The Anarchic Structure of World Politics by Kenneth - Essay Example

Literature Review The Consequences of Anarchy: The Anarchic Structure of World Politics by Kenneth N. Waltz Summary In this article, the author starts by explaining how politics is ordered as a system, made up of a structure and its associated units. Kenneth Waltz goes on to assert that structure is only significant in definition if connectivity between the units is entirely not taken into account, but their positions or association to one another are focused upon (Waltz 29). The author states that people should ignore the interactivity, personality, and behaviour between actors, and solely look at their relative positions in society. In addition, domestic politics and international politics are perceived to be dissimilar, and their structures are also quite dissimilar. Also, the domestic political structure is defined by the rule of which it is ordered, the specifications of its functions, and the distribution of its capabilities. According to the article, domestic political structure is centralized and hierarchical. Hierarchical means that there are specified rules that impose laws onto the followers. Also, society in the domestic sense is functional and ordered. There are no world leaders who pass total laws onto the citizens. Every state has its specified rule and ideas on what it wants to undertake. The globe is disconnected because of the lack of an overall government. The author brings up a comparison to the economy to highlight how international political structures emerge even in their anarchic state. Waltz states that units’ own interests are individual and spontaneous in origin. Units converge with similar ones to enhance their productivity. In the existing world, this is consistent with the fact that some states unite with others for reasons such as security and safety. They are looking for their stability by depending on a different state. It is also argued that international political structures are found on the basis of states because states are the most significant actors in the world of politics. States play a tremendous part in foreign relations, foreign policy, and trade, so international politics is found on the basis of the states. Particularly, international politics resemble units and states following identical patterns of actions. Finally, it is argued that anarchic or international forms, similar to states or units interrelate with one another, while in hierarchic or domestic forms, different states or units interact (Waltz 47). Contribution to the Field The article has contributed to the field in a number of ways. The article explains that not all states are identical in their views of how international politics should be handled or in their forms of government. It also explains how different nations do not fight one another. This is achieved through the employment of power. In the view of the article, the states with the most supremacy are those with the utmost capabilities. This means that the whole structure of the political system can be altered with modifications in the capabilities of specific states. For instance, a country like Britain has sufficient technology, money, military arms, and intelligence. These are all the essential capabilities to solve problems or take over small nations (Waltz 38). The article shows that a state’s capacity to achieve so much is what gives the state power. In addition, the only way significant things can be achieved is by states with magnificent capabilities. This is one of the foremost reasons countries such as the United Stated of America and Britain get involved in peacekeeping missions in countries, for example the Middle East, Bosnia, among others. These unsafe states tend to battle more because they are not sure about other states. The article helps the students in the field to understand the actions of powerful states. Because these states are the most powerful and secure in the world, it is their responsibility to keep the world stable and satisfied (Waltz 39). It explains why they have the supremacy and why it is their responsibility to keep everything under control. Essentially, the article is meant to highlight that international politics is anarchic. This means that there is disarray, and a lack of a solitary domineering force. Shortcomings The article has a number of shortcomings. It does not offer a broad explanation for readers who would want the powerful nations, for example, Britain and the United States of America, to stay out of other nations’ activities and focus on their own issues. The article also does not offer a solid explanation as to why the structure of the universe is pretty much identical, for instance, Europe and the USA as major world powers. Finally, it does not offer solutions or ways of changing the way things are being handled so as to bring change in the world. International Systems: Vicious circles and Virtuous circles by Bruce M. Russett and John R. Oneal Summary This article begins by illustrating a statement made by the secretary of state under President George Bush, James Baker, attempting to address some of the fundamental questions relating to international relations. They narrowed these concerns to; what are the reasons for some states existing peacefully with their neighbours, neither at war with their neighbours nor threatening them, while other states appear to be always entangled in acts of intermittent war and violence; and reasons for some states, after a prolonged period of fight, alter their basic relation and pursue peaceful relationships and cooperative relations. The article also addresses the modern state system. It asserts that in world politics, the most considered actors are countries, frequently referred to as states. Nonetheless, they are not the only actors or the most significant ones. Other actors are international organizations. These organizations may affect national and international politics significant whether their purpose is obviously political or not. Russett and Oneal also state that the global system is made up of different actors. These actors also relate to some extent and may affect one another. A system is made up of causal relations, patterns of interaction, and institutions connecting its component units. It is also stated that states are the institutions that administrates the individuals within their territorial borders. The article goes on to claim that the system of competitive states has been referred to anarchic, but it should not be associated with chaos. Also, the authenticity of the system is perceived to be strengthened when states adopted the rules of the game, but when they defied them, the system threatened to disintegrate into something dangerous and nasty. The article also looks at anarchy as a potentially vicious circle. It is asserted that the anarchic system of independent states has persisted for long. According to realist theories, states should always be cautious. Russett and Oneal also explain the creation of virtuous circles. It is argued that much of international relations involve peaceful relations that are not perceived to be threatening but equally valuable. Also, the article addresses the background and legacy of the European achievement. It is asserted that both the post world war II leaders of Europe and several eighteenth century writers had theorized that democracy, economic interdependence, and international institutions were key elements that would lead to a stable prolonged peace. The authors also examine a complex system of interactions supporting peace. It is claimed that the idea of international politics as probably cooperative is not regarded globally. Finally, the article looks at the three points of the Kantian Triangle, democracy, economic interdependence, and international organizations and its impact on future politics. Contribution to the Field The article has contributed to the field in several ways. The article provides several explanations as to why some states coexist peacefully with their neighbouring states, neither in conflict with their neighbours nor threatening their neighbours, while there are other states which seem to always be entangled in acts of intermittent war and violence (Russett and Oneal 47). The article goes on to search for reasons why some states, after an extended duration of war, change their relationship with one another and search for cooperative relationships and peaceful associations. In addition, the article attempts to explain the modern state system. It provides a significant explanation as to why the states are the most considered actors in international politics. It is also imperative to the field as it clarifies there are numerous actors who are all vital in the politics of the world, and all these actors may have an impact on both international and national politics even if their intended purpose is not political. The article also helps in highlighting the causal relations, patterns of interaction, and institutions connecting the most significant component units. It helps people in the field to understand that anarchy should not be linked to chaos. The article is also essential as it assesses anarchy as a probable vicious circle and provides an explanation related to the establishment of virtuous circles (Russett and Oneal 52). The article makes a significant contribution to the filed by providing an assessment of the complicated system of interactions supporting peace and a sufficient explanation of the Kantian Triangle in relation to future politics. Shortcomings There are several shortcomings in the article. The article does not highlight the responsibilities of international organizations as significant actors in the political system. Also, it does not explain why several states have not attempted to break out of the vicious circle of war, fear, and hostility. For instance, states with significant capabilities will use them to instil fear, start war, or hostility to solve problems or take over small nations. Work Cited Russett, B. M., and Oneal, J. R. Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2001. Print. Waltz, K. N. Theory of International Politics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979. Print. Read More