Language
Country/Area
No result found
Power Distribution in International Relations: How to Define Polarity?
Polarity is a key concept when discussing power structures in international relations. It reflects the distribution of power in the international system at a particular time. Scholars divide the polarity of the international system into three categories: unipolar system, bipolar system and multipolar system, each representing a different number of power centers. The basis of this division lies in the distribution of power and influence of countries on a regional or global scale.
The Cold War was widely considered bipolar, as the United States and the Soviet Union became the world's two superpowers. With the end of the Cold War, the world entered a unipolar era, with the United States becoming the only superpower in the 1990s and 2000s. superpower.
However, there is still much controversy among scholars regarding the definition of polarity in the current international system. Political scientists have yet to reach a consensus on the question: Which polarity is likely to produce the most stable and peaceful international political environment?
Unipolar
Unipolarity is a situation in which one country enjoys absolute power with no other competitors. According to William Wolfors, "In a unipolar system, there can be no checks and balances." A unipolar state is different from an empire or hegemony, which may control the behavior of all other states.
Many thinkers predicted American dominance beyond the 20th century, including William Gladstone and Michel Chevalier.
American primacy
Since the end of World War II, many scholars have argued that the United States has established an international order that continues to maintain its dominance. The balance of power predicted by realists did not materialize because the United States adopted an approach of strategic restraint, making weaker states feel its willingness to cooperate rather than its need to dominate. According to John Eikenberry's analysis, America's strategic restraint allowed weaker states the opportunity to participate in the postwar world order, thereby limiting the United States' opportunities to exploit its full power advantages.
Eikenberry points out that America's hegemony is reluctant, open, and highly institutionalized, which makes it easier for other countries to accept this post-war order.
Current Controversy
Scholars have engaged in heated discussions on whether the international order in 2024 will be unipolar, bipolar or multipolar. Michael Beckley believes that the United States' dominance is seriously underestimated because many power indices do not fully take into account factors such as per capita GDP. Barry Posen said that unipolarity is weakening and the world is moving towards multipolarity.
In 2022, William Wolfors believes that the international system is moving towards neither bipolar nor multipolar, indicating that polarity no longer seems to be important in the current international system.
The impact of conflict and cooperation
Scholars continue to debate the durability of unipolarity and its peaceful nature. Wolfors argues that unipolarity reduces the likelihood of hegemonic competition and balance-of-power politics among major powers, thereby reducing the likelihood of major wars. Some other scholars are also critical, arguing that in the absence of checks and balances, the United States may abuse its international power and cause instability.
According to Kara Nuerlov, US unipolarity is stable and sustainable because several factors contribute to its dominance, including the dollar's status as the world's main reserve currency.
Bipolar vs. Multipolar
Bipolarity is when two countries have dominance. In a bipolar system, spheres of influence and systems of alliances often form around each pole. The Cold War is the most representative example of bipolarity. Multipolarity, on the other hand, is when multiple countries have similar powers. Canada's Godel, World War II, and the post-Cold War international order are all examples of a multipolar structure.
Many classical realists believed that a multipolar system was necessarily more stable than a bipolar system because great powers could gain power through alliances and small-scale wars.
Measurement of concentration of power
The degree of concentration of power can be calculated using the system concentration formula of "War Relationship". Although this formula can provide a preliminary observation, in the current complex international independent environment, further thinking is still needed on how to interpret these data.
According to calculations, when the final result is close to 0, it means that the power distribution is relatively balanced; when it is close to 1, it shows that the power is highly concentrated.
How to understand this distribution of power in current global politics? Especially in an ever-changing international environment, what implications does the analysis of polarity have for future peace and conflict?
