CHAP III INTERNATIONAL
AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEM
III.
In
studies of international politics, the concept of international system is used
mainly in two ways,
analytical and historical. Morton A. Kaplan and Kenneth N. Waltz have striven
to develop analytical
theories of international system in scientific terms, but despite their
greatest efforts,their
attempts have not been very successful due to intrinsic difficulties with the
methodology. The
“balance of power” system, quite often cited, is considered to be a variant of
the
international
system, but it cannot be formalized in a scientific way, either.
In
contrast, being as a historical concept, the behavior codes of the Western
State System can
be
deciphered to unmask the Western dominance over it, although that term is not
founded on a
strict
notion of system. The economic counterpart of this system corresponds to the
world
system,
which is in many cases interchangeable with the capitalist world economic
system.
Meanwhile,
the terms of international regimes and global governance seem to have taken the
place
of international system as an academic key word. This change reflects the
transformation
in
process of international relations into International society, although
international system still
holds
its position.
III.1.
Systemic Approach
III.1.1
The Concept of System
In studies of international politics, the conception of
“system” has been used mainly in two ways, international system, and world
system(s). First, the term “international system” is a concept for analysis or
description of international politics or relations, but therein lies a sense of
prescription for diplomatic or military action too. Used as an analytical term,
it is predicated upon a definite notion of system. But it is not necessarily so
when it is used to describe situations of international relations at a given
time.
Second, the term “world system(s)” is a concept with which
to analyse or describe mainly politico-economic global situations, while its
implications for political action are derived but only indirectly. Third,
“international system” cameto be accepted as an academic term in the late
1950s, soon becoming fashionable, but more or less obsolete in the late 1990s.
“World system(s)” began
to be discussed in the 1970s, still maintaining popularity in the academia.
Terms such as “international regimes” and “global governance” seem to have
taken the place of “international system” as an academic key word in the 1990s,
although the latter still holds validity. The new terms are more normative and
descriptive than analytic, having explicit implications for promoting
international cooperation.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines “system” to be (a) a
set or assemblage of things connected, associated, or interdependent, so as to
form a complex unity, or (b) a whole composed of parts in orderly arrangement
according to some scheme or plan. This is a well-conceived definition, but when
we apply this to these systemic approaches, we find it insufficient.
As a basic definition, it is fairly useful and satisfying,
but it is not fully sufficient, in that it does not take into consideration
what powers, military, economic, political or cultural, circulate among the
parts so as to connect or disconnect them.
Besides, it greatly matters how deeply a structure exerts
influences on its constitutive units. Here the problem is whether the
influences reach just the surface only to change the behavior patterns of the
units, or whether they penetrate deeply enough to transform even the inner
structures. Within the framework of international system, they are assumed to
impose restraints on the freedom of action of states, and in terms of world
system(s), to change the nature of the units.
The conception of system in the former is, so to speak,
mechanical or of the modern Western origin, but that in the latter can be said
to be organic, and of the classical Asian origin.
III.1.2
International System and Society
While the first part
of OED definition is more extensive in usage, the second is limited to such
cases as can be related to a preconceived scheme or plan. When we extrapolate
this contrast to international relations, we reach the argument developed by
Hedley Bull in elaborating on the distinction between international system and
society. As to the former, he defines: a system of states (or international system)
is formed when two or more states have sufficient contact between them, and
have sufficient impact on one another’s decisions, to cause them to behave at
least in some measure as parts of a whole.
This corresponds very well to the first definition of system
noted in the above. Turning to international society, he defines: a society of
states (or international society) exists when a group of states, conscious of
certain common interests and common values, form a society, in the sense that
they conceive themselves to be bound by a common set of rules in their
relations with one another, and share in the working of common institutions.
Thus he notes that an international society in this sense presupposes an
international system, but an international system may exist that is not an
international society.
