A Holistic Approach to the Study of International Relations
In international relations, states are said to constitute a system. It is contended that this system determines their behaviour both within their territorial borders and in the environment outside their boundaries. Additionally, it is equally given that the nation-states operate and interact among themselves in the environment outside their borders. This environment is what theorists in international relations refer to as the international environment. the interactions within the international environment is however not restricted to nation –states, non- state actors also participate. But before we delve in
to the details of actors and participants in the system, we need to be sure of what we mean exactly by a system, and whether the so-called international system qualifies as one.
A system has been defined as “an autonomous unit capable of adaptive behaviour” . Another definition sees it as “a set of complexes standing in interatction”.1 This theorist. Ladwing Bertalanffy goes on to state that each set of elements in the system is living and dynamic and has an environment. The dynamism of the system, according to this reasoning, is created by the interactions among the system’s elements, and that between the system itself and its environment, among others. These interaction promote the system’s adaptive behaviour. It is thus submitted that a system is an organized whole in dynamic interaction.2
The international system which is at times called international political system is therefore conceived as an organized whole in dynamic interaction. Reynolds (1971). See it as “the totality of all boundary-crossing interactions of whatever kind among whatever units”, while William D. Coplin conceives of it more precisely as “a decentralized political system dominated by competing, relatively autonomous, territorially based political organizations”.3 These “political organizations” are of course the nation states. So, as we stated in our opening statement in this chapter, the nation-states constitute the main units of the international system.
Having established the fact that the nations-states operate and interact in the environment outside of their borders, that is in the international environment, in an organized manner, can we then say that they constitute an organized whole and therefore a system? If yes, what is the nature of that system?
As indicated by Olusola Ojo and Amada Sesay, in their concepts in international relations, most theorists in international relations have tended to equate or liken the international system with the biological systems in a human body or other organic matter4. In their words: the analysts in their analogy have tended to liken the international system to the biological systems, imputing that just as the biological system of the human body for instance can be divided into sub-stems, such as the digestive sub-system, the respiratory sub-system, etc; the international system can also be sub-divided into sub-systems or sub –regions such as Africa, the Middle East, Europe, Asia , etc.5
In spite of these similarities, Ojo and Sesay contend that the international system cannot, strictly speaking be referred to as a system, as important differences exist between it and a biological system. These “important differences” according to them include the fact that whereas a biological system is ‘natural’, the international system is artificial, it is equally argued that the international system is a ‘cultural’ and ‘conceptual’ creation of the international relations analyst, and theorists. Besides, the authors go further to contend that the international system is ‘voluntaristic’ unlike the biological system. Additionally, it is submitted that ‘the sub-systems of a biological system are more closely knit and coherent than their counterparts in the international system’,6 such that what they refer to as ‘imperfect interdependence and relationships’ are observed to be most important features of the international system.
While we may agree with some aspects of the identified differences as highlighted above, it must be state
d that the fact that such differences exist between the biological and international and social system, does not in any way detract form the existence of the international system. As a biological system has its peculiarities, so does the international system and other social systems. In the domestic environment, for instance, we do have some administrative and social system- the health system, the financial system, the educational system, etc. that these do not behave, or are structured as the biological system of the human body, do not make them any loss a system. As pointed out earlier, certain basic requirements are needed for a structure to be conceived of as a system. First, there must be units. Secondly, those units must be in dynamic interaction. Thirdly, the interaction must take place or be taking place within a defined environment; and fourthly, the whole structure must be in an organized framework. The above conditions are clearly met by the interactions which take place between and among nation-states in the interaction environment . it is in recognition of this that Hedley Bull declares that “a system of state (or international system) is formed when two or more state have sufficient impact on one another’s decision to cause them to behave at least in some measure as parts of a whole”7
Furthermore, some of the reason adduced to substantiate the so-called differences between a biological system and the international system do not seem to appear infallible. For instance, the assertion that the international system is ‘a ‘cultural’ and ‘conceptual’ creation of the international politics and international relations analysts’,8 do not appear borne out by the facts of contemporary international life. This is because states exist as a social reality. Their interaction in the international environment is also a social reality. If the analysts observe these interactions as constituting a system, then the disputation out to be whether or not they do actually constitute a system.
Similarly, the sub-system paradigm also calls certain assumptions to question. It is given that the sub-systems in the international system are so loosely connected that even in a period of ‘unprecedented globalization”, the rest of the system can afford to carry on and function normally, even when a particular sub-system is experiencing different levels of cataclysm or upheaval. Instances of American and Chinese isolationist policies are indicated as having not had any profound impact on the international system . nor wars, such as Iraq/ iran, Vietnam, Korean, different versions of sanctions regimes- Iraq, libya, former Yugoslavia, etc had any impact on the rest of the international system, as say, a breakdown or total isolation of the respiratory sub-system of a biological system will have on the entire biological system concerned.
It must be recognized that such isolations as was made reference to above concerned only some aspects- especially socio- political and overt economic multilateral interactions with the rest of the international system. International aviation was only minimally hampered or not hampered at all. Commercial vessels were still crisscrossing the territorial waters of the countries concerned. International telecommunications was not seriously hampered. Even in the high tide of the cold war between east and west blocs, inspite of the so-called “iron curtain”, human and goods traffic were not completely cut off from any particular part of the international system. Even tin times of war in any particular country or region , the above situation largely obtains. So any comparism of the situations to a breakdown of a sub-system in a biological system may not only be inappropriate, but misleading. This is because in such a scenario, the entire sub system is completely removed from the system; and so the system must collapse if it is indeed a system. In the same vein, if any sub-region of the international system such as Africa, the Middle East, Asia, Europe, America , etc. is completely removed from the rest of the international system, the system must either collapse completely or suffer serious convulsions.
We are thus of the considered opinion that must as the international system must either collapse completely or suffer serious convulsions.
We are thus of the considered opinion that much as the international system may differ in some respects from a biological system, both are systems, though they parade certain peculiarities.
Be the first to comment