This presentation is made by Samin VossoughiRad. American University for Humanities- Tbilisi campus This presentation shows the Unipolarirty of states

1. UNIPOLARITY
A structural Perspective
By:
Samin VossoughiRad
&
Solomeya Shiukashvili

2. 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 globally.

3. Definition:
Unipolarity in international politics is a distribution of power in
which one state exercises most of the cultural, economic, and
military influence.
• Unipolarity is an interstate system and not an empire. Robert
Jervis argues that “unipolarity implies the existence of many
juridically equal non-states, something that an empire denies.”

4. • Unipolarity is anarchical.
Anarchy results from the
incomplete power
preponderance of the unipole.
•
Kenneth Waltz argues that a
great power cannot “exert a
positive control everywhere in the
world.” Therefore, relatively
weaker countries have the
freedom to pursue policy
preferences independent of the
unipolar. The power projection
limitations of the unipole is a
distinguishing characteristic
between unipolar and hegemonic
systems

5. • Unipolar systems possess only one great power and face no
competition. If a competitor emerges, the international system is
no longer unipolar. Kenneth Walt's maintains that the United
States is the only “pole” to possess global interests

6. • More stable – less prone to war
• Bipolar orders are simple to manage.
• Multipolar orders can slip into war due to ‘chain-
ganging’ (WWI) and ‘buck-passing’ (WWII).

7. • No hegemonic rivalry
• International institutions and hegemonic self-restraint
(Inkberry)
• Social foundations of hegemony (Reus-Smith)

8. 1. Totality of power gap
2. Geography – ‘stopping power of water’
3. No rising challengers: EU, Japan, China

9. • Even though the superpower can restrain the
development, at least in the short run, the
power will eventually be weakened as a
consequence of dominating other states.
• The USA has as an example, tried to clinch
hegemonic power by keeping 100,000 troops
stationed in Asia and Europe. By guaranteeing
the safety of its allies, the USA has subdued the
need for security for other states.

11. • Leaders and their ideas matter
• Economic volatility and political change
• Geopolitical rivalry and discontinuities

12. states value what they cover more than what they
currently possess
They will employ military force to change the
status quo and extend their values

13. 1. We agree that today’s unipolar balance of power is robust.
At present time no state seems able to challenge the USA
militarily.
2. We also agree with Waltz that the USA
will become weakened over time due to
its over-commitment.

14. The multipolar system was less stable than the bipolar, and
resulted in two world wars. The bipolar era meant more stable
international politics due to the dominance of the USA and the
Soviet Union. The transition to today’s unipolar power structure has
brought major changes to world politics, with the USA emerging
as the sole superpower. The total number of armed conflicts has
decreased, despite the increase in number of terror attacks.
However, it can be argued that the world could again become
militarily multipolar, with China and Russia as possible challengers
to U.S. hegemonic dominance.