Essay on International Relations: Polarity, Power, and System Analysis

This essay delves into the concept of polarity within the field of International Relations, focusing on how the balance of power among nations shapes global politics. It begins by defining polarity and its implications, contrasting the bipolarity of the Cold War era with the unipolar and multipolar dynamics of the post-Cold War world. The essay then evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of polarity as a tool for explaining the international system, acknowledging the influence of the United States while also recognizing the emergence of other centers of power. Furthermore, it explores the historical context of international relations, tracing the evolution of power structures since the Westphalian treaty. The essay also examines the different theories of power, including realism, liberalism, and constructivism, and their respective perspectives on international affairs. Finally, the essay draws a connection between political power and religious concepts, such as the sin theory of Christianity, offering a comprehensive analysis of the complex interplay of power, theory, and history in international relations.

Running head: INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Polarity as a concept of the discipline of international relations implies the state of the
balance of power that prevails in the world which is determined by which nation, or nations of
the world are holding the power and the influence to determine the politics of all the other
nations of the world. During the period of cold war, the system of world affairs was
characterized by bipolarity, as the United States of America and the United Socialist Soviet
Russia had been the only two most powerful nations of the world and the ones to decide the
world affairs. In the post cold war situation of the world, when the United States of America had
been the only powerful nation to be decide the world affairs and in the contemporary world,
there have been a mushrooming of several centers of power and the previous state of affairs has
been disintegrated. The strength of polarity as a tool for explanation of the method in which the
international system works lies in the fact that it provides an accurate estimation of the nation
which holds power in the international sphere. The weakness of it lies in the fact that unipolarity
is still the state of political affairs in the international relations and thus the various systems of
polarity is not an accurate definition of the state of affairs of the international politics (Mingst,
McKibben & Arreguin-Toft, 2018). This can be explained by the history of International
Relations which have existed ever since the signing of the Westphalian treaty, that some kind of
polar structure is a permanent feature of the international system. Though in the modern world
the balance of power is characterized as multipolarity, as there have been a mushrooming of
several centers of power spearheaded by several nations but the world affairs is still highly
decided upon by the United States of America. Russia and China are regional centres of power
and their sphere of influence has not yet been able to spread on a global basis and they are
however planning to expand their sphere of influence but they are unable to match up to the
power of United States of America. Hence this proves that some kind of polar structure is a

2INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
permanent feature of the international system. The system of power in the international relations
is defined as either realist, liberal or constructive. The realist premise has its weakness owing to
the fact that that it considers that the states are in a constant state of rivalry with each other while
the liberal premise has its weakness owing to the fact that it considers that the states are in a
constant state of cooperation with each other, both of which are exaggerations of the real state of
affairs in the international sphere. The constructive theory has the strength which takes a
judicious approach as it says that the cooperative and the non cooperative instincts of the states
both determine the state of international affairs (Mingst, McKibben & Arreguin-Toft, 2018).
This goes fundamentally against the sin theory of Christianity as the sin theory forbids
covetousness and in politics one has to covet in order to stay in power (Fletcher, 2017).

3INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
References
Fletcher Hill, J. (2017). The Sin of White Supremacy: Christianity, Racism, & Religious Diversity
in America. Orbis Books.
Mingst, K. A., McKibben, H. E., & Arreguin-Toft, I. M. (2018). Essentials of international
relations. WW Norton & Company.