Abstract
Ancient, medieval and modern history all present cases of states systems in which two powers enjoyed preponderance over all others. While the foremost classical example is that of Athens and Sparta, some of the most prominent medieval ones are those of the Byzantine Empire and its successive enemies. Each of the great powers of modern history has at one time or another been involved in a dualistic system. Such situations present great variety as regards both the structure of the system and the nature of the relationships among its units. In the first place, the ratio of strength between the preponderant powers can vary considerably, with marked inequality perhaps being more common than rough equality. In the longest-lasting dualism of the nineteenth century, that of Prussia and Austria within the German Confederation, Prussia started as much the inferior party but gained relative strength until in the end, under Bismarck, it could defeat Austria in war. In the most recent case, of the Soviet Union and the United States since the Second World War, the Soviet Union was for long both strategically and economically inferior but eventually achieved parity in strategic terms. Second, the quality of the relationship between the two preponderant powers may vary from extreme hostility to a high degree of co-operation, with conflict, however, being the most usual state of affairs.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
R. L. Walker, The Multi-State System of Ancient China (Hamden, Connecticut: The Shoe String Press, 1953) p. 51. A table on p. 50 presents the general slant
After the Moscow Conference of November 1960, Gomulka stayed on for several weeks in an attempt to conciliate in the strained relations between the two principal communist powers (R. Hiscocks, Poland: Bridge for the Abyss? (Oxford University Press, 1963) p. 259). Late in 1963, too, Poland’s leadership was reported to be trying to mediate in the ideological quarrel between the Soviet Union and China (New York Times, 2 November 1963, p. 1).
see S. Touval, ‘Biased Intermediaries’, Jerusalem Journal of International Relations, vol. I, no. 1 (1975).
H. Wilson, The Labour Government 1964–1970 (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson and Michael Joseph, 1971), for example pp. 79–80. Wilson’s own conception of the Anglo-American relationship is set out on p. 50.
In an interesting study of East-West interaction patterns, Johan Galtung shows that in conditions of conflict within a dualistic system there is a tendency for the ‘topdogs’ (in which categcry he includes not only the Soviet Union and the United States but also the United Kingdom, France and China) to dominate interaction. The ‘topdogs’ discourage the ‘underdogs’ (a category which takes in all lesser bloc members, including powers that in a study which operated with more than two classes of states might be called ‘middledogs’) from establishing contact with their counterparts and with the ‘topdogs’ on the other side (J. Galtung, ‘East-West Interaction Patterns’, Journal of Peace Research, vol. 3 (1966) pp. 148–9). The analysis suggests that the conclusions would be broadly similar if the division were between the two alliance leaders only and all lesser members of the blocs.
The diplomatic influence of Taiwan and Egypt in the role of troublemaker may be compared with that of China in chs II, III and IV of C. Holbraad, Superpowers and International Conflict (London: Macmillan, and New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1979).
Some of the mediatory moves of the Suharto government are listed in O. G. Roeder, ‘Fetching Filipino’, Far Eastern Economic Review, vol. LIX, no. 4 (25 January 1968) p. 133.
The literature on uncommitted states in the role of intermediaries in dualistic conflict is reviewed in O. R. Young, The Intermediaries. Third Parties in International Crises (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1967) pp. 94–102. After surveying the arguments for and against expecting useful results from diplomatic intervention from such quarters, Young concludes that, although there appears to be some potential in uncommitted states for successful intervention, ‘the role must ultimately be described as rather limited and circumscribed for any practical purpose’ (p. 102).
H. C. Meyer, Mitteleuropa in German Thought and Action 1815–1945 (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1955) pp. 20 and 23.
H. von Treitschke, History of Germany in the Nineteenth Century (Lndon: Jarrold, 1915–19) vol. II, p. 108.
For details of Polish relations with various European middle powers in this period, see J. F. Morrison, The Polish People’s Republic: Integration and Community Building in Eastern Europe (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1968) pp. 112–13.
Quoted in A. Bromke, ‘Poland under Gierek: A New Political Style’, Problems of Communism, vol. XXI, no. 5 (Sept-Oct 1972) p. 17. The writer was Janucz Stefanowicz.
tendency for the superpowers to become increasingly absorbed in their relationship of limited co-operation and restrained rivalry, and expressed the fear that they and their major allies would be tempted to confine their attention to the problems and crises of the developed parts of the world and to leave the regions beyond to their own devices (S. Gupta, ‘Great Power Relations and the Third World’, in C. Holbraad (ed.), Super Powers and World Order (Canberra: Australian National University Press, 1971) pp. 129–33). Gupta’s concern that it might no longer be possible for the ‘outer world’ to look to the great powers for minimum protection against the worst effects of international anarchy implied considerable scepticism about the ability of Third World powers on their own to maintain an acceptable level of order in their regions, which in the circumstances of the late 1960s seemed well justified.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1984 Carsten Holbraad
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Holbraad, C. (1984). The Dualistic System. In: Middle Powers in International Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-06865-4_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-06865-4_6
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-06867-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-06865-4
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)