A Step Towards the Theoretical Model of Dissipated and Bifurcated Order in the New International Politics

Document Type : Original Article

Author

Associate Professor of International Relations University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Extended Abstract
Introduction
There are developments that can change the world order. The transition of the international system from simple and linear to a complex and chaotic system, in the context of international multi-body systems, has brought new challenges to explain its order. International relations literature has studied order from a simple and classical perspective and the international system is perceived as a linear system, while this is a complex and chaotic. Complexity theory offers a new set of conceptual tools to help explain the global order. It constitutes a challenge to more traditional forms of theorizing in international politics and offers new ways of thinking about it. A new pattern of order is emerging, which can be conceptualized as the dissipative and bifurcated order.
 Methodology
The most prominent methodological aspect of achieving this goal is to utilize the abductive model in theoretical inference and to utilize the complexity-chaos theory assumptions and its conceptualization in the complex international relations. The abduction methodology refers to some form of explanatory reasoning. It refers to the place of explanatory reasoning in generating hypotheses, and also in justifying them. Abduction is finding the best explanation. Chaos and complexity as two important characteristics of the international system lead to dissipative and bifurcated order as the best explanation of the new world order.
Results and discussion
Complexity theory offers a new set of conceptual tools to help explain the global order. It constitutes a challenge to more traditional forms of theorizing in international politics and offers new ways of thinking about it. A new pattern of order is emerging, which can be conceptualized as the dissipative and bifurcated order. This article seeks to provide a theoretical model for explaining the new order based on the element of complexity and its theories. In this regard, the author pioneers the dissipative and bifurcated order as an innovative theoretical model to the scientific community of international relations. This model is based on the ontology and epistemological foundations of complexity theory.
Conclusions
The article provides a new theoretical model in the framework of dissipative and bifurcated order by establishing a link between multibody and complex systems theory and international order. The model has the essential features as follows:

The multibody system as main construction of new international order;
Systemic pressures as the cause of bifurcation, and formation of dissipative structures and processes;
Bifurcating and dissipation as the main response to systemic pressures;
Feedback strategic stability and feedback strategic deadlock as a new concept to explain the balance of power and dynamic equilibrium;
The layered hierarchy as one of the most important theoretical concepts to explain the new order. In this model, polarity is replaced by centrality. The order has two properties, including circularity,centrality-based and layered, nested hierarchy;
The convergence of different sub-networks and their dynamics and forming a global nested network along with differentiated clusters;
The dissipative and bifurcated control system as the main model of control;
The equation of internal order and external disorder. This type of control system provides order by using internal capacities and creating branches in the external
Oscillational equilibrium as the main route to evolution.

.

