Exam 4: The International System

A) Any actor or coalition trying to assume dominance must be constrained.
B) Fighting is better than negotiating.
C) Alliances should be fixed.
D) States should align together based on their economic system.
E) Certain states are ruled out as potential allies.

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

A) hegemon's willingness to enforce norms to ensure the continuation of the system.
B) hegemon's willingness to refrain from wielding its military and economic power against other states.
C) balancing effect of the two superpowers.
D) economic relationships spawned by free trade and democracy.
E) increased transnational strength of economic classes.

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

A) capitalism.
B) interdependence.
C) anarchy.
D) cooperation.
E) international society.

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

Correct Answer

Answered by ExamLex AI

In my opinion, issues or events in world...

View Answer

Show Answer

A) systems are set by material structures alone.
B) systems are unchanging over time.
C) anarchy can lead to different outcomes at different times.
D) polarity structures systems.
E) stratification structures systems.

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

A) European history.
B) imperial China.
C) Muslim empires.
D) the Cold War.
E) colonialism.

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

A) behavioralism.
B) capitalism.
C) liberalism.
D) realism.
E) constructivism.

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

A) Like realists, liberal theory thinks evolution toward perpetual peace is possible.
B) Like realists, liberal theory thinks evolution toward perpetual peace is not possible.
C) Liberal theory thinks security cooperation and peace can evolve from economic cooperation.
D) Liberal theory thinks security cooperation is possible, but not peace.
E) Liberal theory thinks peace is possible, but not security cooperation.

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

A) during the Concert of Europe pre-World War I
B) during the Cold War
C) following the Gulf War in 1991
D) immediately after the Cold War
E) during the U.S. Civil War

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

A) realists and liberals
B) liberals and radicals
C) radicals and constructivists
D) realists and radicals
E) liberals and constructivists

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

Correct Answer

verified

False

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

A) have surpassed even the highest expectations of scholars.
B) have never been undertaken due to data limitations.
C) have shown strong causal connections between the two.
D) are of concern only to liberals and radicals.
E) have been inconclusive.

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

A) the gravitational pull of core states
B) the distribution of capabilities among states in the international system
C) the hierarchy of issues in the international system
D) a clash among identities in the international system
E) differences between economic and military interests in the international system

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

A) states are autonomous actors.
B) the United Nations is dominant.
C) states are sensitive and vulnerable to the actions of others.
D) states focus only on trade.
E) state power no longer matters.

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

A) less stable than multipolar systems.
B) more stable than multipolar systems.
C) just as stable as multipolar systems.
D) only stable if the primary states are superpowers.
E) neither inherently stable nor inherently unstable; it depends on social norms.

Correct Answer

verified

B

Correct Answer

Answered by ExamLex AI

The question of which theory provides the most accurate analysis of the international system is a complex and debated issue within the field of international relations. Each of the major theoretical approaches - realist, liberal, radical, and constructivist - offers unique insights into the dynamics of the international system, but also has its own limitations. Realist theory, which emphasizes the role of power and security in international relations, provides a compelling analysis of the international system. Realists argue that states are the primary actors in the international system and that their behavior is driven by the pursuit of power and security. This approach offers a clear and straightforward explanation for many aspects of international politics, such as conflict and competition between states. However, realist theory has been criticized for its pessimistic view of international relations and its focus on state-centric analysis, which may overlook the importance of non-state actors and other factors in the international system. Liberal theory, on the other hand, emphasizes the role of institutions, cooperation, and interdependence in international relations. Liberals argue that states can achieve security and prosperity through cooperation and the establishment of international institutions. This approach offers a more optimistic view of international relations and highlights the potential for peaceful resolution of conflicts. However, liberal theory has been criticized for its idealistic assumptions about state behavior and its failure to account for the persistence of power politics in the international system. Radical theory, which focuses on the role of economic and social factors in international relations, provides a critical analysis of the international system. Radicals argue that the international system is shaped by economic inequality, exploitation, and imperialism. This approach highlights the importance of addressing structural injustices and power imbalances in the international system. However, radical theory has been criticized for its deterministic view of international relations and its limited focus on economic and social factors at the expense of other important dynamics. Constructivist theory, which emphasizes the role of ideas, norms, and identities in international relations, offers a nuanced analysis of the international system. Constructivists argue that the behavior of states is shaped by shared beliefs and social constructions, rather than just material interests. This approach provides a more holistic understanding of international relations and highlights the potential for change and transformation in the international system. However, constructivist theory has been criticized for its lack of clear empirical evidence and its focus on ideational factors at the expense of material realities. In weighing the costs and benefits of each approach, it is important to recognize that no single theory provides a complete and accurate analysis of the international system. Each theoretical approach offers valuable insights into different aspects of international relations, and a comprehensive understanding of the international system requires consideration of multiple perspectives. By engaging with the strengths and limitations of each approach, scholars and policymakers can develop a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of the complexities of the international system.