Polarity

Question 1

what is polarity?

Answer 1

Polarity is the nature of the international system at any given time in terms of how power is distributed

It essentially refers to the world order and is a description of the distribution of power and authority among states and others in the international system

Question 2

what are the three types of polarity?

Answer 2

Three main ways in which power is distributed; uni polarity bipolarity and multipolarity

Each of which have different implications for global peace and security

Question 3

briefly outline each type of polarity

Answer 3

Uni polarity is an international system where there is one dominant pole

Bipolarity is an international system revolving around two poles

Multipolarity is an international system in which there is at least three or more poles

Question 4

what do realists and liberals disagree about?

Answer 4

Realists and liberals disagree about which of the systems is more likely to prevent conflict and which one is more likely to lead to chaos and instability

Question 5

UNIPOLARITY: what is unipolarity?

Answer 5

Uni polarity is an international system where there is only one dominant pole of power

This pole faces a lack of constraints and there is no potential rivals to this one pre-eminent power state or pole in the world

When a single power is this overwhelmingly dominant it is known as a global hegemon

there can be predatory hegemony where the dominant power act aggressively or benign hegemony where the dominant power acts with good intentions

Question 6

UNIPOLARITY: what do realists see unipolarity as?

Answer 6

Realists particularly neorealists see unipolarity and the pursuit of hegemony as the natural consequence of states seeking power and security in an anarchic system

especially since the surest way to protect the state from threats is to become the dominant power or hegemon

Question 7

UNIPOLARITY: what do realists think about unipolarity?

Answer 7

Realists tend to favour a system of unipolarity and believe that it can have benefits for the wider international system

The dominant power can act as the worlds policeman intervening in conflict between other states that threat and peace or security and preventing human rights abuses in civil conflicts

It can also help guarantee economic and financial stability by setting the ground rules of economic behaviour maintaining these rules too

The terms Pax Britannicus and Pax Americana refer to the roles played by Britain and the United States at different points in history in acting as guardians of the world order

Question 8

UNIPOLARITY: what do liberals believe about unipolarity?

Answer 8

Liberals believe that unipolarity does not lead to the emergence of a benign force that promotes global peace and prosperity rather they fear the emergence of a predatory hegemon that desires power at all costs

Other powers come to fear the megalomania of the dominant power leading to a security dilemma

the very process of achieving dominance creates insecurity and hostility which inevitably leads to conflict

Question 9

BIPOLARITY: what is bipolarity?

Answer 9

An international system that revolves around two poles or two major power blocs

two states dominate the international system rather than just one

For a system to be truly bipolar there must be near equality or a balance of power between the two states

Question 10

BIPOLARITY: what do realists believe about bipolarity?

Answer 10

Realists believe that bipolar tea is a natural tendency in the world order states seek to establish a bipolar balance of power to curb the hegemonic ambitions of all states

If such a balance of power is established states are less likely to seek hegemony because they anticipate being countered by other states therefore equilibrium is achieved as no one seeks to challenge the two dominant powers this leads to peace and stability in the international system

Question 11

BIPOLARITY: what do liberals believe about bipolarity?

Answer 11

Liberals believe that bipolarity does not curb the ambitions of states

Although the hegemonic ambitions of the two dominant powers are curbed in the short term, There may come a time when circumstances allow one to emerge as the dominant power

So in anticipation of this the two dominant powers compete with each other often through an arms race which leads to tension and insecurity in the international system

Question 12

BIPOLARITY: US and Soviet Union bipolarity

Answer 12

Between 1945 and 1989 the US and Soviet union were the two dominant powers

They dominated to roughly equal blocks the US leading NATO war the Soviet union led the Warsaw Pact these two blocks of power dominated world politics during the Cold War

They were matched militarily with armed forces of similar strengths and roughly the same numbers of nuclear warheads so much so that if they were to launch these warheads at each other there would be mutually assured destruction

Question 13

BIPOLARITY: US and Soviet Union bipolarity

Answer 13

NATO and the Warsaw Pact were led by superpowers the US and Soviet union that competed militarily but also politically and economically

They embraced opposing ideologies with the US endorsing liberal democracy and capitalism while the Soviet union endorsed communism

The Berlin Wall built in 1961 to separate the eastern zone of Germany controlled by the Soviets from the western zone of Germany controlled by the USA Britain and France epitomised the divisions between the two superpowers

Question 14

BIPOLARITY: US and Soviet Union bipolarity

Answer 14

However it can be argued that this bipolar Arity was merely an illusion and the US was always the true hegemon

The Soviet union matched the USA military might almost exactly the same in terms of number of tanks nuclear warheads and soldiers but it was never able to achieve economic parity, the USA was ahead in terms of the economy

Soviet resources were diverted to the arms and space races occurring at the time meaning that production of consumer goods declined as a relative share of the Soviet economy therefore the potential for economic development was squandered

When the superpowers rivalry intensified later on the Soviet union could simply not match increases in US military spending

the glasnost (openness) and perestroika (Economic reform) of the Gorbachev era (1985 to 91) were an acceptance of the Soviet union’s economic weakness which was undermining its status as a military superpower

Question 15

BIPOLARITY: US and Soviet Union bipolarity

Answer 15

In 1989 the Berlin Wall fell as East Germany was permitted to open its border with West Germany and the Soviet union gave up its military and political domination of Eastern Europe in recognition that the Soviet bloc was no match for the USA

This ended bipolarity and the Soviet union eventually collapsed in 1991

Question 16

MULTIPOLARITY: what is multipolarity?

