Session 9: Structures and all that jazz

The theory of International Relations has been focusing on projecting human nature to the state and personifying states so that one can explain state behavior as being similar to human behavior, particularly selfish and egoistic-quest for survival and security in the international political arena. Kenneth Waltz tries to break away from this type of theorizing by formulating a Systems Theory of International Relations; disregards the characteristics and interests of political actors in favor of a

“positional picture of the society”, emphasizing on the structure of the international political system and the interacting units within the system.

Waltz provides a three-tiered explanation of the political structure based on organizing principles, character of units and distribution of capabilities. The hierarchical subordination and power politics are key tenants of domestic political structure whereas in the international arena, absence of a central authority means there exist a condition of anarchy, decentralization of power and the lack of a structure which would define international power politics. Waltz, provides a different typology of the structure that is formed in an international arena, one dependent on the differing capabilities of states. This structure is hierarchical in a different manner, based on the power that a state possesses which is in turn defined by its capability, e.g. military, technology, assets etc. This strength allows for the subjugation of weak states or why weak states would want to form alliances with the strong states. It therefore, determines the position of states within the international arena.

Joel Migdal provides a similar understanding of strong and weak states; the former being states which “include the capacities to penetrate society, regulate social relationships, extract resources, and appropriate or use resources in determined ways. Strong states are those with high capabilities to complete these tasks, while weak states are on the low end of a spectrum of capabilities.” For instance, post-colonial states are weak states and low on the spectrum of hierarchy of states and vulnerable to exploitation by strong states.