1. POL 540 GLOBAL POLITICAL SYSTEMS
Polarity
What Polarity looks like inside the international system?
Phillip Mitchell
11/1/2015
This journal determines how power is measured inside the international system by determining
balance-of-power frameworks that determine how power and influence are structured within the
international system. The journal goes to explain that the balance-of-power frameworks are
determined by polarity in the sense that international economic zones structure power within the
international system creating different layers of polarity making the practice of international
politics hard to predict at times leading to instability in preserving international order. Finally, at
the end of the journal, I structure polarity and power as provide evidence that a multipolar world
serves the international system a better shot at achieving a more peaceful international order by
producing increased economic and political institutions to help create prosperity opportunities
for all states inside the international system.

2. In the current world of international politics and affairs, global connectedness and
integration are shifting how the international system functions by affecting how the balance-of-
power is affecting the global and regional system within the international system. This means
that the current balance-of-power (equilibrium) is west to east meaning that the degree of power
and influence inside the international system is controlled by the west inside the international
system creating the framework for how the international system should look (Rourke, J.T., 2008,
p. 44, 93). However, as the balance-of-power shifts from the west to the east, it is creating an
imbalance within the international system of producing more of a McWorld scenario (where
states are becoming highly integrated due to the rapid growth of economic interdependence and
globalization) which is creating polarity shifts in how international relations are viewed inside
the anarchic structure of international politics (Rourke, J.T., 2008, p. 54). Polarity inside the
international system can be described in three different ways: unipolar, bipolar, and multipolar
which dictate how States are described based on their hegemonic status to determine how they
compete inside the anarchic structure of international relations. This triangle shape of polarity
determines how the international system functions determining how strong and weak states are
formed which means that each system plays an important part in creating balance-of-power
models that reflect current regime status and power inside the international system.
As mentioned, polarity determines the rules of international politics. This unfortunate
reality produces an imbalance within the international system because it creates a lone
superpower or a unipolar system made up of a single country because its power and influence
allows it to achieve global hegemony status (Rourke, J.T., 2008, p. 93). In addition, the structural
imbalance inside the current multipolar world of the international system, a bi-polar world of
structures exist as well meaning that poles (economic zones) determine how two equal actors are

3. divided inside the international system (Rourke, J.T., 2008, p. 45). These same economic zones
determine how the structure of a multi-polar world exist as well meaning that power is held by
four or more international actors (States) in determining how to structure of power is balanced
inside the international system creating how status and legitimacy is distributed among
advanced, strong, failed and weak states in determining the right achieved status (Rourke, J.T.,
2008, p. 42).
These economic poles are equitable within the international system which determines
how polarity is distributed. This means that the major powers determine how sovereignty rights,
and sovereignty issues are distributed throughout the international system which creates
jurisdiction over territorial land and sea which helps determine how economic zones emerge
making boundaries and imaginary lines possible to create the multipolar world that exists within
the international system today (Berkman, P. , 2015). In addition, these economic zones centers
power within the international system which promote stability and within the anarchic structure
helping make sense of polarity to determine which type of polarity is the best choice for the
international system (James & Brecher, 1988, p. 31, 32). In turn, polar statuses determine how
economic power is achieved within the international system, helping to distribute how
poles/clusters, power centers/autonomous actors are aligned within the anarchic structure making
the practice of international relations stable and predictable (James & Brecher, 1988, p. 33-34).
In essence, polar statuses determine how military power and political decisions are made
allowing different poles to take shape in determining how power can be stratified in determining
how hegemony is asserted by state actors while achieving stability and international order to
create an ideal balance-of-power model that reflects all economic, political, and military
attributes of individual States inside the international system (James & Brecher, 1988, p. 35-38).

