Polarity in international relations is any of the various ways in which power is distributed within the international system.

It describes the nature of the international system at any given period of time. One generally distinguishes four types of systems: Unipolarity, Bipolarity,Tripolarity, and Multipolarity, for four or more centers of power. The type of system is completely dependent on the distribution of power and influence of states in a region or internationally. Unipolarity in international politics is a distribution of power in which there is one state with most of the cultural, economic, and military influence. According to Nunteiro (2011), it is defined by three characteristics. First, unipolarity is distinct from empire in that the former takes place in an inter-state system. Second, a unipolar state is significantly constrained by anarchy, which sets it apart from a hegemonic entity which is able to control the foreign policies of other states. Third, much like hegemony, unipolarity obstructs the international system's usual proclivity towards a balance of power1 Bipolarity is a distribution of power in which two states have the majority of economic, military, and cultural influence internationally or regionally. Often, spheres of influence would develop. For example, in the Cold War, most Western and democratic states would fall under the influence of the USA, while most Communist states would fall under the influence of the USSR. After this, the two powers will normally maneuver for the support of the unclaimed areas Multipolarity is a distribution of power in which more than two nation-states have nearly equal amounts of military, cultural, and economic influence.

Opinions on the stability of multipolarity differ. Classical realist theorists, such asHans Morgenthau and E. H. Carr, hold that multipolar systems are more stable than bipolar systems, as great powers can gain power through alliances and petty wars that do not directly challenge other powers; in bipolar systems,
1

Nunteiro, Nuno P.: Unrest Assured: Why Unipolarity Is Not Peaceful, International Security, Vol. 36, No. 3 (Winter 2011/12), pp. 940, p. 13

classical

realists

argue,

this

is

not

possible.

On

the

other

hand,

the neorealist focuses on security and inverts the formula: states in a multipolar system can focus their fears on any number of other powers and, misjudging the intentions of other states, unnecessarily compromise their security, while states in a bipolar system always focus their fears on one other power, meaning that at worst the powers will miscalculate the force required to counter threats and spend slightly too much on the operation. However, due to the complexity of mutually assured destruction scenarios, with nuclear weapons, multipolar systems may be more stable than bipolar systems even in the neorealist analysis. This system tends to have many shifting alliances until one of two things happens. Either a balance of power is struck, and neither side wants to attack the other, or one side will attack the other because it either fears the potential of the new alliance, or it feels that it can defeat the other side. One of the major implications of an international system with any number of poles, including a multipolar system, is that international decisions will often be made for strategic reasons to maintain a balance of power rather than out of ideological or historical reasons. The Eastern Mediterranean Hellenistic kingdoms of the 3rd century BC, which grew out of Alexander the Great's empire, formed a good example of a multipolar political world. Macedonia (Antigonids), Syria (Seleucids), Egypt (Ptolemies) vied with one another and states such as Pergamon, Parthia and the La Tene Celts in shifting alliances for domination of the region. Combinations against the strongest state kept any one from establishing hegemony, but eventually left all weakened enough to be dominated by Rome from the mid-2nd century BC.[6] The 'Concert of Europe,' a period from after the Napoleonic Wars to the Crimean War, was an example of peaceful multipolarity (the great powers of Europe assembled regularly to discuss international and domestic issues). World War I, World War II, the Thirty Years War, theWarring States Period, the Three Kingdoms period and the tripartite division between Song Dynasty/Liao

Dynasty/Jin Dynasty/Yuan Dynastyare all examples of a wartime multipolarity.

Those claiming that the world is multipolar fall into two main camps. A "superpower is something of the past" view holds that the USA and USSR in the Cold War were in fact superpowers, but argues that due to the complex economic interdependencies on the international scale and the creation of a global village, the concept of one or more states gaining enough power to claim superpower status is antiquated. The rival view is that even throughout the Cold War, neither the USA nor the USSR were superpowers, but were actually dependent on the smaller states in their "spheres of influence." While the US has a great deal of economic clout and has influenced the culture of many nations, their dependency on foreign investors and reliance on foreign trade have created a mutual economic dependency between developed and developing nations. According to those who believe the world is multipolar, this interdependency means the US can't be called a superpower as it isn't selfsufficient and relies on the global community to sustain its people's quality of life. These interdependencies also apply to diplomacy. Considering the complex state of world affairs and the military might of some developing nations, it has become increasingly difficult to engage in foreign policy if it is not supported by other nations. The diplomatic and economic factors that bind the globe together can sometimes make it difficult to act unilaterally, however alliances exist and the US is largely considered to be the sole superpower due to its unchallenged strength and influence, which would suggest a more unipolar world (despite globalization)

The concept of polarity has been subject to imprecise and often diverse use. This note explores problems associated with the varied use of the term and proposes an alternative approach to classifying international systems which treats horizontal and vertical dimensions of power as distinct structural variables. In this approach, the present system is distinguished from the classical balance of power system containing pluralized patterns of conflict on the one hand and from the Cold War system with a marked concentration of power on the other. In the contemporary system polarized patterns of conflict coexist with processes of power diffusion. To the extent polarizations persist in a more diffuse power setting, the decentralized power balancing system through which stability was sought in multipower systems cannot functionnor are the polarized conflicts likely to be controlled as a result of the twopower effort at balancing power which occurred during the postwar period. The factors affecting the stability of the present system, it is suggested here, can be better understood by examining analogous structures in which processes of power diffusion

occur in the context of polarized conflict and not as a result of spurious comparisons which mistake the diffusion of power for the pluralization of conflict.2

