Scholars of international politics routinely debated on two kinds of global structures that best describe the actual world, that is, multipolar and unipolar. The word "multipolar" in international relation is scientifically defined as "a distribution of power in which there are a number of poles, or great powers, in the international system" . While unipolar is "a condition in which one state's capabilities are too great to be counterbalanced" . From my own definition, I would define that multipolar system consist of three to seven independent centers, or poles, that are relatively equal in power. These systems can be global in scope, regional in scope, or localized. On the other hand, I would characterize the unipolar system as a powerful state, where its allies dominate the forums, rules, and arrangement governing political and economic relation in the system. Scholars often relatively compare the merits and observe the trend of the global structure of power in order to forecast the future. For example, some scholars claim that the multipolar structure is emerging since U.S influence in global affairs has slowly but gradually been declining. Government would consult current information to adjust their foreign strategies. For example, China and Russia have given each other at least verbal support in order to prepare the ground for strategic partnership aimed at bringing about a multipolar world. Student whom studies international relation would first learn different types of structures and the respective security issue. Then, interesting topic would be enumerating such like how the global structure of power will affect the relation between countries. Therefore, the question of polarity will be important to people who work on a related field of study.
Included is a neo-realists framework to analyze the international structure of power. This includes K.Waltz's theory of polarity and John J.