4. Territorial land blocs are determined by polarity status, which makes alliance and node
patterns harder to structure inside the international system. This means that with international
cooperation less likely to form from the international system, hegemonic interests will arise
creating instances of war and instability, leading to chaos and other instable factors inside the
anarchic structure of international politics, making polarity hard to predict and manage within the
international system (James & Brecher, 1988, p. 38-40). In turn, the increase in hegemonic
interests could go on for long periods of time making the international system vulnerable to
prolonged instability and global unrest such as prior periods of prolonged conflict; like in the
1960’s during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Second World War (1945-62), and during the USSR in
the 1980’s which had similar power and land blocs which determined how polarity was achieved
after these periods of long conflict eroded (James & Brecher, 1988, p. 38-40). In essence,
prolonged conflict of territorial land blocs create unpredictability of polarity status within the
international system because complex political, economic, and military affairs define the
anarchic structure of international politics and any disruption to land blocs and territorial assets
means a disruption in how economic, political, and military decisions are determined making the
international system more chaotic and unpredictable.
State strength determines how power is assigned inside the international system. Power is
assigned by structures. This means that advanced democracies (countries with institutionalized
democracies and high levels of economic development); failed states (states with weak political
structures collapse, leading to anarchy and violence); strong states (state’s ability to fulfill basic
tasks, such managing its territory, managing the economy, and making and enforcing rules); as
well as weak states (state’s inability to fulfill basic tasks, such as managing its territory, and
other domestic policy issues); determine how relative power is distributed within the

5. international system (O’Neil, P.H., 2010, p. 318, 320, 325). In turn, each international state
structure determines how relative power is measure which means that power is measured in
comparison with other international actors inside the international system creating how
resources, and assets are distributed throughout the international system among States (Rourke,
J.T., 2008, p. 235, 237).
Since resources and assets are distributed in terms of relative power within the
international system where polarization becomes a major problem in determining how States
manage their hegemonic status within the international system. This means that international
polarization is affected by domestic internal policy struggles such as the case here in the United
States where policymakers are not tackling issues such income inequality, allowing the power
elites (plutocrats, oligarchs, and ultra-elites who have policy preferences inside political and
social institutions) to undermine how relative power is managed (Bafumi & Parent, 2012, p. 1-
35). In turn, these domestic policy challenges allow other international actors to take advantage
of internal state weakness to challenge polar status within the international system. In turn, this
means in theory another strong state with roughly equal status inside the international
community could challenge the unipolar status of the United States which would change how
poles are maintained within the international system creating changes within power and status
which could affect how harmony is shaped inside the international system (Bafumi & Parent,
2012, p. 1-35). In sum, a change in polarity would change how political power within political
institutions would be distributed by allowing structural changes such as defining roles, statuses
of legislative-policymaking branches of government such as Congress to take shape inside
political institutions to manage the change in polarity could challenge the economic status of

6. elites inside the international system, leading to the erosion of unipolarity creating a increasing
complex multipolar world within the international system (Bafumi & Parent, 2012, p. 1-35).
This possible erosion of unipolarity could create a fundamental shift inside the
international system which affect how relative power status is administered among other strong
and advanced democracies. In addition, the erosion of unipolarity status by the United States
would provoke balancing coalitions to join against the United States in competing for its status
within the international system using hegemonic means and capabilities to further de-legitimatize
the economic and political status of the United States by defining its new role inside the
international system (Bafumi & Parent, 2012, p. 1-35). However, this means that autonomy and
state hegemony could be structured different in terms of capacity, relative power, and role status
within the international system creating domestic institutional stalemates within the United
States and global competitors wielding their status to become equal to that of the United States or
greater which would fundamentally shift the current balance-of-power model from West to East,
to East to West (Bafumi & Parent, 2012, p. 1-35). In turn, these international shifts in power and
polarity would determine how multilateral relations are identified and shared throughout the
international system creating a new identity within the structure of global politics which would
be structured by EU members determining how economic statuses and political power where
distributed among states within the international system (Tocci & Alcaro, 2014, p. 366-389).
As mentioned, international shifts in power and polarity could lead to a new identity
forming within the international system making different economic systems take the place of
capitalism. As Tocci & Alcaro illustrate recent shifts in transatlantic relations such as the recent
shift in U.S. foreign policy to Asia and the Pacific allow this new identity to become a realistic
possibility in creating the twenty-first century structure within the international system of

