Guerrillas, Terrorists, and Polarity

• DOI: 10.1177/106591297402700405
• Date: 01 December 1974
• Author: Louis René Beres
• Published date: 01 December 1974
• Subject Matter: Articles

624

GUERRILLAS,

TERRORISTS,

AND

POLARITY:

NEW

STRUCTURAL

MODELS

OF

WORLD

POLITICS

LOUIS

RENÉ

BERES

Purdue

University

T

IS

commonplace

for

international

relations

scholars

to

characterize

world

politics

in

terms

of

the

prevailing

pattern

of

global

power.

This

pattern

typi-

-*L

cally

determines

the

particular

configuration

of

conflict

axes

(structure)

in

the

world

system.

While

the

most

prominent

characterizations

have

centered

about

the

bipolar-multipolar

&dquo;debate,&dquo;’

a

variety

of

more

complex

conceptualizations

has

been

developed

in

recent

years.

Stemming

from

a

growing

dissatisfaction

with

the

adequacy

of

bipolar

and

multipolar

categories,

alternative

models

have

been

described

in

terms

of

a

multi-

plicity

of

blocs,2

the

increasing

interpenetration

of

global

conflict

axes

with

regional

or

subsystemic

ones,3

and

vertically

layered

combinations

of

bipolarity

and

multi-

polarity.4

In

another

well-known

case,

the

basic

bipolar

structure

is

used

to

inform

the

creation

of

four

sub-categories

which

allow

for

more

sophisticated

kinds

of

theo-

rizing

about

global

structure.5

This

is

accomplished

by

dividing

the

bipolar

uni-

verse

of

cases

into

four

new

categories

based

upon

the

ratio

of

power

between

poles

and

the

extent

to

which

secondary

national

actors

share

in

the

power.

All

of

these

efforts

represent

creative

attempts

by

scholars

to

render

their

struc-

tural

models

more

accurate

reflections

of

world

politics.

Typically

well-reasoned

and

imaginative,

they

have

generated

an

increased

awareness

of

both

the

extra-

ordinary

complexity

of

global

structure

and

the

profoundly

important

implica-

tions

of

this

structure

for

stability,

power-management

and

system

transformation.

For

these

reasons,

the

growing

body

of

international

relations

theory

is

appreciably

more

incisive,

notably

more

congruent

with

the

ever-changing

configurations

of

the

patterns

and

processes

it

seeks

to

understand.

This

does

not

mean,

however,

that

structural

modeling

of

world

politics

has

reached

its

final

and

complete

expression.

As

long

as

it

is

recognized

that

the

pre-

vailing

pattern

of

global

power

is

constantly

in

flux,

the

same

condition

must

apply

to

the

work

of

those

who

study

it.

Changes

and

prospective

changes

in

the

characteristic

conflict

axes

of

world

politics

must

be

paralleled

by

changes

in

their

scholarly

reconstructions.

1

The

best-known

features

of

this

debate

may

be

considered

in

Kenneth

N.

Waltz,

"The

Stability

of

a

Bipolar

World,"

Daedalus,

93

(Summer

1964),

881-907;

and

Karl

Deutsch

and

J.

David

Singer,

"Multipolar

Power

Systems

and

International

Stability,"

World

Politics,

16

(April 1964),

390-406.

2

See

Roger

Masters,

"A

Multi-Bloc

Model

of

the

International

System,"

APSR,

55

(Decem-

ber

1961),

780-98.

3

See

Oran

R.

Young,

"Political

Discontinuities

in

the

International

System,"

World

Politics,

20

(April

1968),

369-92.

4

See

Richard

N.

Rosecrance,

"Bipolarity,

Multipolarity,

and

the

Future,"

Journal

of

Conflict

Resolution,

10

(September

1966),

314-27.

5

See

Wolfram

F.

Hanrieder,

"The

International

System:

Bipolar

or

Multibloc,"

Journal

of

Conflict

Resolution,

9

( September

1965),

299-308.