A tale of two worlds: core and periphery in the post-cold war era

Abstract

As the world moves away from the familiar bipolar cold war era, many international relations theorists have renewed an old debate about which is more stable: a world with two great powers or a world with many great powers. Based on the chief assumptions of structural realism—namely, that the international system is characterized by anarchy and that states are unitary actors seeking to survive in this anarchic system—some security analysts are predicting that a world of several great powers will lead to a return to the shifting alliances and instabilities of the multipolar era that existed prior to World War II. For instance, John Mearsheimer argues that “prediction[s] of peace in a multipolar Europe [are] flawed.” Thomas Christensen and Jack Snyder argue that states in a multipolar world can follow either the pre-World War I or the pre-World War II alliance pattern, thus implying that a third course is improbable. They further assert that “the fundamental, invariant structural feature, international anarchy, generally selects and socializes states to form balancing alignments in order to survive in the face of threats from aggressive competitors.” The realist argument predicts that great powers in a self-help international system will balance one another through arms races and alliance formations.

Authoritarian persistence, democratization theory and the Middle East: An overview and critique

“…53 While the democratic peace and economic interdependence in the core spells an appropriate liberal 'virtuous circle' for taming the power struggle between states, their absence in the periphery sets up a 'vicious circle' where war precludes the economic interdependence and democratization that in principle could, in turn, deter war. There can be little doubt that the Middle East remains a zone of war, with all the deleterious consequences for democratization: over-sized armies, the dissent-intolerant atmosphere AUTHORITARIAN P ERSISTENCE IN THE MIDDLE EAST of national-security states, and the deterrence of investment that could generate prosperity giving people a stake in peace.…”

Relevance of Mary Kaldors new wars thesis in the 21st century

“…It provides a further analytical framework into the Northsouth division of a 'zone of peace' in the developed industrial world, where power peace operates and 'zones of war' in the poorer developing world where pervasive conflicts and civil wars are present (Goldgeier and Mcfaul, 1992). This offers great insight into new wars as negative consequences of globalization which tends to enrich the north and further impoverish the south.…”

Regionalism and Crisis Prevention in (Western) Europe and (Eastern) Asia: A Systematic Comparison

“…The transfer of principles and rules from the EU to other regions became a guiding idea for (Western) European policies during the nineties, the notion of civil power policy a catch phrase for its intended style. 3 The socializing impact of the EU's enlargement policy vis-à-vis neighboring countries appeared to have proven the efficacy of this type of power. 4 Given the possibility of becoming full members of the EU (and NATO), candidate countries changed crucial elements of their policies after being criticized by both organizations.…”