Editing International relations (section)

====Polarity====
{{Main|Polarity (international relations)}}
[[File:World empires and colonies around World War I.png|thumb|Empires of the world in 1910]]
Polarity in international relations refers to the arrangement of power within the international system. The concept arose from bipolarity during the [[Cold War]], with the international system dominated by the conflict between two [[superpower]]s, and has been applied retrospectively by theorists. However, the term bipolar was notably used by Stalin who said he saw the international system as a bipolar one with two opposing power bases and ideologies. Consequently, the international system prior to 1945 can be described as multipolar, with power being shared among [[great power]]s.

The [[Dissolution of the Soviet Union|collapse of the Soviet Union]] in 1991 had led to unipolarity, with the United States as a sole superpower, although many refuse to acknowledge the fact. [[China]]'s continued rapid economic growth—it became the world's second-largest economy in 2010—respectable international position, and the power the Chinese government exerts over its people (consisting of the second largest population in the world), resulted in debate over whether China is now a superpower or a possible candidate in the future. However, China's strategic force unable of projecting power beyond its region and its nuclear arsenal of 250 warheads (compared to 7,315+ of the United States<ref>{{Cite web |title=Federation of American Scientists :: Status of World Nuclear Forces |url=https://programs.fas.org/ssp/nukes/nuclearweapons/nukestatus.html |access-date=2023-11-20 |website=programs.fas.org}}</ref>) mean that the unipolarity will persist in the policy-relevant future.

Several theories of international relations draw upon the idea of [[polarity (power)|polarity]]. The [[Balance of power in international relations|balance of power]] was a concept prevalent in Europe prior to the [[World War I|First World War]], the thought being that by balancing power blocs it would create stability and prevent war. Theories of the balance of power gained prominence again during the [[Cold War]], being a central mechanism of [[Kenneth Waltz]]'s [[Neorealism (international relations)|neorealism]]. Here, the concepts of balancing (rising in power to counter another) and [[Bandwagoning|bandwagoning]] (siding with another) are developed.

[[Robert Gilpin]]'s [[hegemonic stability theory]] also draws upon the idea of polarity, specifically the state of unipolarity. [[Hegemony]] is the preponderance of power at one pole in the international system, and the theory argues this is a stable configuration because of mutual gains by both the dominant power and others in the international system. This is contrary to many neorealist arguments, particularly made by Waltz, stating that the end of the Cold War and the state of unipolarity is an unstable configuration that will inevitably change.

The case of Gilpin proved to be correct and Waltz's article titled "The Stability of a Bipolar World"<ref>Daedalus, 93/3: (1964), 881–909.</ref> was followed in 1999 by [[William Wohlforth]]'s article titled "The Stability of a Unipolar World".<ref>International Security, 24/1: (1999), 5–41.</ref>

Waltz's thesis can be expressed in [[power transition theory]], which states that it is likely that a [[great power]] would challenge a hegemon after a certain period, resulting in a major war. It suggests that while hegemony can control the occurrence of wars, it also results in the creation of one. Its main proponent, [[A. F. K. Organski]], argued this based on the occurrence of previous wars during British, Portuguese, and Dutch hegemony.