International Relations. (theory of international relations)

Competing system theorists justify their truth claims about the nature of the system by arguing that they can
explain change (or history) better than rival theorists (Theory in Brief, Contending Perspectives on the
International System).
Given competing explanations of the system, answer the following prompts in any manner you choose,
integrated or separately:

  1. What are the fundamental strengths and weaknesses of polarity as a tool of explanation for how the
    international system works?. 2. Based on the history of IR since Westphalia, is some kind of polar structure a
    permanent feature of the international system, or does this feature seem merely contingent? Explain.
  2. What are the strengths and weaknesses of each of the system theories discussed in the chapter —realism,
    liberalism, radicalism-dependency theory, and constructivism? In other words, what kind of evidence makes
    each theory more or less plausible?
  3. Finally, Christianity arguably offers a ‘unit level’ explanation for (bad) collective behavior based upon the
    multiplier effect of individual sin. Briefly comment on whether ‘sin’ theory explains the behavior of the system
    and its parts as well as rival theories?

Sample Solution