This usage is quite similar to the second definition of
system cited from the OED in the above. His distinction between the two is more
persuasive in the light of the change in international relations since the end
of the Cold War (1989). The term “international system” in Bull’s sense was
very popular among the academics of all nations during the Cold War period. But
it has increasingly lost popularity in the 1990s, the role of which is
beginning to be taken over by such terms as international regimes or global
governance, reflective of formative changes in international society.
We see international schemes or plans more activated in the
post-Cold War world than ever before. If we borrow Bull’s concepts,
international relations have been rapidly changing from international system to
international society. However, we should not forget that the notion
“international system” still holds some validity, regardless of changes in real
politics and academic fashions, because inter-state relations compose an
integral part of the current international relations. So, to analyze or depict
them, we need both the terms of international system and international society
in Bull’s sense.
III.1.3
Analytical Term
III.1.3.1
International System, Morton Kaplan
Morton Kaplan
has developed the most elaborate discussion on international system. In his
argument, he does not define international systems in particular, but describes
the state of an international system or of its subsystems, assigning values to
the following variables: the essential rules of the system, the transformation
rules, the actor classificatory variables, capabilities variables, and the
information variables.
Utilizing the five variables, he specifies six international
systems, (a) the “balance of power” system, (b) the loose bipolar system, (c)
the tight bipolar system, (d) the universal system, (e) the hierarchical system
in its directive and non-directive forms, and (f) the unit veto system. While the
first two have historical counterparts (the modern Western world politics, and
the Cold War), the rest are heuristic models, having no foundation in history.
However, we may be able to understand that the third
corresponds to the most extreme case of direct confrontation between the East
and the West in the Cold War, without any non-aligned countries allowed. The
fourth system is judged to be the would-be world confederation of the states,
and the fifth the assumed world state, authoritarian or democratic, with
concentration of all the authorities in the center.
III.1.3.2
International System, Kenneth N. Waltz
Another remarkable systemic work is done by Kenneth N.
Waltz. First, he sorts out causes of international conflicts at three levels,
the human nature, the features of states, and the structure of international
politics. He notes that international conflict is basically derived from the
anarchic nature of international politics. Second, addressing to systemic
treatment of international politics, he therein emphasizes a structural factor.
In this regard he is rather critical of Kaplan’s argument on
system, saying that he has no concept of the system’s structure acting as an
organizational constraint on the actors. Waltz on his part defines system as
composed of a structure and of interacting units, and a structure by the
arrangement of its parts. Related to the interrelationship between a structure
and units (or parts), his argument starts in a modest way, as expressed in the
statement that structure operates as a cause, but it is not the only cause in
play. But his very systemic argument ends in a sort of structural determinism,
when applied to international politics.
He contends that the units are sovereign states in
international politics. And it is structure that defines the arrangement, or
the ordering, of the parts of a system. Thus the structure of international
politics is an ordering principle to position or arrange sovereign states in
their interactions. Describing the nature of the structure, he notes that
international systems are decentralized and anarchic, and stresses that states
are to seek to ensure their survival.
That is because the close juxtaposition of states promotes
their sameness through the disadvantages that arise from failure to conform to
successful practices. This argument
is a testimony to his inclination toward structural determinism.
Of course he admits that states, being as functionally alike, have distinct
capabilities.
But he claims that the distribution of capabilities is not a
unit attribute, but rather a system-wide concept. So he goes on to argue that
the concentration of capabilities ensures the systemic stability, hence a
bipolar system is more favorable than a multi-polar one.
III.2 Evaluation of International System
The system evolved because
nations realized it was in their best interest to develop basic ground rules
for dealing with each other in the absence of a central authority that could
set and enforce rules worldwide.
The lack of a central authority
is the most important characteristic of the interstate system. It has meant
that nations must look out for themselves first and has shaped the way they
relate to each other. They cannot rely on any higher power to enforce the rules
or make sure other nations play fairly. Instead, they must enforce the rules by
themselves or form alliances with other nations and collectively enforce them.
The rules are also enforced by the power of world censure.