Keywords


  1. References

    1. Adler, E. (2005). Barry Buzan's Use of Constructivism to Reconstruct the English School:Not All the Way Down'. Millennium, Vol. 34,No.1.
    2. Arie, K. (2016). Complex deterrence theory and the post-cold war security environment. NIDS Journal of Defense and Security, 17.
    3. Auyang, S. Y. (1999). Foundations of complex-system theories: in economics, evolutionary biology, and statistical physics: Cambridge University Press.
    4. Barrett, N. F. (2019). Dissipative systems and living bodies. Adaptive Behavior, 1059712319841306.
    5. Bedau, M. A. (2008). Emergence: Contemporary Readings in Philosophy And Science, edited by Mark A. Bedau and Paul Humphreys. In: MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
    6. Bousquet, A.; Curtis, S. (2011). Beyond models and metaphors: complexity theory, systems thinking and international relations. Cambridge Review of International Affairs,Vol. 24,No.1.
    7. Brandes, U. (2005). Network analysis: methodological foundations (Vol. 3418): Springer Science & Business Media.
    8. Brogliato, B.; Lozano, R.; Maschke, B.; Egeland, O. (2007). Dissipative systems analysis and control. Theory and Applications, 2.
    9. Brooks, D. R.; Wiley, E. O.; Brooks, D. (1988). Evolution as entropy: University of Chicago Press Chicago.
    10. Chaudhary, H.; Saha, S. K. (2008). Dynamics and balancing of multibody systems (Vol. 37): Springer Science & Business Media.
    11. Cox, R. W. (1996). Approaches to world order (Vol. 40): Cambridge University Press.
    12. D'Agostino, G.; Scala, A. (2014). Networks of networks: the last frontier of complexity,Vol. 340. Springer.
    13. De Keersmaeker, G. (2016). Polarity, balance of power and International Relations theory: Post-Cold War and the 19th Century compared: Springer.
    14. DiCicco, J. M.; Levy, J. S. (1999). Power shifts and problem shifts: The evolution of the power transition research program. Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 34,No.6.
    15. Dingjun, L.; Xian, W.; Deming, Z ; Maoan, H. (1997). Bifurcation theory and methods of dynamical systems ,Vol. 15,World Scientific.
    16. Dubitzky, W.; Wolkenhauer, O.; Yokota, H.; Cho, K.-H. (2013). Encyclopedia of systems biology: Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated.
    17. Fawcett, L. (2004). Exploring regional domains: a comparative history of regionalism. International Affairs, 80(3), 429-446.
    18. Feng, H.; He, K. (2017). Soft Balancing. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics.
    19. Filippidou, A. (2020). Deterrence: Concepts and Approaches for Current and Emerging Threats. In Deterrence (pp. 1-18): Springer.
    20. Frantzen, H.-A. (2020). Hybrid Deterrence retrived from fhs.brage.unit.no.
    21. Fukuyama, F. (1989). The end of history? The national interest,16.
    22. Geller, A. (2011). The use of complexity-based models in international relations: a technical overview and discussion of prospects and challenges. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Vol. 24,No.1.
    23. Geyer, R. (2003). Beyond the Third Way: the science of complexity and the politics of choice. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 5,No.2.
    24. Ghasemi, F. (2011). Theories of International Relations and Regional Studies. Tehran: Mizan.[In Persian]
    25. Ghasemi, F. (2013). Theories of international relations: theoretical foundations of order and international regimes Tehran: Mizan.[In Persian]
    26. Ghasemi, F. (2018). Bifurcated Transition in the Complex and Chaotic International System: Iran political strategic studies,Vol.6,No.24.[In Persian]
    27. Ghasemi, F. (2019). Complexity-Chaos Theory and War in International Tehran: Tehran University.[In Persian]
    28. Ghasemi, A. S. S. m. M. H. J. F. (2019). The Evolution of the Global Geopolitical Structure and the Unilateral Deterrence of the United States (Centered on Saudi Arabia), Geopolitics Quarterly,Vol. 15,No.54.
    29. Ghasemi, F. (2015). Theories of International Relation: Cybernetic and Foreign Policy Tehran: Mizan.[In Persian]
    30. Goldstein, J. (1999). Emergence as a construct: History and issues. Emergence,Vol. 1,No.1.
    31. Hafezni, M. R. (2017). ctive Geostrategic Faults in the World, Geopolitics Quareterly,Vol. 12,No,4.[In Persian]
    32. Hafner-Burton, E. M.; Kahler, M.; Montgomery, A. H. (2009). Network analysis for international relations. International organization,. Vol. 63,No.3.
    33. Harrison, N. E. (2012). Complexity in world politics: Concepts and methods of a new paradigm: SUNY Press.
    34. Hettne, B. (1999). Globalization and the new regionalism: the second great transformation. In Globalism and the new regionalism,pp. 1-24.
