Dinamika Kekuatan Global: Review I

Nama : Niwa Rahmad Dwitama / 0906524274

Jurusan : Hubungan Internasional FISIP UI 2009
Sumber : Barry Buzan, Richard Little,
The Idea of "International System": Theory Meets History accessed from
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0015-7228%28199821%290%3A110%3C29%3AIROWMT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-

International Systems through the Lens of Realist and Neorealist

How one defines international systems is thus about how one defines
international relations as a discipline. Based on Buzan and Little journal and
comparative books, reviewer, hereby, will try to explain definition of international
system in IRs and elaborate the distinctive difference throughout the analytical
lens (approach) of Realist and Neorealist. At the end, the reviewer concludes that
characteristics and interactions of behavioral units (internal factors) are
considered as the direct cause of political events by realist while neorealist
argued that systemic constraints of each country (external factor) rather than
their internal composition.

Bull and Watson's formulated that Int. system is "a group of independent
political communities forming a system, in the sense that the behaviour of each
is a necessary factor in the calculations of others.” There is also the more formal
definition by Waltz that the international system comprises units (states),
interactions and structur. These authors implied that states must be in
sufficiently close and intense contact and an international system does not come
into being until quite high levels of (strategic) interaction exist.

In fact, the historical record suggests that international systems range from
very small, through regional and inter-regional to global in scale. During the
ancient and classical era, it is easy to find examples of international systems on a
quite small scale. During the first half of the third millennium BC, Sumerian
civilization was organized as a system of city-states. This is recognizably an
international system, having independent units, diplomacy, war and trade. Later
in nineteenth and twentieth century, one finds larger regional international
systems.
According to Buzan and Little, The historical record suggests that four types
of interaction are significant for any broadly conceived understanding of
international relations: military, political, economic and cultural . Since the idea of
system is an analytical concept, one has the right to set the criteria for it in an
arbitrary manner. The point is that these choices have consequences for how we
understand and interpret the historical record. If the criteria for defining
international systems are set in a tight and restrictive way (military/ political
1
interaction), then we will see fewer such systems. If the criteria are more open
and less restrictive, we will see more international systems and find them earlier.

Waltz's (1979) understanding of political structure suggests that

international systems always have structure. For Waltz, "a system is composed of
a structure and of interacting parts." He divides political structure into three
tiers: the organizing principle (anarchy), the functional differentiation of units
(units alike in terms of functionality), and the distribution of capabilities (how
many great powers are in the system)1.

The distinctive difference of international relations analysis will be

explained through comparing Morgenthau and Waltz’s arguments. Classical
Realists (Morgenthau) analyze that international systems are caused by factors
focusing on action and interaction of units—principle of human nature, the idea of
interest are defined in terms of power, the attitude of statesmen, rather than
highlighting the systemic constraints of international politics. Power is rooted
from human and statesmen2. The Behavioral methodology of realists explains the
political impact by assessing the main parts of the political system. In other
words, the characteristics and interactions of behavioral units (internal factors)
are considered as the direct cause of political events.

Neo-realists (Waltz) Denied the statement of classical realist that it is

possible to predict the condition of international politics by assessing the
country's internal composition. Waltz opposed with a question: Why is the
country's foreign policy showed the same attitudes despite different political
systems and ideological conflict (i.e. US and USSR: Their Deeds and policy along
Cold War are similar)?3

Realist can not handle the cause at stage of the above countries: ignoring
the important impact of the structure as the forces that shape and encourage
units within the international system. The answer to this question can further be
found in the systemic constraints of each country (external factor: above
countries) rather than their internal composition, because this systematic force
equate foreign policy stance by placing themselves between the countries and
their diplomatic stance (the largest contribution of neo-realism to the traditional
theory). This is based on the power coming from the international anarchist who
became systematically from a state requirement. The theory postulates that the

1
Scott burchill, Andrew Linklater, Teori-Teori Hubungan Internasional (Bandung: Nusamedia, 2009).
page 118
2
Ibid. page 116
3
Ibid.
2
driving force behind decisions in international relations is the fact that states are
trying to respond to changes in international systems in order to survive.4

4
Criticisms of classical realism through neorealism accessed from
http://selfdevelopmentedge.com/critisms-of-classical-realism-through-neorealism/ on
Sept 27th, 2010, at 01.00 am
3