Polarity question: Does the concept of polarity still matter? Or are we entering a new “nonpolar” era.
If we are entering a new “nonpolar” era How Might this affect you?
Analyze the question of nonpolarity with reference to (2) states.
Discuss the role and relevance of each state in the context of nonpolarity.
Provide a critique on professor Haass’ concept of nonpolarity.
Use illustrative and relevant examples to make your argument.
Identify and draw on at least four (4) additional sources of scholarship (articles/books) not covered in class.
Cite using a consistent citation style. I am agnostic to which you use as long as you use it correctly and throughout the paper. Do not use endnotes or footnotes
This is what I’ve gathered so far
Proffessor Haas accepts the premise of a decline in US power but, at the same time, sees no rising power sufficient enough to suppress (unipolarity) or balance (bipolarity) the United states. He also rejects the more common assertion that the decline in US power is bringing the United states “back to the pack” and ushering in a new era of lutipolarity.
Unpolar system: type of international system that describes a single country with complete global hegemony or preponderate (to exert in weight) power.
Multipolar system: a world political system in which power is primaraly held by four or more international actors.
Polarity: assumes the existance of one to several great powers. These actors possess significant military, economic, diplomatic, technological, and natural resource advantages over the rest of the international community.
Haas envisions a future in which power is multifaceted and spread out far beyond the narrow scope of a great few powers.
Nonpolarity as argued by the book: nonpolarity is the by-product of globalization and transnational networks, and of the increased volume, velocity, and importance of cross-border flows of goods, services, money, and ideas moving along those networks.
.A nonpolar world not only involves more actors but also lacks the more predictable fixed structures and relationships that tend to define worlds of unipolarity, bipolarity, or multipolarity. Alliances, in particular, will lose much of their importance, if only because alliances require predictable threats, outlooks, and obligations, all of which are likely to be in short supply in a nonpolar world. Relationships will instead become more selective and situational. It will become harder to classify other countries as either allies or adversaries; they will cooperate on some issues and resist on others. There will be a premium on consultation and coalition building and on a diplomacy that encourages cooperation when possible and shields such cooperation from the fallout of inevitable disagreements.
Three factors have brought this about. First, some states have gained power in tandem with their increased economic clout. Second, globalization has weakened the role of all states by enabling other entities to amass substantial power. And, third, American foreign policy has accelerated the relative decline of the United States vis-à-vis others. The result is a world in which power is increasingly distributed rather than concentrated.
Thirdly, polarity matters because it allows for the formulation of long-term, grand strategies, which may be of profound importance to the future peace and stability of the global system. If system-wide hegemon(s) (pg 5).
Kopalyan, N. (2014). After Polarity: World Political Systems, Polar Structural Transitions, and Nonpolarity.
