Level Of Analysis In International Politics

1481 Words3 Pages

Although there are some benefits that derive from an analysis based on the third image, it is arguable that all the three levels of analysis (individual, state and system levels) are strongly interconnected. Therefore, when analysing the international system or an international issue, it seems almost impossible to think merely at the system level, without even considering the domestic and the individual ones. This essay will expand that thesis firstly by giving a brief explanation of the concept of level of analysis and in particular the structural one; secondly by listing the benefits of focusing on the structural level of analysis; thirdly by highlighting the weaknesses inherent in the third image and finally by reporting a case study (the …show more content…

Firstly, the assumption that states are the only actors within the international system (Mearsheimer 2010) seems to be out-dated. In a globalized world based on interdependence and with the decline of sovereign states, it appears almost impossible to exclude organisations such as NGOs, multinational corporations and also terroristic groups from what happens in the international system and the deriving behaviours of states. A remarkable example might be the recent terroristic attack in Paris on 13th November 2015: this event has threatened not only global security, but also unity among western countries and has affected the international decisions (such as on the immigration issue) of different states. Then, it can be acknowledged that states do not only act as security-seekers that reach the balance of power after having regulated both the security dilemma and national interest. Indeed, the importance of statesmen and ideology in the decision-making process cannot be denied, as it may have a deep influence on foreign and international policies. Moreover, national interest has not a unique meaning and it could be manipulated in order to either hide the desire of power and hegemony or justify war. Therefore, it does not seem to be a valid reason for explaining the behaviours of states. Finally, the structural level of analysis does not take into account the relevance of social practices in the way states behave: both interaction and interdependence among states could affect their decisions (Copeland 2000). Indeed, constructivists argue that ‘Anarchy is what states make of it’ (Wendt 1992), meaning that the structure of the international system is a tangible effect of all the decision made by different states. This idea is an evident challenge to the deterministic orientation of events

Open Document