Answer 16

And international system where there are three or more power centres

Multiple powers of power in which several states compete with each other they may have different strengths and weaknesses in terms of their power but each wields relatively equal influence on the international stage

Power is distributed across many states

Question 17

MULTIPOLARITY: what do neorealists argue about multipolarity?

Answer 17

Neorealists argue that multipolarity is inherently unstable

As the number of actors in the international system increases so does the number of potential conflict because when there are multiple power centres even a small increase in power has the potential to make a state a great power

this creates higher levels of uncertainty which intensifies the security dilemma

Question 18

MULTIPOLARITY: what do liberals argue about multipolarity?

Answer 18

Liberals are much more optimistic about a multipolar world

They argue that such a system promotes multilateralism with greater cooperation and integration this is known as interdependent polarity

States will realise the futility of competition and conflict because the potential gains are relatively small so will choose to cooperate as this produces benefits for all therefore a multipolar system creates balance and harmony

Question 19

changing nature of the world order since 2000:

Answer 19

Much has changed since 2000 the bipolarity of 1945 to 1990 has not survived

By 2000 there was an optimism that a new world order would emerge to replace the tension and suspicion of the Cold War era but two major obstacles remained in the way of achieving peace and cooperation which may suggest that this optimism was misplaced

Tensions between Russia and the USA and difficulties faced by the UN

Strengthening the UN and promoting partnership between the USA and Russia has proved very difficult and both oppose major obstacles in the way of achieving peace and true cooperation

Question 20

changing nature of the world order since 2000: difficulties faced by the UN

Answer 20

Any strengthening of the U.N.’s remits or powers threatens state sovereignty

The behaviour of the permanent members of the UN Security Council particularly the USA and Russia is the use of the veto demonstrates how it is often difficult to reach agreement because state seek to protect their own national interests

Peacekeeping has a mixed record of successes and failures it is often hampered by disagreements between the public members of the Security Council and the need to gain permission from sovereign states before peacekeeping missions can be deployed to them

This makes cooperation difficult And reform of the UN particularly the much criticised the Security Council has proved near impossible

Question 21

changing nature of the world order since 2000: tensions between Russia and the USA

Answer 21

At the beginning of 2000 the prospects of a partnership between the USA and Russia seemed good Russia had transformed into a catalyst economy but this was not followed by the establishment of a liberal democracy

E.g. Russia has elections in which a range of parties and candidates may stand but there is ballot rigging in presidential elections

Question 22

changing nature of the world order since 2000: tensions between Russia and the USA

Answer 22

The ideological conflict of the Cold War may have disappeared but closer co-operation has not materialised

Putin did declare support for the war on terror in 2001 but relations with the USA has deteriorated as nature has expanded to include for the Warsaw Pact countries which Russia sees as attempts by the west to encircle and isolate it

Russia has also been offended by western intervention in Kosovo on behalf of the ethnic Albanians against the Serbian government who are traditional allies of Russia as well as the willingness of the west to support recognition of Kosovo as a sovereign independent state

Question 23

changing nature of the world order since 2000: tensions between Russia and the USA

Answer 23

Russian nationalism has been growing as a force in Russian politics

United Russia, a right of centre party that supports Putin and encourages pride in the ‘motherland’ and her achievements, dominates electoral politics

they won nearly half of all votes in the 2011 Duma elections, with the nearest rival (the Communist Party) gaining only 20% of the votes

Question 24

changing nature of the world order since 2000: tensions between Russia and the USA

Answer 24

under Putin, there has been a resurgence of Russian power and influence in the world, driven partly by rising economic prosperity

Russia is now an energy superpower, supplying the highest proportion of oil and gas of any country

Putin is also becoming more assertive in pressing Russia’s interests particularly over Ukraine and in defying US attempts to gain a UN resolution to intervene in the civil war between President Assad and the rebels in the Syrian conflict

Question 25

the hope for a more peaceful world post-2000 has been dashed: FALL OF COMMUNISM

Answer 25

Overall the hope for a more peaceful world post 2000 has been dashed

The Communist systems in states like Yugoslavia and Chechnya had suppressed national and ethnic differences for many years

but the fall of communism led to a power vacuum which allowed for minority groups to call for independence creating potential flashpoints as the majority groups in the states desperately trying to cling to power often resorting to ethnic cleansing war crimes and genocide to maintain their dominance

Question 26

the hope for a more peaceful world post-2000 has been dashed: WAR ON TERROR

Answer 26

The US through its war on terror and its promotion of western democracy also unleashed destabilising forces

The Arab Spring started in Tunisia in 2010 and spread across North Africa and the Middle East culminating in revolutions in Syria Libya and Yemen civil uprising is in Egypt and Bahrain and pro-democracy demonstrations in Algeria Iraq Jordan Kuwait Morocco and even Saudi Arabia

Question 27

the hope for a more peaceful world post-2000 has been dashed: CONFLICT

Answer 27

The Syrian conflict has raged since 2011 with no immediate hope of a peaceful resolution and the UN being unable to act

Arguably the world is in a state of disorder much like the pre-war era making the Cold War appear to be a period of relative peace and stability

Question 28

examples of each type of polarity

Answer 28

Uni polarity the USA at the end of the Cold War following the collapse of the Soviet union

Bipolar Arity the USA and USSR during the Cold War power was shared roughly between the two states