References

• The distribution of power among states defines the basic hierarchy of the international system and shapes the structure within which all international actors must operate. Power is not distributed equally: some states command vastly greater military, economic, technological, and diplomatic resources than others, and this inequality has profound implications for the ability of different states to pursue their interests, to influence international outcomes, and to shape the rules and institutions of the international order. The recognition of this inequality is reflected in the institutional architecture of the post-1945 international order, most conspicuously in the permanent member status and veto power of the five great powers in the UN Security Council.
• Contemporary assessments of the distribution of power in the international system suggest that we are in a period of significant flux. The clear American preponderance of the 1990s — the 'unipolar moment' — has given way to a more contested distribution, as China's rise has dramatically altered the economic balance of power and as other emerging powers — India, Brazil, Turkey, Indonesia, and others — have grown in both economic and political significance. Whether this shifting distribution will eventually crystallise into a stable new multipolarity, or whether it will produce a bipolar competition between the United States and China reminiscent of the Cold War, is one of the central questions of contemporary international relations.
• The post-1945 international order has been closely associated with American hegemony. The United States used its preponderant power and international prestige after the Second World War to construct the institutional framework of the liberal international order — the United Nations system, the Bretton Woods institutions, the GATT, and the network of alliances and security guarantees that anchored the Western camp during the Cold War. This American-led order has provided significant benefits to its participants — an unprecedented expansion of trade and investment, a framework for managing international security challenges, and a set of norms and institutions that have constrained the behaviour even of powerful states. The question of whether this order can survive the relative decline of American power and the rise of new powers with different interests and values is one of the most pressing questions facing the international system in the twenty-first century.
• The Russia-Ukraine war that began with Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022 has added a second major great-power rivalry — between Russia and the Western alliance — to the strategic landscape. The war has had profound implications for the international system: it has reinvigorated NATO and sharpened the cleavage between the democratic West and the authoritarian powers; it has demonstrated the continued relevance of conventional military force in great-power competition; and it has raised fundamental questions about the sustainability of the post-Cold War European security order and the future of the rules-based international order more broadly.
• At the same time, globalisation has generated significant discontents. The distributional consequences of economic integration have been uneven, with some regions and populations benefiting greatly while others have experienced stagnating wages, deindustrialisation, and growing inequality. The financial crisis of 2008 exposed fundamental vulnerabilities in the globally integrated financial system and demonstrated that financial contagion can spread rapidly across borders with devastating consequences for national economies. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the vulnerability of globally integrated supply chains to disruption and raised new questions about the risks of excessive dependence on distant suppliers for essential goods. And the rise of economic nationalism — manifested in trade protectionism, investment restrictions, and the partial decoupling of national economies — has challenged the liberal economic order on which the globalisation project was premised.
• Beyond China, a range of other emerging powers — including India, Brazil, South Africa, Turkey, Indonesia, and Mexico — have grown in economic significance and are increasingly asserting their interests and identities in international forums. The BRICS grouping (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) and its recent expansion to include additional members represents one institutional expression of the growing ambition of emerging powers to reshape the international order. The G20, which emerged from the financial crisis of 2008 as the premier forum for international economic governance, reflects the growing recognition that an international economic order managed exclusively by the G7 Western powers is no longer adequate.
• Despite the strains and contestation that the contemporary international system is experiencing, the post-war trend towards the proliferation and deepening of international institutions has continued. The number of international organisations, treaty regimes, and multilateral agreements has continued to grow, extending the institutional framework of international governance into new areas — including cyber governance, climate change, global health, and financial regulation — and deepening its reach in established areas such as trade, investment, and human rights. The development of international criminal justice — the creation of the International Criminal Court in 2002 and the prosecution of individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide — represents a particularly significant development, establishing for the first time a permanent international institution with the mandate and capacity to hold individuals accountable for the most serious violations of international humanitarian law.
• Transnational terrorism — most dramatically illustrated by the September 11, 2001 attacks and their aftermath — has emerged as one of the defining security challenges of the contemporary era. Terrorist networks that operate across state boundaries, exploiting ungoverned spaces, global communications technologies, and the vulnerabilities of open societies, pose challenges that conventional military responses are poorly suited to address. The 'war on terror' launched by the United States after September 11 demonstrated both the scale of the security threat and the limitations and costs — human, financial, and political — of attempting to manage it primarily through military means.
• The international climate regime — centred on the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement adopted under it in 2015 — represents a significant institutional achievement, establishing a framework for national commitments to emissions reduction and a mechanism for international accountability. However, the gap between the commitments made under the Paris Agreement and the reductions needed to limit global warming to the internationally agreed target of 1.5 degrees Celsius is enormous, and the failure of major emitters — particularly the United States (which withdrew from the Paris Agreement under the Trump administration before rejoining under Biden) and China (the world's largest current emitter) — to make commitments commensurate with the scale of the challenge remains a critical weakness of the international climate response.
• Discuss the major changes in the international system after the Cold War. What structural transformations has the system undergone since 1991, and what are the most significant challenges and opportunities these changes present for developing states in Africa?
• South Sudan's experience since independence in 2011 provides a compelling and locally relevant case study of how the anarchic international system shapes the security environment and foreign policy choices of a newly independent developing state. The outbreak of civil war in December 2013, the involvement of neighbouring states and regional powers in the conflict, the response of the international community through the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) and the IGAD-led peace process, and the continuing challenges of post-conflict reconstruction all illustrate key dynamics of the international system examined in this module: the security dilemma, the role of regional institutions, the politics of humanitarian intervention, and the interaction between the international system and domestic political order.
• The Cold War (1947–1991) provides the canonical modern example of a bipolar international system and offers rich material for examining the theoretical claims of structural realism about the dynamics and stability properties of different systemic configurations. The competition between the United States and the Soviet Union — in military capabilities, ideological influence, economic models, and geopolitical alignment — shaped the behaviour of virtually every state in the international system, including the newly independent states of Africa that were drawn into the superpower competition through the proxy conflicts of the Cold War era. Examining the Cold War through the lens of structural theory illuminates both the strengths and the limitations of structural approaches to international relations.