One of
the most important rules of the interstate system is that nations should
respect each other’s internationally recognized boundaries. Almost all of the
world’s land falls under the control of existing nations except Antarctica.
Under the interstate system, no nation has the right to invade or take over
another’s territory or interfere with the actions of a government within its
own territory.
But
defining the borders of a territory is more complicated than it may first
appear. For example, many of today’s borders resulted from wars in which
winners expanded their rule by taking territory from losers.
Some
nations have borders that were imposed upon them by another nation that
colonized them before they gained independence. These borders can create many
problems. They can create oddly shaped nations that lack ports or other
resources. They can also split up previously existing nations or ethnic groups
so that they are in different nations.
III.2.1 Membership in the International System
A nation
is considered as a member of the international system if other nations
recognize the authority of its government. Other nations can formally extend
this recognition by establishing diplomatic relations with that nation. A
nation can also become recognized by being admitted as a member of UN.
Recognition does not imply that a government has popular support, only that it
controls the territory within its borders and has agreed to assume the nation’s
obligations in the international system.
These
obligations include respecting the internationally recognized borders of other
nations, assuming the international debts of the previous government, and not
interfering in the internal affairs of other nations.
III.2.2 Development of the Interstate System
Before
the development of the modern interstate system, people were organized into
more mixed and overlapping political units, such as city-states and empires.
The modern interstate system arose in Europe, beginning after about AD 1500,
when France and Austria emerged as powerful nations.
The
system grew to encompass the European continent over several centuries,
although it long coexisted with other systems such as the Holy Roman Empire.
With the colonization of much of the rest of the world by European nations, the
European idea of nations was exported globally. After European colonies in
Africa and Asia began to win their independence, they also aspired to become
recognized as nations in the international system.
Today,
the legal basis for the universal application of the charter of UN. The UN charter, adopted in 1945, explicitly
recognizes the central principles of the interstate system.
III.2.3 Structure of Relationships
Throughout
the history of the interstate system, the relationships between nations have
been structured in various ways, depending on how power was distributed among
them. For example, power may be concentrated in one or two nations.
Historical
example of hegemony include Great Britain after 1815 and the United States
after 1945, periods when these nations were the most powerful in the world,
dominating trade and military relationships.
Power may
also be distributed more equally among half-dozen great powers and other
somewhat weaker nations. In this case, alliances between nations play a crucial
role in structuring their interactions. Power can also be distributed
relatively equally among nations or alliances of nations.
This is
called a balance of power. Some scholars and political leaders believe that
peace is best preserved this way because no one nation can win a war easily.
The evidence for this theory, however, is not strong. The opposition, called power transition theory, has more support. This theory suggests that
peace is most likely when one nation predominates, or when two opposing but
equally powerful nations do.
III.2.4 The Future of Interstate System
Today,
many of the foundations of the interstate system are being challenged by
changes in technology and international norms. The idea of territorial
integrity and a nation’s sovereignty that is, its absolute authority over its
own internal matters are being undermined.
Neither
ballistic missiles nor television signals respect borders. Television, the mass
media, telephones, and the internet are erasing the boundaries between nations,
blending once-district cultures together and expanding transnational connections.
Mass communication is also drawing worldwide attention to domestic issues that
in past were of little concern to other nations, such as human rights, the
status of women, environmental practices, and democracy.
The environment becomes one of the major concerns to the
present economy because of the activities of man. The relationships between man
and environment have been changing along the development process from
generation to generation.
Economists are concerned with increasing demand of
resources and its implication on the natural environment, the environment
provides food shelter, clothing, medicine, raw materials and other resources.
Economics is concerned with making best allocation of
resources among competing alternatives; it is concerned with utilization of
resources to ensure an improvement in welfare. There is a strong link between
the environment and economics, humanity are faced with a lot of environmental
problems which have economic dimensions.
Environmental Economics is that aspect of economics that
deals with the interrelationships between the environment and economic
development, it studies the ways by
which a balance is stroked between the two, and it is also concerned with how
the damage done can come to a halt or reversed.
