2013051966 (3POL2)

As of now, is there an international political system?

Nowadays, politics seems to be resonant to people specifically to that of the scholars who
until now is still questioning and debating over the existence of an international political system.
The goal of this paper is to elucidate concepts that will be used to prove the existence of an
international political system. In order to build a more constructive argument to justify the
existence of the international political system, Institutionalism, an approach in International
Relations, is to be applied in order to have a deeper and more transparent arguments in
establishing an account for the existence of an international political system. For the paper to be
more translucent, jargons that are to be illustrated and used to further discuss the arguments are
to be defined first before associating it in line with the topic.
Institutionalism, an approach in International Relations and even to politics, as illustrated
by Slaughter, is an approach where just like Realism, it aims for survival but at the same time
increasing their resources which gives a way for countries to interact and not to fight 1.
Intuitionalism will be more illustrated in the discussion by using the microeconomic theory and
game theory in order to give more strengths on the concepts that will be presented on the latter
part of the paper.
Institutions, as defined by Mearsheimer, are set of rules which will give way for states to
compete and cooperate2. Institutions are somewhat like that of an established organization which
is established for one purpose. It is similar to that of the definition of institution by Wels where
he points out that social institutions forms a concept of social structure 3, and with that as
mentioned the social structure will trigger both cooperation and interaction between states by the
use of institutions.

1 Slaughter, A.-M. (2011). Intermational Relations, Principal Theories

2 Mearsheimer, J. J. (1995). False Promise of International Institutions. 8-9
3 Wels, A., & Hodgson, G. (2006, March). What are Institutions? Retrieved from Journal of Economic Issues:
http://www.geoffrey-hodgson.info/user/image/whatareinstitutions.pdf

In order for one to really understand the papers argument in the latter part of the paper, one must
know what international political system really is. System, defined by Buzan and Little, is a
structured set consisting of units interacting with each other. These interacting units co-exist and
interdependent with each other4. With international meaning that it involves two or more
countries. And so, by defining each word in the international political system, the researcher
came up with a well-grounded definition of it. From the definition of the two words, it is now
said that an international political system is composed of interacting actors that are
interdependent with each other. And now taking Institutionalism into the picture, not only that
the system is formed by interacting units but also these actors work together for a common
purpose.

In order to become a system, there is a necessity for regular interaction (cite). Interaction
meaning that there is a mutual or reciprocal action or influence in both sides that are involved. To
justify that there is an international political system is present as of today, the researcher
presented models of interaction.

In order to prove that there is a regular interaction between units or states, the researcher
presents a model or an example of political interaction. One model is that of the relationship
between Canada and Australia. Both countries maintain a friendly and highly productive
relationship. One notion that both countries maintain their friendly relationship is that they have
common set of values. Both countries enjoy multifaceted bilateral relations and enjoy the
benefits of a healthy relationship. Both enjoy not only resources but also trade, security,
academic and student exchanges, parliamentary relations and even political and governmental
affairs5. This relationship between Canada and Australia can also be considered as a social and
4 Buzan, B., & Little, R. (2000). International Systems in World History. New York: Oxford University
Press
5 Canada-Australia Political Relations. (2014, November 03). Retrieved from Government of Canada:
http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/australia-australie/bilateral_relations_bilaterales/politicalpolitiques.aspx?lang=eng

economic model of interaction. Many times have both countries visit each other. State visit is a
good example to exercise social interaction in the system. One important notion in the bilateral
relations is that it promotes officer exchanges. Another one is that of the economic interaction.
One commendable example of economic interaction is that of the economic relationship between
China and Japan. Everybody knows these two tiger economies. Although there are historical and
political misunderstanding between the two countries both their economic status continue to
boom. Because of the advanced and developed economy of the two countries, it continues to be,
one that is growing and diversified6. The researcher believes that the economic relationship of
two states depend on how the two are getting along. With causality, the researchers argument in
this economic interaction is that trade promotes peace and likewise peace promotes trade. With
peace and trade there will cooperation and interaction between states and since there is a
structure in economics in can be concluded that interaction is a key ingredient to that of a system.
Interaction does not only occur in bilateral relationships but also through institutions.
Institutions was defined as a structured organization that was established for a common goal. A
model of an institution is that of the ASEAN or the Association of the South East Asian Nations.
Countries include Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar,
Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam7.

