The international system and the Syrian civil war
| Author | Christopher Phillips |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/00471178221097908 |
| Published date | 01 September 2022 |
| Date | 01 September 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/00471178221097908
International Relations
2022, Vol. 36(3) 358 –381
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00471178221097908
journals.sagepub.com/home/ire
The international system
and the Syrian civil war
Christopher Phillips
Queen Mary University of London, UK
Abstract
How does the international system impact a civil war? Does polarity affect the war’s outbreak,
character and how long it lasts? Systemic Realists argue multipolarity makes inter-state war more
likely, but is this also true of intra-state war? Using the Syria conflict (2011-present) as a case
study, this article suggests a connection can be found. It argues that the end of US-dominated
unipolarity, and its interaction with a new multipolarity in the Middle East region impacted the
behaviour and calculations of foreign states involved, contributing to the outbreak of war and
how it progressed. The same interacting multipolarity paradoxically also shaped Russia’s decision
to intervene in 2015, ultimately edging the war towards a conclusion, something that Systemic
Realists would not expect. This study of the systemic effects in the Syria conflict suggests that the
Neo-Realist concept of polarity continues to have relevance and can be useful in understanding
intra- as well as inter-state conflict. It points to the importance of the interaction between
regional and global systems in generating these effects, and it suggests a reconsideration of the
Neo-Realist view that multipolarity always makes wars harder to end.
Keywords
civil war, Middle East, polarity, regionalism, Syria, Systemic Realism
Introduction
This article explores the outbreak and course of the Syrian civil war and its relationship
with polarity in the global and regional system. It contributes to the growing field of
Middle East-focused International Relations (IR) scholars showing how IR theory can
strengthen our analysis of the region’s politics and how Middle Eastern cases can, in
Corresponding author:
Christopher Phillips, School of Politics and International Relations, Queen Mary University of London,
Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS, UK.
Email: c.phillips@qmul.ac.uk
1097908IRE0010.1177/00471178221097908International RelationsPhillips
research-article2022
Article
Phillips 359
turn, inform scholarly theories.1 It argues that the concept of polarity, one favoured by
Systemic Realists and defined by Barry Posen as how the, ‘distribution of power in the
international political system affects the behaviour of the states that compose it’, can
enhance our understanding of the Syria conflict (2011-present).2 In particular, the Syria
war supports Realists’ claims that the balance of power (and threats) in an international
system affects the behaviour of state governments to the point that it can impact both the
likelihood and course of conflict. It will suggest that Systemic Realists’ usual focus on
how polarity impacts inter-state wars can be expanded to include civil wars like Syria’s,
something particularly relevant given a general decline in direct inter-state wars and the
growth of external actors playing out their rivalries through intra-state conflicts.3
This study contributes to literature both on the Syria war specifically and scholarship
on conflict in general. Scholars of the Syrian civil war have rarely engaged with IR
theory. One set of authors, notably Samer Abboud, Sam Dagher, Emile Hokayem and
David Lesch, frame the conflict as primarily domestic in origin that later drew in exter-
nal actors.4 As such, their points of reference gravitate towards theories of state devel-
opment, identity politics and political economy, with little reference to IR theory. A
second set, notably myself, Raymond Hinnebusch, Adham Saouli and Soren Schmidt,
place more emphasis on the significance of international factors in driving the conflict
from the beginning and some do utilize IR theory.5 However, even then, few have
sought to use the Syria case to make a broader contribution to our understanding of
international conflict. This article seeks to build on the work of this latter set of authors,
particularly myself Battle for Syria, by expanding on the theoretical element. It shows
in more depth the mechanics of how one aspect of an IR theory, polarity, can help
explain the Syria war. It also argues that the Syria case is useful to add new insights into
scholarly discussions on conflict, particularly the debate on polarity. In doing so, it
reemphasizes the continued value of Neo-Realist concepts, challenging those who
believe polarity has lost its meaning.6
In showing how global and regional polarity impacted the Syria conflict, this article
makes two major arguments. Firstly, that the Syria case suggests that polarity in an inter-
national system impacts civil wars as well as inter-state wars and that the regional system
is as important as the global.7 Indeed, Syria shows the importance of the interaction
between both regional and global systems. Secondly, that as well as helping the conflict
break out and expand, the multi-polarity of the global and regional system also contrib-
uted to its end. This opens questions about the Realist expectation that multi-polarity
makes war more likely as, in 2015, the greater complexity and fluidity of the interna-
tional system allowed space for Russia to decisively intervene. Both these arguments
help make the broader point that the Syria case points to a relationship between regional
and global polarity and intra-state war.
The remainder of the article is divided into six sections and a conclusion. Sections 1
and 2 outline the theoretical context. Section 1 explores the debates over polarity and
conflict among IR scholars and argues there is a need to widen Systemic Realists’ obser-
vations about inter-state conflict to include intra-state wars. Section 2 then discusses the
importance of regionalism and how the Middle East’s shift to a regional multipolarity
and its interaction with the end of global unipolarity impacted the behaviour of states in
a way that would impact the Syria conflict. Section 3 explores whether a connection can
To continue reading
Request your trial