{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01704966641957005, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.053811659192825, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Stability and Polarity: New Paths for Inquiry

One of the most intractable debates in the field of world politics concerns the linkage of systemic polarity to international stability. Despite many theoretical expositions and limited testing, disagreement persists over which type of structure and distribution of power is most stable. The dialogue on polarity and stability has focused on the relative merits of bipolar and multipolar structures; in other words, which configuration of power centers is more stable, two or more than that number? Advocates of each system have their adherents and, for some time now, have agreed to disagree. Most of the debate on polarity and stability thus far has been cast in terms that do not facilitate its resolution. The objective of this paper is to reformulate the debate, in order to facilitate a more compelling empirical judgment of the competing claims. More specifically, this involves revision of the central concepts. Polarity, it will be asserted, cannot be assessed only in terms of distribution of power. The concept also should incorporate the notion of autonomous decision centers. With respect to instability, war is held to be a less comprehensive measurement than international crisis. It is recommended that renewed testing should focus on the linkage of polarity to stability as so defined.