    35. Hettne, B. (2006). Beyond the ‘new’regionalism. In Key debates in new political economy (pp. 136-168): Routledge.
    36. Hettne, B.; Söderbaum, F. (1998). The new regionalism approach. Politeia,Vol. 17,No.3.
    37. Holm, H.-H. (2019). Whose world order?: uneven globalization and the end of the Cold War: Routledge.
    38. Hopf, T. (1998). The promise of constructivism in international relations theory. International security, Vol 23.No.1.
    39. Huntington, S. P. (2000). The clash of civilizations? In Culture and politics ,pp. 99-118.
    40. Juntunen, T.; Virta, S. (2019). Security dynamics: Multilayered security governance in an age of complexity, uncertainty, and resilience. Leading Change in a Complex World: Transdisciplinary Perspectives.
    41. Kavalski, E. (2007). The fifth debate and the emergence of complex international relations theory: notes on the application of complexity theory to the study of international life. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 435-454, Vol. 20, No.3.
    42. Kavalski, E. (2008). The complexity of global security governance: an analytical overview. Global Society, Vol.22,No.4.
    43. Kavalski, E. (2015). World politics at the edge of chaos: Reflections on complexity and global life: SUNY Press.
    44. Knopf, J. W. (2010). The fourth wave in deterrence research. Contemporary Security Policy,Vol. 31,No1.
    45. Lebow, R. N. (2020). Deterrence and Compellence. In A Democratic Foreign Policy, pp. 75-102.
    46. Lemke, D. (2002). Regions of war and peace (Vol. 80): Cambridge University Press.
    47. Lemke, D.; Tammen, R. L. (2003). Power transition theory and the rise of China. International Interactions, Vol.29,No.4.
    48. Lorenz, E. N. (1963). Deterministic nonperiodic flow. Journal of the atmospheric sciences, Vol.20,No. 2.
    49. Lozano, R.; Brogliato, B.; Egeland, O.; Maschke, B. (2000). Dissipative systems. In Dissipative Systems Analysis and Control, pp. 111-166.
    50. Moffat, J. (2003). complex theory and network centric warfare: ccrp.
    51. Montgomery, A. H. (2015). Centrality in transnational governance: How networks of international institutions shape power processes. New Power Politics: Networks, Governance, and Global Security, ed. Deborah Avant and Oliver Westerwinter. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, Forthcoming.
    52. Mousavi Shafaee, S. M; Naghdi, F. (2016). Regional Powers and World Order in the Post Cold War EraSeyed Masoud, Geopolitics Quareterly,Vol.11,No.40.[In Persian]
    53. Nye, J. S. (1992). What new world order? Foreign Affairs,Vol. 71,No.2.
    54. Paul, T. V.; Morgan, P. M.; Wirtz, J. J. (2009). Complex deterrence: Strategy in the global age: University of Chicago Press.
    55. Schiehlen, W. (2013). Advanced multibody system dynamics: Simulation and Software tools (Vol. 20): Springer Science & Business Media.
    56. Shamiri Shekofti, A. B. S. (2018). Explanation of the Position of Smart Power in China's Foreign Policy, Geopolitics Quareterly,Vol. 14,No.51.[In Persian]
    57. Söderbaum, F. (2016). Old, New, and Comparative Regionalism. The Oxford handbook of comparative regionalism, 16-37.
    58. Söderbaum, F.; Shaw, T. M. (2003). Theories of new regionalism. Theories of new regionalism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1-21.
    59. Spandler, K. (2015). The political international society: Change in primary and secondary institutions. Review of International Studies, Vol. 41,No.3.
    60. Stephen, M. D.; Zürn, M. (2019). Contested World Orders: Rising Powers, Non-governmental Organizations, and the Politics of Authority Beyond the Nation-state: Oxford University Press, USA.
    61. Sun, J.-Q.; Luo, A. C. (2006). Bifurcation and chaos in complex systems: Elsevier.
    62. Svennevig, J. (2001). Abduction as a methodological approach to the study of spoken interaction. Norskrift. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/ profile/Jan_Svennevig3/publication/251398301.
    63. Tanaka, M. (2017). Reconceptualizing regional order: a critical/scientific realist (CR/SR) intervention. Journal of Contemporary East Asia Studies, Vol. 6,No.1.
    64. Thom, R. (1975). Structural Stability and Morphogenesis.(DH Fowler, Trans.) Reading. MA: Benjamin/Cummings.
    65. Van Langenhove, L. (2016). Building regions: the regionalization of the world order: Routledge.
    66. Väyrynen, R. (2003). Regionalism: old and new. International Studies Review,Vol. 5,No.1.
    67. Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics (Vol. 67): Cambridge University Press.
    68. Wilkinson, E. (2020). Resilience and Deterrence: Exploring Correspondence Between the Concepts. In Deterrence,pp. 19-33.

    Yu, P. (2006). Bifurcation, limit cycle and chaos of nonlinear dynamical systems. Edited Series on Advances in Nonlinear Science and Complexity, 1.