The Emergence of Great Power Rivalries

Is the emergence of great power rivalries inevitable? Has the structure of the International system changed? Or, is the status quo being maintained? The year is 2013 and scholars of international relations appear to still be waiting for the ‘inevitable change' to multi-polarity within the structure of the International System. A quick scan of the most recent literature makes it clearly evident that scholars are also still unsure of when, or if, it will happen in the near future. It is like the little kid asking from the back seat, "are we there yet?" the answer for those that predict the eventual end of the trip is, we are getting there. But the reality appears to be that, despite the purported current power standing of China, Russia, the EU, and others, status quo is still ruling the day. It is the continuance of the status quo, the unipolar structure of the current system with the United States as system Leader that drives the disagreement about the inevitability of Great Power rivalries developing in the near future. For, if the system remains unipolar, doesn't this preclude such a development? This week's readings centered in the purported unipolar structural nature of the current International System. The authors endeavor to explain the persistence of United States primacy within the system in various ways and to advance arguments towards its future longevity or lack thereof.

Conventional wisdom in international relations is that the International System is, at its core, an anarchic system that sets forth incentives for "counter-hegemonic balancing," (Layne 1993, 15). This is, according to realists like Christopher Layne, an inevitable outcome of the system's check and balances. Layne proposes that unipolarity is an illusion that will not last forever and, as such, the raise of Great Power rivalries are sure to arise in the near future. Despite this argument, and counter to what I have learned in the last two weeks about the tendency to multi-polarity of the System, I found the argument for the continuance of unipolar ‘balance' and the unlikely inevitable emergence of truly serious Great Power rivalries in the near future most persuasive. This is not to say that I was able to choose any one specific argument as overwhelmingly more persuasive than the other. Wohlforth makes the case for unipolarity on the basis of its stability, which is due to the overwhelming capabilities of the United States. The power gap between the United States and other Great Powers is too wide to be easily bridged by what he calls these ‘second-tier' states. For conflict to exist, any challenger would have to believe that it could take the leader (Wohlforth 1999, 24).