In theoretically portraying the world, researchers in the international relations field have come up with different theories to represent the world. Indeed, these theories provide significant insight to laymen in understanding the concept of international governance. Key among these theories is the world systems theory and the international system theory both of which conceptualize the world albeit in different ways. These two theories have different perspectives on how they portray the world in terms of the individual representations of the countries. While the international systems theory portrays the actors as political entities, the world systems theory encompasses a wider view of the political systems, cultural practices, economic relations as well as religious institutions (Boucher, 2008). The differences of the two theories notwithstanding, each of the theory portray the true happenings of the world and are equally effective in their application.
The international systems theory envisions the world countries as political entities with the overall state of the international system being regarded as anarchic in nature. In the theory, the state is considered as sovereign with no other authority existing above the state (Buzan & Richard, 2000). In representing the countries as sovereign states, the theory effectively dictates that each state must prioritize its interests above all other interests. In the end, the theory pictures a scenario where states are staged against each other in the political arena with each accumulating as much power as possible. However, in the process of amassing political strength, world states have evolved a system of polarity through which they exert this power. Ultimately, system polarity is a collective number of blocs of states exerting power in the international arena.
One of the different types of exerting power is through multipolarity whereby the existence of a number of influential actors results in a balance of power. Normally, these actors are superpowers who define the international agenda and dictate the happenings in the world. Essentially, the norms of the system are vividly clear to each of the states such that the interest of one of the countries is not compromised in the process. The different actors may upset the balance of the system in cases where they do not follow the norms. In view of the same, the actors may form alliances to serve specific purposes which may shift from time to time depending on the interests of the actors (Buzan & Richard, 2000). In contrast, bipolarity system h
To view this post and other posts in this category please pay the amount below