sultanates, and tribute systems

Researchers of political systems have typically identified two basic regular processes in the past, present, and future. These two processes are conflict and cooperation, and since they are so deeply rooted at the system level, individual states consider them something “for granted.” It is used in its policy making and its responses are based on this. In seeking to confront these systematic processes, states have engaged in creating systems and building institutions. International organizations such as the League of Nations, the United Nations, and their regional counterparts have spread throughout the twentieth-century system, and there has been heated debate about the extent to which these organizations can be considered actors. It is certain that its presence has fundamentally changed the nature of the system and made some talk about the mixed actor model

The second sense in which the international system is used is to determine the appropriate level of analysis upon which explanations must be made. Waltz and Gilpin represent the writers who argued that the international system essentially determines the behavior of individual state actors within its field. The first task of analysis is to discover the law-like properties of the system that all Individual actors take it into account. Security is often considered an eternal goal of states because of the anarchic nature of the system.

Sometimes used as a synonym for "International System" It refers to the pattern of activities or set of measures that characterize the mutual behavior of states. In this sense, it has a number of official attributes - political, diplomatic, legal, economic and military - which gives a method and regularity to international relations. The contemporary international order is based on the European state system established in Westphalia in 1648: multiple sovereign states coexisting in an anarchy that nevertheless recognizes general standards of behavior and interaction. Other international systems, such as empires, sultanates, and tribute systems, have components

Different descriptions, but the contemporary system, which is now a global system based on the rejection of global government and the assumption of state sovereignty, is said to show an order in the sense that it recognizes the organizational elements (such as the balance of power, diplomacy, and law that provide a framework within which interaction takes place. Asylum is not compatible periodic armed conflict with this regime because violence itself is restricted by known rules. However, stability is a basic value in any type of international system. This does not necessarily mean that the system is static. Change and development (such as the emergence of new countries) can and does happen, but This is accommodated through accommodation or compromise. Some commentators argue that the rationale for the system's existence is security; that the purpose of regulatory measures is to provide protection for states themselves.

and of the system of which it is a part. This realistic or conservative view favors the status quo and is usually averse to claims that order is or should be synonymous with justice. Others also argue that no international order can be legitimate without a just arrangement of things. Pressures for a new international economic order stem from a belief that contemporary measures are unfair and must be changed. In the current system, this demand emanates mainly from the "Third World" Or developing countries. The argument for justice as the central value is often coupled with the idea that international order (order between states) must give way to global order (order between individuals or groups of people other than states). In this way, the emphasis on diplomatic-strategic issues is seen as inseparable about global, social, cultural, economic and technological issues. Instead of the system being primarily related to issues

National and international security is organically linked to issues of human suffering, poverty, hunger, social justice, and ecological balance. The conditions for peace are based on meeting basic human needs. This is something that the current state of power and authority in international politics is severely lacking in adequately providing. Another use of the term focuses on the establishment of international organizations and central institutions as distinctive features of the system. Order cannot adequately exist between states until coercive institutions are created that attract the loyalty of all. However, as some commentators have pointed out, the use of the term " international order" (The international system is inappropriate in this context, since with the establishment of a world government, the foundations of the system would be internal rather than international.

We must specify that the term system comes from (order) and not from (system), meaning that the two characteristics of order and organization are the dominant characteristics in this system and therefore it is not just an institution whose members share the legitimacy of decision-making and responsibility, but rather it is an institution based on (order). Which comes from its leaders, and here they are the active states.

So why is the prevailing international system now the order, and not the system? Because the basic feature of the international system now, according to Kenneth Waltz, is the horizontal organization of power relations, or in other words, its incoherent and chaotic nature, such that each state must rely on itself to protect its interests, and by force if

The matter required, and here it means the presence of the order and not the system.