Polarity in international relations is a description of the distribution of power. There are three types of systems: unipolarity, bipolarity, multipolarity and universality. The type of system depends on the distribution of power. However, even realists do not agree among themselves which system creates the most secure, stable or just world. The post-Cold War world is considered as a unipolar world, with the United States as the world\'s hegemon. The question remains whether this unipolar system can promote long-term peace. From the current issues and conflicts in the world, one can say that it is not possible and that unipolarity is not the system for promotion of stability. One of the most intractable debates in the field of world politics concerns the linkage of systemic polarity to international stability. Despite many theoretical expositions and limited testing, disagreement persists over which type of structure and distribution of power is most stable. The dialogue on polarity and stability has focused on the relative merits of bipolar and multipolar structures; in other words, which configuration of power centers is more stable, two or more than that number? Advocates of each system have their adherents and, for some time now, have agreed to disagree. Most of the debate on polarity and stability thus far has been cast in terms that do not facilitate its resolution. The objective of this paper is to reformulate the debate, in order to facilitate a more compelling empirical judgment of the competing claims. More specifically, this involves revision of the central concepts. Polarity, it will be asserted, cannot be assessed only in terms of distribution of power. The concept also should incorporate the notion of autonomous decision centers. With respect to instability, war is held to be a less comprehensive measurement than international crisis. It is recommended that renewed testing should focus on the linkage of polarity to stability as so defined.3

2 3

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03050627808434481 http://jpr.sagepub.com/content/25/1/31.abstract

The effects of polarity on the international system and its stability have always been at the heart of the theoretical literature on international relations. Today, with the end of the bipolar configuration of the Cold War, this classic discussion has been revived by a new wave of literature. However, this long lasting debate has not yet produced a consensus as proponents of bipolarity and multipolarity have remained convinced of their respective arguments, with the former stressing the reduced uncertainty associated with smaller numbers and the latter emphasizing the superior flexibility of power diffusion. This article argues that the problem lies in the excessive confidence and parsimony of these theories, which tend to see polarity as a sufficient determinant of systemic outcomes. Polarity does make a difference, and the article highlights the important characteristics of and differences between bipolar and multipolar systems. However, polarity alone is insufficient to explain systemic outcomes because it can shape incentives for states but it cannot guarantee that these incentives will bring about a uniform reaction. Other considerations, such as the relative propensity of states to take risks, must also be taken into account. On this view - in contrast with the traditional positions - the relationship between polarity and stability is indeterminate, non-linear and non-monotonic. The final section applies the reasoning to the systemic change, from bipolarity to multipolarity, which has characterized the international system after the Cold War. In particular, it is argued that the increased flexibility and fluidity in alignments that this entails will not necessarily bring more instability, but will cause a substantial change in diplomatic methods.

One of the current controversies within international relations deals with the stability of bipolar as opposed to multipolar strafications of world power. Morton kaplan, in condifying the views of classical balance of power theorists, advances the view that multipolar system

are more stable than bipolar systems. Kenneth waltz, sagely pointing to the relativity peaceful international arena since the world war II. Argues that a bipolar distribution of power can guarantee world stability. Many a priori arguments have been presented to buttress the kaplan and waltz hypotheses.4

Polarity and System Stability Are certain polarities more manageable, stable, conflict-prone than others? Studies of relationship between polarity and stability inconclusive

Bipolar systems Clear power differential between poles and other states; each can focus on other pole; each tries to preserve balance and bipolar system (Waltz)

Multipolar (balance of power) systems System stable if poles maintain balance; multiple interactions and crosscutting loyalties, alliances

Unipolar systems Hegemonic stability theory (Kennedy, Keohane); hegemons willing to pay price to enforce norms Unipolar the structure of an international system where there is one preponderant power. Unipolar system: The post-Cold War era In bipolar systems, two major centres of power, either two large countries or two tightly knit alliances systems, dominate politics. Bipolar system: The Cold War era

Michael hass, the american political science review vol. 64 no.1 (mar 1970) pp. 98-123 published by american political science assosiation

Multipolar structures have three or more centres of power, but where there is a large number of roughly equal countries, we speak of a dispersed distribution of power.

Multipolar system: Nineteenth-century balance of power

Given focus on power, Realists particularly interested in polarity and system stability System polarity = number of blocs of states that exert power in the international system

Multipolar (19th century balance of power) Several states (three or more) influential actors in international system; relative power parity

Bipolar (Cold War; 1945-1990) Two states influential; relative power parity

Unipolar (post-Cold War; 1991-present(?)) One state stands out as the most powerful; no parity

Are certain polarities more manageable, stable, conflict-prone than others? Studies of relationship between polarity and stability inconclusive

Bipolar systems Clear power differential between poles and other states; each can focus on other pole; each tries to preserve balance and bipolar system (Waltz)

Multipolar (balance of power) systems System stable if poles maintain balance; multiple interactions and crosscutting loyalties, alliances

Unipolar systems Hegemonic stability theory (Kennedy, Keohane); hegemons willing to pay price to enforce norms