Munich Personal RePEc Archive A New Taxonomy for International Relations: Rethinking the International System as a Complex Adaptive System Scartozzi, Cesare M. University of Tokyo, Graduate School of Public Policy 2018 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/95496/ MPRA Paper No. 95496, posted 12 Aug 2019 10:50 UTC 1SFQVCMJDBUJPOJournal on Policy and Complex Systems • Volume 4, Number 1 • Spring 2018 A New Taxonomy for International Relations: Rethinking the International System as a Complex Adaptive System Cesare Scartozzi Graduate School of Public Policy, University of Tokyo [email protected] 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan ORCID number: 0000-0002-4350-4386. Abstract The international system is a complex adaptive system with emer- gent properties and dynamics of self-organization and informa- tion processing. As such, it is better understood with a multidis- ciplinary approach that borrows methodologies from the field of complexity science and integrates them to the theoretical perspec- tives offered by the field of international relations (IR). This study is set to formalize a complex systems theory approach to the study of international affairs and introduce a new taxonomy for IR with the two-pronged aim of improving interoperability between differ- ent epistemological communities and outlining a formal grammar that set the basis for modeling international politics as a complex adaptive system. Keywords: international politics, international relations theory, complex systems theory, taxonomy, adaptation, fitness, self-orga- nization This is a prepublication version of: Scartozzi, Cesare M. “A New Taxonomy for International Relations: Rethinking the International System as a Complex Adaptive System.” Journal on Policy and Complex Systems 4, no. 1 (2018): 109–33. https://doi.org/10.18278/jpcs.4.1.6. doi: 10.18278/jpcs.4.1.6 109 Journal on Policy and Complex Systems Una nueva taxonomía para las relaciones internacionales: repensando el sistema internacional como un sistema adaptativo complejo Resumen El Sistema internacional es un sistema adaptativo complejo con propiedades emergentes y dinámica de auto organización y pro- cesamiento de información. Como tal, es mejor comprender con una aproximación multidisciplinaria que extraiga metodologías del campo de la ciencia de la complejidad y las integre a las pers- pectivas teóricas ofrecidas por el campo de las relaciones interna- cionales (RI). Este estudio existe para formalizar un acercamiento teórico de sistemas complejos para el estudio de los asuntos in- ternacionales y presentar una nueva taxonomía para las RI con el objetivo bipartito de mejorar la interoperabilidad entre diferentes comunidades epistemológicas y esquematizar una gramática for- mal que ponga las bases para los modelos de las políticas interna- cionales como un sistema adaptativo complejo. Palabras clave: política internacional, teoría de relaciones inter- nacionales, teoría de sistemas complejos, taxonomía, adaptación, aptitud, autoorganización ഭ䱵ޣ㌫ᯠ࠶㊫˖䟽ᯠᙍ㘳ഭ䱵 ޣ㌫䘉а༽ᵲ䘲ᓄ㌫㔏 ᪈㾱 ഭ䱵㌫㔏ᱟањ༽ᵲ䘲ᓄ㌫㔏ˈᆳާ༷㠚㓴㓷઼ؑ᚟༴⨶Ⲵ 䘋ሩഭ䱵㌫㔏׳ᙗ䍘઼ࣘᘱDŽ➗↔ˈ⭘ཊᆖ、ᯩ⌅ᴤ㜭ޤᯠ Ⲵ⨶䀓ˈഐѪࡽ㘵ُ⭘༽ᵲᙗ、ᆖ亶ฏѝⲴᯩ⌅䇪ᒦሶަਸ ⨶㌫˄international relationsˈIR˅亶ฏᡰᨀ׋Ⲵޣᒦࡠഭ䱵 䇪㿶䀂ѝDŽᵜ⹄ウ㠤࣋Ѫഭ䱵ޣ㌫⹄ウᨀࠪ↓ᔿⲴ༽ᵲ㌫㔏 ⨶䇪ᯩ⌅ˈᒦѪഭ䱵ޣ㌫ᕅޕа⿽ᯠⲴ࠶㊫⌅ˈ↔࠶㊫⌅ᴹ єњⴞḷ˖аᱟᨀ儈н਼䇔䇶䇪⽮४˄epistemological com- 110 Rethinking the International System as a Complex Adaptive System munities˅䰤Ⲵӂ᫽֌ᙗ˗Ҽᱟᾲ䘠а⿽ᖒᔿ䈝⌅ˈѪഭ䱵 ᭯⋫֌Ѫа⿽༽ᵲ䘲ᓄ㌫㔏䘋㹼ᔪ⁑ᨀ׋ส⹰DŽ ޣ䭞䇽˖ഭ䱵᭯⋫ˈഭ䱵ޣ㌫⨶䇪ˈ༽ᵲ㌫㔏⨶䇪ˈ࠶㊫ ᆖˈ䘲ᓄˈfitness, 㠚㓴㓷 Introduction could use the vast array of positivist and post-positivist theories in a coherent his study puts forward the idea and integrative way, we would be finally that the international political able to make sense of the multifaceted Tsystem is a complex adaptive sys- inquiries of international politics. But tem, with emergent properties and dy- in reality, coherence is hard to achieve namics of self-organization. Hence, it when confronted with an overarching suggests that the international system and disorganized menu of theories and is better understood with a multidisci- claims. And without coherence and plinary approach that borrows meth- method, the whole discipline becomes odologies from the field of complexity prone to relativism and loss of critical science and integrates them with the standards (Dunne et al., 2013, p. 415), theoretical perspectives offered by the transforming academic dialogue in an field of international relations (IR). The empty debate of perspectives and mir- overall scope of this study is to formal- rors. ize a complex systems theory approach A more fundamental problem to IR, define a new taxonomy for the that affects both general theories and discipline to improve interoperability pluralist approaches of IR is a lack of between different epistemological com- understanding of