singularly. Although complete equality in
attention distribution among all actors is not required the essential rule remains solid: an
increasing number of participants automatically reduces the depth of individual or group
, 3
interactions. The growing numbers of state players redirect established states away from their
primary foreign policy priorities which they previously based on strategic interests and economic
ties and security concerns.
Waltz (1964) argues that bipolar systems achieve better stability by removing external
states because they establish simple and unobstructed relations of power control between the two
superpowers (pp. 881-884). Bipolar systems maintain the highest level of international stability
because both major powers remain continuously informed about each other's activities through
their direct engagement according to Waltz. Waltz maintains that minimal intermediary states
make alliances less complex which decreases unintentional conflict expansion risks (p. 885). The
mind-versus-fact contradiction regarding multipolar stability compared to bipolar stability leads
scholars to explore system conditions for promoting or risking international peace. Does alliance
flexibility under multipolar dynamics create comparable stability systems as the strictly binary
systems in bipolarity for managing disputes?
2: Power Transitions and the Likelihood of War
According to A. F. K. Organski and Jacek Kugler (1980), major wars happen when
challengers become equal in power to a dominant regime and want to change the existing order
(pp. 13-15). According to this theory, the time when both powers are equal in power emerges as
the most dangerous phase because the ascending power might want to change its current political
status yet the ruling power looks to avoid alteration through early action.
The identity of the aggressor in a serious international dispute becomes clear to all when
such conflicts threaten a major outbreak. The identity of the aggressor party will become obvious
to all observers during times of war to all. This seems very uncertain, however. Multiple nations
have declared other countries to be aggressors in incidents of international disputes. The