7. multipolarity (Tocci & Alcaro, 2014, p. 366-389). This shift is possible because the relationship
status between the United States and the EU has eroded, which means that the once strong
partnership is not as strong as it used to be because of strong forces within the international
system such as the annexation Crimea, Ukraine, the negotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership
trade deal, the civil war in Syria, among other international forces have shaped the framework
for how the international system functions (Tocci & Alcaro, 2014). These international forces
include inclusive international political institutional ties and node networks which determine
how rational actors inside the multipolar world would function, where the “United States would
serve as an Asian power, and the EU would serve as an Asian partner,” which means economic
interests will be mutually inclusive creating new poles of economic opportunity, security, and
regional power balance inside the multipolar world which exists (Tocci & Alcaro, 2014, p. 366-
389). These new poles of international structures would create an enduring partnership that
would transform the domestic political systems inside Asia to being more liberal and create
greater international cooperation by pursuing structured horizontal relationships that are
decentralized and independent in determining how common identities and interests are aligned
inside the international system (Tocci & Alcaro, 2014, p. 366-389).
In short, these new identities that are multipolar in nature would determine how policy
domains and institutional alliances are formed inside the international going forward. This new
dynamic of a multipolar system would produce a more soft power approach to international
politics in the sense that multiple advanced and strong states within the international system
could wield their traits and power effectively to create institutional and economic alliances which
could further the impact soft power has on the international system. This could produce
increasing opportunity for failed states to become strong states and start managing their

8. economies to create increasing stability and predictability inside the international making this
new multipolar system beneficially to all states inside the anarchic structure making the
international system more peaceful, stable and prosperous inside the international system. In
conclusion, a multipolar shift in international relations means that power and status shifts would
be for the betterment of the whole international system to preserve the anarchic structure of
international relations in using multiple state attributes to determine how polarity and soft power
are defined within the confines of the new (mulitpolar) international system.
References:
Tocci, N. & Alcaro, R. (2014). Rethinking transatlantic relations in a multipolar era.
International Politics, 51(3), 366-389. Palgrave-Macmillan. Retrieved from
https://www.search.proquest.com.ez.proxy.snhu.edu/docview/1524692574?pq-
origsite=summon&accountid=3783 on November 1, 2015.
Bafumi, J. & Parent, J.M. (2012). International polarity and America’s Polarization.
International Politics, 49(1), 1-35. Palgrave-Macmillan. Retrieved from
https://www.search.proquest.com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/docview/916804450?pq-
origsite=summon&accountid=3783 on November 1, 2015.
James, P. & Brecher, M. (1988). Stability and Polarity: New Paths for Inquiry. Journal of
Peace Research, 25(1), 31-42. Retrieved from
https://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.snhu.edu/stable/423979?pq-
origsite=summon&seq=8#page_scan_tab_contents on November 1, 2015.

9. Berkman, Paul, Dr. (2015). Race for the Arctic: Let the North Pole be a pole of peace.
Global: the International Briefing. Retrieved from https://www.global-briefing.org/2011/07/let-
the-north-pole-be-a-pole-of-peace/ on November 1, 2015.
Rourke, J.T. (2008). International Politics on the World Stage. Twelfth Edition, 42, 44,
45, 54, 93, 235, 237. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
O’Neil, P.H. (2010). Essentials of Comparative Politics. University of Puget Sound.
Third Edition, 318, 320, 325. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Baev, P. (2007). Russia’s Race for the Arctic and the New Geopolitics of the North Pole.
The Jamestown Foundation, 3-12. Retrieved on November 1, 2015 from
https://www.jamestown.org/uploads/media/Jamestown-BaevRussiaArctic_01.pdf.