the subdued nonlin- munities, and set the basis for future earity of social, and therefore political, modeling of the international system as interactions among agents. For long, a complex adaptive system (CAS). scholars thought they were looking at IR scholars have embraced the- international politics, but instead, they oretical diversity over the past decade were only looking at its linear, constant, and acknowledged the validity of a continuous, and deterministic image. wide range of different theoretical per- Theorists did not realize (at least most spectives in the realm of foreign poli- of them) that there was another image cy. Many have welcomed theoretical of world politics. That image is non-lin- pluralism as a positive development ear, discrete, stochastic, and composite: for the discipline. Dunne, Hansen, and a chaotic face of the world where there Wight (2013, p. 416) argued that if we are no general laws or causalities. 111 Journal on Policy and Complex Systems At large, IR scholars have de- post-modern and post-structural the- ceived themselves and only saw what ories, like constructivism, ended up they were already acquainted with. In rejecting the image of an objective and the picture of social systems and inter- “external world” to focus on the observ- national politics, they saw the image of er or “subjective self” (Smith et al., 2008, linearity (Richards, 2000a, p. 3). Con- p. 30). Yet, by doing so, they focused on sequentially, they blindly used positiv- ontology and overlooked epistemology, ist approaches to come up with general leaving the task of the interpretation to theories based on inductions and de- the subjective, and biased, self (Smith et ductions rooted in a simple and linear al., 2008, p. 18). image of the world. However, the real Offering an alternative to general world has never been linear and it has theories or pluralism, this paper sug- rarely fitted within the general laws and gests that the complexity of politics can causalities found by social scientists. only be unraveled using an interdisci- Repeatedly, new trends and unexpect- plinary research method that incorpo- ed events have confuted IR theories and rates complex systems theory with IR: required us to seek for new correlations. a method that allows for an ontological Eventually, the discrepancy between closure between the ‘real world’ and the the real and the theoretical became so world of our theories. The consequence vast that IR theorist started to look for of this closure is exciting as it implies new epistemologies beyond positivism that we can advance our knowledge of during the eighties. international politics by making more Unfortunately, the pursuit for detailed and holistic analyses of the in- a new epistemology in IR resulted in ternational system that do not rely on a twofold failure. First, it failed to re- oversimplifications for modeling. The place empiricism, which far from being methodology put forward by this study dead is even experiencing a resurgence does not fixate on one specific level in narrow scope quantitative research of analysis, but instead focuses on the (Mearsheimer & Walt, 2013). Second, it multilevel nature of nonlinear dynam- failed in finding a coherent epistemolo- ics in the international system to find gy capable of dealing with the nonlinear theoretical insights and explain the re- ontology of social systems and interna- lationships between agents and system tional politics. Scientific realism and behavior (Downey, 2012, p. 92). In- critical theory were still fixated on the stead of arbitrarily defining the agents same linear world that positivist looked of the international system and assum- at. By assuming that the natural and the ing how they behave, it assumes what social worlds were governed by equal are the properties of agents (autono- and objective recurrencies, scientif- my, self-containment, and interdepen- ic realism and critical theory recurred dence) and how behavior is generated to a positivist epistemology to study (through the processes of performance international politics (Smith, Booth, system, credit assignment, and rule dis- & Zalewski, 2008, p. 35). Conversely, covery). 112 Rethinking the International System as a Complex Adaptive System Over the last two decades, sever- Only pluralism can deal with a al attempts have been made to use com- multi faceted and complex reali- plex systems theory to analyze interna- ty and only pluralism can deliv- tional politics, see for instance Robert er substantial progress in terms Axelrod’s The Complexity of Cooperation of knowledge. Given the lack of (1997), Neil E. Harrison’s Complexity in agreed epistemological standards World Politics (2006a), Diana Richards’ for assessing competing knowl- Political Complexity (2000b),