III.3 Scope of
Environmental in International Economics
To strike a balance between International economic growth
and the environment
Pollution control from international economic point of
view
The nature of consumption and utilization of resources as
they are being depleted, therefore optimal use with minimal level of wastage is
needed
Limits to growth
as growth must be controlled through taxes and other fiscal
Measures
to make it optimal
III.3.1 Relationship
between Environment and International Economics
Since the environment provides resources for international
economic activities, all International economies should therefore be concerned with
the following basic objectives, they are;
- Efficiency in the utilization of resources
- Equity in terms of distribution of income and resources as well as
compensations
- Stability, such that taxes, charges and other control measures should
not be too high to discourage/reduce output
- Growth, all economies aim at sustainable economic growth\
III.2 Human being
and Environment
The evolution and process of human civilization is a
story of man in his struggles against nature man has to subject nature to
satisfy his wants because he needs basic necessities of life and in his attempt
to satisfy them, he not only conquers the immediate environment but jeopardizes
the future of the next generation to come. This interrelationship is presented
below;
III.3 International Environmental
Factors:
Land, Climate, Vegetation, Minerals, Water, Atmosphere
and etc.
Human Factors: Demography, Economy and Culture
Technology
Use of Natural Environment
The Environment Changes
Feedback and Alteration
From
the analysis above, one can see how the environment provides land, climate,
forests, water bodies and other assets. Human factors inform of demography,
culture and economy used technology to decide on how to use the assets provided
by the environment and in so doing, the environment changes and the feedback is
that it is altered from its natural formation.
III.4 Environmental in
International Economics and Traditional Economics
|
Similarities and
differences between Traditional Economics and Environmental Economics
|
|
|
Traditional
Economics
|
Environmental
Economics
|
|
|
III.5 Environmental
degradation in International Economics
is the deterioration of the environment through depletion of
resources such as air, water and soil; the destruction of ecosystems and the extinction of wildlife. It is defined as any change or disturbance to the environment perceived
to be deleterious or undesirable.
As indicated by the I=PAT equation, environmental impact (I) or degradation is caused by the
combination of an already very large and increasing human population (P),
continually increasing economic growth or per capita affluence (A), and the
application of resource depleting and polluting technology (T).
Land
degradation:
undermines land productivity and poses a risk to food security, impacts on the quality of ecosystem services, deforestation and soil degradation contribute to climate change, Green Growth requires integrative approaches to land-use, focused on
increasing productivity and food-security, while minimizing degradation of
Africa’s natural assets.
III.5.1 Land degradation affects large parts of
Africa.
III.5.2 Economic resilience in a
globalized world
Globalization provides new opportunities, but also creates new risks
through increasing inter-dependence.
Increasing
resilience to exogenous economic shocks is critical, as African economies move
forward
Changes in world price are for key African agriculture exports during
2012.
African
livelihoods and economies are heavily dependent on agriculture. Increasing
integration into world markets provides opportunities for growth but also
increasing exposure to market price fluctuations.
Some cases
economic loses around the World
Between
July 2011 and mid-2012, a severe drought affected the entire East Africa
region. Said to be "the worst in 60 years", the drought caused a
severe food crisis across Somalia, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Kenya that
threatened the livelihood of 9.5 million people
III.5.3 Water deterioration in International Economics
One major component of environmental degradation is
the depletion of the resource of fresh water on Earth. Approximately only 2.5%
of all of the water on Earth is fresh water, with the rest being salt water.
69% of the fresh water is frozen in ice caps located on Antarctica and Greenland, so only 30% of
the 2.5% of fresh water is available for consumption.
Fresh water is an
exceptionally important resource, since life on Earth is ultimately dependent
on it.
In 1964, Lake Chad measured
25,000 square kilometers. Its size has, however, shrunk to a mere 5 % of its
original size.
Author Prof. Dr. Rugema D. Muyombano
0Awesome Comments!