Assessment of the Systemic Approach Sample Clauses

Assessment of the Systemic Approach. Critics of the systemic approach emphasize, first of all, that other actors in international politics, such as international institutions, do exist in their own right, and acknowledge that there are indeed various non-state- centric interpretations of sovereignty (Xxxxxxx 1986A, 24). After all, ‘the survival of states is affected as much by the economic forces of globalization and non-military threats as by invading armies and the use of weapons of mass destruction’ (van Stxxxx 0000, 35). Xxxxxx (1986) observed that the systemic approach fails to account for changes in world politics, while Xxxxxxx (1986) seconded Xxxxxx’x failure to account for change argument and underlined the inconsistency of the premise of power maximization with the balance of power concept. In retrospect, these arguments were ill founded given Waltz’s (1979, 69) admission that a system theory of international relations does explain continuities, recurrences, and repetitions, but not change. Critical theorist Xxx (1986, 215-216) also pointed out the inability of systemic theory to explain change in world politics, and instead advanced the use of ‘historical materialism’ to correct the fallacies of neorealism. Xxxxx (1986, 340) retorted harshly and argued that Xxx himself was only able to aspire but not able to delineate such a theory as well. However, not all the criticisms confront the systemic approach head- on. There are also critiques that rather complement the systemic approach. Xxxxx (1993, 29-59) suggested that it is the self-interests of states that, in turn, lead them to create international regimes. Both Xxxxxx (1993, 60-84) and Xxxxxx (1993, 143-169) placed heavy emphasis on how the concept of anarchy has been emphasized at the expense of international interdependence. Though embracing the premise of anarchy as a key feature of the international system, Xxxxxxx and Xxxxxxx (1993, 85-115) argued that it is anarchy itself that does indeed lead states to interact with each other. Neo-liberalists believe in the maximization of absolute gains in that states aim to search for opportunities to cooperate, yielding benefits to all. Although Xxxxxx (1993, 116) believed that international anarchy fosters competition and conflict and, in turn, hinders cooperation among states even when they share common interests, he acknowledged that neo-liberalist arguments do help towards understanding the politics of international cooperation (Grieco 1993A, 335). Notice that these arguments do not...