The Dominate State and International Structure

The definition of state has morphed throughout history.  Different types of states and organization have dominated the world system, such as feudalism, city-states, city-leagues and empires.  These definitions of state all preceded the sovereign state, which currently dominates the system.  With the development of the sovereign state came the development of a new international structure.  Norms of economic interaction, military power, and diplomacy between nations needed to be established.  A dominate state emerged, dictating these norms and establishing a balance of power.  The dominate state determines the structure of the system, and therefore has great power.  It favors and rewards like governments and economies within the system.  I argue the dominate state holds ultimate power in the formation and continuing development of international structure, and enacts policy that will secure and increase its power.  Political scientists John Ikenberry, Hendrick Spruyt, and Andrew Moravcsik all highlight the influential role of the dominate state in their work, and throughout recent history and modern day politics, we see examples of dominate states driving the international system in their favor.

Emerging from World War II as the dominate state, the US began to establish a world order that served its interest.  Ikenberry wrote, “From this commanding position between 1944 and 1951, the United States led the way in establishing the Bretton woods institutions, the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), . .” (Ikenberry 9).  These institutions not only reflected US values, but also propped up US power.  By placing itself at the center of the international system, the US created a world structure dependent on its success.  Democracies and capitalist nations were favored and rewarded by the system, while other forms of government and economy were push out or replaced.  US aid in the Marshall Plan, to help rebuild European economies after WWII, was tied to capitalism. Only countries that embraced capitalist values were eligible to receive funds, thus propping up US interests in the world system.  We also see favoritism in Latin America, as the US backed militaristic and even authoritarian leaders, who oppressed the people but agreed to capitalism, over communists leaning leaders, who were often supported by the populace.  The US used its power as the dominate state to impose its values on the international system, and promote like governments and institutions.   Thus, increasing US international prowess, and bolstering US economic interest by broadening capitalist markets.  Along with the US’ emergence as the dominate state, came the ability to dictate and influence the developing international system.

  Spruyt’s writings also support my claim designating the dominate state as the key player in the formation of the international system. With the development of the sovereign state, nations were required to conform to the new world order or be lost and marginalized.  We saw this with the fall of the Ottoman Empire, which failed to restructure itself from a Universalist derivative of power to a territorial derivative.  The Ottoman Empire no longer fit into the international structure and therefore dissipated.  The dominate state thrived in a system that derived its power from territorial boarders and dictated the international system follow suit.  As another example, the dominate states who formed the Treaty of Westphalia only recognized the units within the system that fit into their new territorial based definition of state.  Spruyt writes, “The state actors who made up the system, thus recognized or denied certain forms of organization as legitimate international actors. . .Actors needed to conform to these rules and norms in order to participate in the international system.” (Spruyt, 16).  We again see the dominate actor dictating the rules of the international system.  Some may argue it is the interaction of the actors that sets the rules of the system rather than the dominate actor, but Spruyt goes on to say, “structure of the system is determined by the particular type of unit that dominates the system. . . Such structure is not derivative of the interactions between units,” (Spruyt, 17).  The dominate state did not emerge from a give and take between actors in the international system.  The dominate state dictates the system; the system does not produce the dominate state.

  Lastly, we see a contemporary example of dominate state influence in the international system in the European Union’s economic policy.   Germany dictates EU economic policy. Moravcsik writes, “Since Europe began cooperating on monetary issues in the 1970s, nearly every agreement has been negotiated on terms set primarily by Germany,” (Moravcsik, 55).  Again, rather than a confederation of states deciding system policy that allows for equal competition, and thus for a dominate state to emerge, we see a dominate state imposing their will. Germany’s economic success placed them at the forefront of EU economic policy, and they established policy to reinforce their dominance.  Moravcisk writes, “Germany’s main motivation. .  . was rather to promote its own economic welfare through open  markets, a competitive exchange rate, and anti-inflationary monetary policy,” (Moravcsik, 55).  The system serves Germany’s interests rather than those of the lessor EU countries.  Germany’s emergence as the powerful economic player in Europe has allowed it to dictate policy, even at the cost of other EU nations.  As we discussed this in class some were hesitant to blame Germany, choosing to fault the weaker countries for their irresponsible spending practices and high-inflation.  After examining Germany’s dominate role in the formation of EU economic policy, it is clear Germany established a system reflective and augmentative of German interests.  Germany did not emerge as the leader from an equal economic system, rather as the dominate state Germany set the terms to assure its success.

In conclusion, through our class discussion we touched on the role of the dominate state in the formation of international structure.  Although some may have disagreed about the influence of the dominate state, it is evident the dominate state dictates the system, not that the system dictates the dominate state.  The works of Ikenberry, Spruyt, and Morazcsik, and real world examples, convince me of the prevailing role the dominate state takes in the formation of international structure.  The dominate state dictates the type of institutions that form, who is recognized within the system, the norms of communication, and any shared economic policy.  Through the ability to dictate the nature of the international system, the dominate state establishes a structure that promotes its interests, and thus solidifies its role as the predominate state.