Can the International Environment be Remade?

As a member of the “CON” group I will present some ideas I think support the idea that the international environment will likely not be remade or fundamentally changed. Though I do think both the PRO and CON arguments for changes in the international environment have valid points.

We now have international states that each believe they are sovereign and have their own authority/agency. Though we may have small changes (i.e. countries becoming independent or border disputes) the fundamental idea is still there. There are state actors. This structure provides less room for fundamental change. In Kenneth Waltz’s The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory he states, “The essential structural quality of the system is anarchy – the absence of a central monopoly of legitimate force. Changes of structure and hence of system occur with variations in the number of great powers” (Waltz 618). So in essence, the fundamental international system remains the same, the variations occur on how many/who the major players are, but the concept is the same. His other claim is that a primary function of an actor is self-preservation. This drive for self-preservation can lead to conflict or even war, but it also maintains a balance in the international realm. In this same article Waltz mentions nuclear weapons as a method to dissuade other nations from going to war (Waltz 625). This desire for self-preservation and the general anarchy in the system maintain a balance of powers which keeps the international environment principally the same.

Another argument against the international environment being remade is presented in Jackson’s lecture. We do not even have an idea of what a “better” environment would be. International actors would not want to lose their autonomy and territoriality. They would be even more reluctant if the result of it is an uncertain new environment, one where they would lose their agency. Finally, individuals would want to preserve diversity and differences, including their cultural background. As Jackson mentions, the structure and stability of impermeable autonomous states allows diversity to continue.

So if we examine the question, “Can the international environment be remade” I think the answer is yes. As Professor Rancatore mentioned in one of my previous blog posts, if you can imagine it then it is possible. So yes, it is possible for the environment to be remade. I think the better question would be, is the international environment likely to be remade and would this fundamental change in structure actually be beneficial?