Hendrik Spruyt and ChaparlesTilly Present Different Arguments essays

Hendrik Spruyt and ChaparlesTilly Present Different Arguments essays The rise of the modern system of states is a contentious topic among International Relations scholars. Schools of thought differ in both their explanation of when the new system had its origins and why it prospered over other systems of international organization. In this essay I shall examine two of such arguments, Hendrik Spruyts Economic Rational argument as presented in his article Institutional Selection in International Relations: State Anarchy as Order, and Charles Tillys realist portrayal of War Making and State Making as Organised Crime. Spruyts article concentrates on the question of why the sovereign state triumphed over the other forms of organization. In doing so it outlines a series of internal and external elements that make the sovereign territorially defined state a superior alternative to city-states or city-leagues. Tilly focuses more on explaining the system of states, using a helpful analogy depicting the system as an organised crime racket. He focuses on the question of what makes states, concluding, with his realist argument that war is the determining factor. Both articles provide plausible arguments in particular instances but neither argument can sustain a convincing case in other instances making it hard to distinguish any favour between the two. I would suggest that both arguments lack the real convincing power to explain the system of states origins, the systems development over time and the current position of the worlds system of states, as it exists today. In effect, what this question asks is why, at various times and in differing contexts, individuals and groups believe one political form rather than another is best suited to advance their interests. Hendrick Spruyt recognises the existence of city-leagues, city-states and territorially defined sovereign states and through Gilpins epigraph he expresses his reasoni...