Critically examine the functional and system approaches to the study of international relations. (2016, 10 Marks)
Both approaches broke with the diplomatic-historical study of international relations and borrowed vocabulary from outside politics. Yet they do different work: functionalism is a prescriptive theory of how peace can be built, while the systems approach is an analytical method for modelling international politics as a whole.
The functional approach
- David Mitrany (A Working Peace System, 1943) proposed that states cooperate first on technical, economic and social tasks, through agencies run by experts and shaped by the task, not by territory.
- Cooperation then spreads from one field to the next (ramification, later Ernst B. Haas‘s spillover), interdependence thickens and loyalty shifts towards agencies that meet human needs.
- Critique. No field is free of politics: vaccines and data are securitised, and the US left the WHO in January 2026. Domestic politics often thrives on othering a hostile neighbour: India placed the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance after the Pahalgam attack of April 2025, despite six decades of functional cooperation. Stanley Hoffmann (1966) found the nation-state obstinate, not obsolete, and B. S. Chimni (2004) warns that “neutral” international institutions serve transnational capital.
The systems approach
- Drawing on Ludwig von Bertalanffy‘s general systems theory and David Easton‘s political system, it treats international politics as interacting units whose behaviour shows regularities explained by the structure of the whole.
- Morton A. Kaplan (System and Process in International Politics, 1957) built six models, from balance of power and loose bipolar to the hypothetical unit veto system, each with essential and transformation rules. Kenneth N. Waltz (Theory of International Politics, 1979) later reduced structure to anarchy and the distribution of capabilities.
- Critique. The models are conditional and resist empirical testing; where Kaplan did predict, that loose bipolarity would tighten, the non-aligned group grew instead. Hedley Bull (1966) warned that strict verification leaves little of significance to say. Domestic politics and non-state actors vanish, and Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan (2007) show such theory generalising from European history.
| Criterion | Functional | Systems |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | Prescriptive: building peace | Analytical: modelling the whole |
| Causal direction | Bottom-up | Top-down |
| View of the state | Obstacle to bypass | Unit the system constrains |
Conclusion
Neither approach stands alone. Functionalism lacks a theory of power; the systems approach lacks a theory of change. Read together, functional integration is one process by which an international system is transformed, which explains why both endure in modified form.