Rethinking the International System as a Complex Adaptive System
cause the system is composed of many different heterogeneous components , each embedded in a different niche and each with its own environmental and social context . In addition , partially it is so because information processing on a global scale is computationally expensive . Which means that information sampling has to rely even more on randomness and loosely regulated explorative behaviors . In this sense , disorder in the international system should not be seen in a negative light . 10 Far from being a source of chaos , self-organized anarchy in the international system bends disorder to generate entropy-defying behaviors . 11
Conclusion
This paper was set to formalize
a complex systems theory approach to the study of international relations . It defined a methodology capable of dealing with the nonlinearity of international affairs and proposed a new taxonomy for the discipline built around core ideas of complexity theory . The study has gone some way toward enhancing our understanding of the international system by proposing an alternative perspective on international affairs that uses the concepts of fitness , adaptation , coevolution , self-organization , and information processing .
The first section looked at the state of discourse in IR and specified why complex systems theory stands out as a viable research method for dealing with the multi-faced complex reality of international politics . As it was pointed out , complexity theory could potentially integrate different IR school of thoughts by using an inside – out view that mixes the ontological perspectives of constructivism and structural theories . Moreover , complex systems theory provides novel analytical tools that could be used to tackle the nonlinearity of social systems , which instead is persistently ignored by traditional IR theories .
The second section introduced the methodology of complex systems theory and agent-based modeling . It defined the properties of a complex adaptive system and described the international system as composed of many diverse , interconnected , and independent agents that iterate nonlinear relationships from which multilevel behavior emerges and evolve . As advocated in this section , IR scholars should make methodological changes in the way they study international affairs . Modeling should shift from continuous to dis-
10 As Walter Clemens writes , fitness is found in the middle ranges of the spectrum between ultrastability ( rigid order ) and instability ( chaos ). With “ creative and constructive responses to complex challenges [ ... ] more likely to be found close to the edge of chaos than toward the other end of the spectrum ” ( Clemens , 2006 , p . 74 ).
11 Self-organized anarchy differs from anarchy as conceptualized in neorealism . Whereas both imply lack of central control , only the former assume nation-states to be functionally differentiated within the system . The role of randomness has largely been misunderstood in positivist IR theory and it is one of the reasons why scholars have often been “ slipping ” between levels . Due to a widespread deterministic-centralized mind-set , there has been a tendency to believe that randomness is disruptive of patterns and that stable organized patters arise under the coordination of a central controller ( Waltz , 1979 , p . 97 ).
129