An Interview with Kenneth Waltz 

Kuttey ki dum

That could apply to anything. If there's a bipolar structure or a multipolar structure, then how is it anarchic? There's always a power configuration. Just because there's one overwhelmingly dominant power doesn't mean states do not struggle against one other. The hegemon will generally only make an effort to impose itself in those parts of the world where its vital interests are at stake. There are also regional hegemons who will play a greater part in some parts of the globe than the hegemon.

There's a hierarchy in power but no hierarchy in authority

dashrirprock but unipolarity is a special case of polarity. it renders balance of power, the central realist concept that endures peace and stability in anarchical system, as an impossibility. about hegemon being limited to a specific region is a valid argument. that does come very close to Mearsheimer's theory. thanks!

Darryl Sean as i understand it, authority is merely legitimate power. this argument comes very close to what IR Theory mentioned in reply to this post. legitimacy is definitely less in unipolarity than in domestic heirarchy. this definitely has a bearing on international order, making international system anarchical.

For Waltz, as he probably says in this interview, a unipolar configuration tends to be structurally unstable because the global hegemon has a tendency to over-extend itself (e.g., the Iraq War). I know for a fact Waltz discusses this point explicitly in the "Conversations with History" interview. Another way of thinking about it is imagine if an American citizen attempted to harm his own countrymen. In such a scenario, the government would intervene by attempting to neutralize the aggressor, provide emergency services to the victims, etc. However, if there are two bumblefuck countries halfway across the world and one attacks the other.... well, according to realist, it's a system of self-help; those countries are essentially on their own. To the extent international law and the U.N. can effectively resolve those disputes, the realism model might be undermined. But realists will maintain that states are far and away the main players.

That is exactly not what he does! The international system is more than just the units. It is not really about the units, but about the structure, how the units relate to each other. It is not about the capabilities of the units at all, but about how the capabilities are distributed among all units. The sum is greater than its parts!

Absolutely! but the new realism just copied the old classical based on the old Morgan's

They removed by mistake and apologised for it.

I bealive in Mearsheimer- unipolarity is impossible

hm, i'd rather have a stool with three legs than just one. or even zero.