Here are some of the purposes of the organization:

-

to maintain and enhance peace, security and stability and further strengthen peaceoriented values in the region. With these aspects, the state could eventually fully be
developed.

to enhance regional resilience by promoting greater political, security, economic, and

socio-cultural cooperation. In this way, the states safety is one of the main concerns.

6 Armstrong, S. (2010). Asia Pacific Economic Papers. Interaction between trade, conflict, and cooperation: the
case in Japan and China, 6.

7 (2003). Retrieved from A Brief Overview ASEAN: http://www.eduinitiatives.org/sites/default/files/A%20Brief

%20Overview%20of%20ASEAN.pdf

To promote sustainable development so as to ensure the protection of the regions

environment, the sustainability of its natural resources, the preservation of its cultural
heritage and the high quality of life of its people. The main purpose of this one is to
highlight the importance of its people harmonious living in the community.

To promote an ASEAN identity through the fostering of greater awareness of the diverse
culture and the heritage of the region. With the help of this institution, they are the
responsible for solving conflicts between or amongst states.

To maintain the centrality and the proactive role of ASEAN as the primary driving force
in its relations and cooperation in its external partners in a regional architecture that is
open, transparent and inclusive, like what is stated earlier, ASEAN will help the countries
to boost their economic development.

These are only some of the details that the ASEAN promotes. Clearly, the Association of the
South East Asian Nations promotes not only trade, business, and peace but also cooperation
and interaction which are essentials to having a system.
In line with the trade in business, of course, it cannot erase the fact that money is one of the
means in trading. Money trade engages usually in economic basis, that then one of the factors
why a state prospers. Therefore, international political system in this manner is indeed
existing because with the structure, there would be no order so therefore, there is no growth
at all.

In parallel to that of the trade in business,

Because of the self-interests states has occurrence to interact with one another. And in
parallel with Institutionalism and with Game Theory, rational actors are involved, the decision2013051966 (3POL2)

making, and the strategies that allow them to gain benefits from other states. Thus, there is an
interaction between states because of the conflict or the dispute arising. Also, it considers to
interact with other ally countries in order to enhance aspects that will benefit both the interacting
countries and strengthening their ties as well.
Conclusion
The aim of this paper is to illustrate the conditions and interactions to make
As system is embellished in the first part of paper, define as that of a structured set that is
composed of interacting units. The paper is trying to prove that it does exist given the examples
stated above. And with that being stated, growth of ones economy strives because of the
existence of international political system.
Also, when regards with regularity and substantive therefore again, it does exist. Money
and trade has been part of the economics sustainability, such as GDPs, Foreign Exchanges, etc.
Thus, they say money makes the world go round, its quite true in the sense that, without
money, economy fails in effect of the countrys downfall. And unfortunately, that is the
contemporary world you belong to.

Moreover, the love by all counts, and with proven results, there is an international political
system in todays time.

Bibliography
(2003). Retrieved from A Brief Overview ASEAN:
http://www.eduinitiatives.org/sites/default/files/A%20Brief%20Overview%20of
%20ASEAN.pdf
Armstrong, S. (2010). Asia Pacific Economic Papers. Interaction between trade,
conflict, and cooperation: the case in Japan and China, 6.
Buzan, B., & Little, R. (2000). International Systems in World History. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Canada-Australia Political Relations. (2014, November 03). Retrieved from
Government of Canada: http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/australiaaustralie/bilateral_relations_bilaterales/political-politiques.aspx?lang=eng
Mearsheimer, J. J. (1995). False Promise of International Institutions. 8-9.
Slaughter, A.-M. (2011). Intermational Relations, Principal Theories.
Wels, A., & Hodgson, G. (2006, March). What are Institutions? Retrieved from Journal
of Economic Issues: http://www.geoffreyhodgson.info/user/image/whatareinstitutions.pdf