Distribution of role and capabilities can never be defined
in the international system without any world government. The analogy drawn by
Kenneth Waltz to show the specifications of different countries is that states
are like different companies in the free market. If this is the case, then
companies would always have motives to become the market leader which may lead
to chaos. From my perspective, this would be destructive because states do have
some power and control over these companies but states are not obliged to
listen to anyone for the sake of their benefit.
Moreover, the claim of distribution of capabilities is a
good idea but not a feasible one. Who is going to define who is more capable
and how? For example in terms of military capabilities, we cannot have a war
and decide who is more capable based on the results of that conflict.
In conclusion, the author’s attempt to define International
system is not feasible nor practical. However, it gave us, the readers, a new
dimension to understand the workings of international politics.
When Waltz is talking about capabilities, don't you think he is talking about existing capabilities?
ReplyDeleteAlso i disagree with your claim that all firms and states attempt to be the market leaders and hegemons. That is not the case in real life. Not all firms attempt to be the market leader. Neither do states. In Realism itself there are sub theories that argue the case for hegemony (Offensive Realism) and against (Defensive Realism) as well.
I disagree with your assessment of Waltz, as I feel like you don't fully appreciate his attempt to explain the international system using unitary state behavior and the anarchy.
ReplyDelete