Rethinking the International System as a Complex Adaptive System
Over the last two decades , several attempts have been made to use complex systems theory to analyze international politics , see for instance Robert Axelrod ’ s The Complexity of Cooperation ( 1997 ), Neil E . Harrison ’ s Complexity in World Politics ( 2006a ), Diana Richards ’ Political Complexity ( 2000b ), and Emilian Kavalski ’ s “ The Fifth Debate and the Emergence of Complex International Relations Theory ” ( 2007 ). Yet , only a handful of IR scholars have advocated for the use of complexity theory as an overarching theoretical framework of IR , and fewer among them have used its modeling techniques to study the international system . This article hopes to fill a gap in the literature by posing the taxonomical foundations of a theoretical framework of IR rooted in complexity theory . Overall , this study is set to offer a radical reinterpretation of the way we think of international affairs by proposing new ontological , epistemological , methodological , and taxonomical perspectives .
Where Does Complexity Theory Stand ?
The fourth inter-disciplinary
debate between positivist and post-positivist scholars has succeeded in moving out IR from a strictly positivist ground , 1 but it has failed in creating cohesion over a new philosophical system . On theoretical pluralism , Dunne , Hansen and Wight wrote :
Only pluralism can deal with a multi faceted and complex reality and only pluralism can deliver substantial progress in terms of knowledge . Given the lack of agreed epistemological standards for assessing competing knowledge claims , we should embrace all perspectives . [ ... ] Our view is that we should attempt to move towards a position we will term ‘ integrative pluralism ’. [ ... ] Integrative pluralism accepts and preserves the validity of a wide range of theoretical perspectives and embraces theoretical diversity as a means of providing more comprehensive and multi dimensional accounts of complex phenomena [ emphasis added ]. ( Dunne et al ., 2013 , p . 417 )
However , there is an inconsistency in this argument : a sum of not-goodenough theories does not make for a good enough theory . Traditional IR theories are just not equipped with the necessary epistemology and methodology to make sense of complex adaptive systems . Pluralism , in this case , can only lead us to a plurality of errors and misinterpretations . Sure , the more theories we use , the more likely we are to find a tangential explanation for our phenomenon of interest , but none of those explanations will be able to grasp the core dynamics of the international system ( adaptation , emergence , and self-organization ). For this reason , we
1 There has been a tendency among theory-leaden positivist scholars to shift toward post-positivism , this is the case for example of John Mearsheimer , which in a paper in 2013 wrote that scientific realism offers “ a more convincing epistemology ” ( Mearsheimer & Walt , 2013 , p . 433 ).
113