Adaptive and transitional dynamics in cybernetic systems and foreign policy

Document Type : Research Paper


Associate Professor, International Relations, University of Tehran, Iran


Since the end of the Cold War, a fierce debate has been taking place both in the academic and in the political world about the problems of traditional concepts and theories of international relations and foreign policy in this respect we can identify three distinct phases of complexity’s emergence into the field of international politics. The first phase of complexity and international politics is about explaining change. The second phase is about foreign policy and complexity. The third phase is related to applying complexity to foreign policymaking processes. Complexity of  international system, while in foreign policy area has caused inefficiency of traditional concepts, has faced it with new concepts and also systemic logic of foreign policy led to necessity of considering of cybernetic system’s concepts. By attention to inefficiency of current literatures in this area, this research has raised this question that what kind of systemic logic is sovereign on foreign policy in complexity situation and chaotic system. And in cybernetic dynamic systems how agenda of foreign policy will be arranged? Author believes that international systems in period of complexity and chaotic have adaptive feature and in this respect designing of adaption, equilibrium and stability region and designing of system are important. Foreign policy agenda should be drawn based on these realities.


  1. Albert, Mathias, Cederman, Lars-Erik and Wendt, Alexander (2010). New Systems Theories of World Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  2. Aulin, arvid (1985). "cybernetic causality: a unitary theory of causal recursion in natural and social systems". mathematical social science. 10.
  3. Ayson, Robert (2012). "The complex stability of political equilibrium". Political Science. 64.
  4.  Fang, Eric, Kenneth r. Evan, Timothy D. Landry and Control Systems (2005). "effect on attribution processes and sales outcomes: a cybernetic information-processing perspective". journal of marketing academy science. 33. 4.
  5. Birgit, Kopainsky and Luis F. Luna-Reyes Closing the Loop (2008). "Promoting Synergies with Other Theory Building Approaches to Improve System Dynamics Practice Systems". Research and Behavioral Science Syst. Res. 25.
  6. Cederman, Lars-Erik (1997). Emergent Actors in World Politics: How States and Nations Develop and Dissolve. Princeton. NJ: Princeton University Press.
  7. Eoyang, Glenda (2001). Conditions for self-organizing in human systems. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. the Union Institute and University. Cincinnati. OH.
  8. Feigh, Karen M., Dorneich, Michael C. and Hayes, Caroline C. (2012). "Toward a Characterization of Adaptive Systems: A Framework for Researchers and System DesignersHuman Factors". the Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. 54.
  9. Gaddis, John Lewis (1992). "International relations theory and the end of the cold war". International Security. 17(3(.
  10. Harrison, Niel H. (2006). Complexity in World Politics: Concepts and Methods of a New Paradigm. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
  11. Hebron, lui Patrick and Rudy, James Michael (2007). "Testing Dynamic Theories of Conflict: Power Cycles, Power Transitions, Foreign Policy Crises and Militarized Interstate Disputes".International Interactions. 33.
  12. Hoffmann, Matthew J. (2003). "Constructing a Complex World: The Frontiers of International Relations Theory and Foreign Policy-making". Asian Journal of Political Science. Vol. 11. No. 2.
  13. Hudson, Valerie M. (2007). Foreign Policy Analysis: Classic and Contemporary Theory. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
  14. Kristof, Van Assche, Beunen, Raoul, Duineveld, Martijn and de Jong, Harro (2012). "perspectives in planning systems Co-evolutions of planning and design: Risks and benefits of design". Planning Theory. 12.
  15. Lehmann, Kai E. "Unfinished transformation: The three phases of complexity’s emergence into international relations and foreign policy": Cooperation and Conflict. 47(3).
  16. Levine, Sheen Sand Robert Kurzban (2006). "Explaining Clustering in Social Networks: Towards an Evolutionary Theory of Cascading Benefits". Manage. Decis. Econ. 27
  17.  Mirzadeh, P, Moattar Husseini, S.M., and Arasti, M.R. (2012). "General cybernetic model for innovation network". ManagementSocial and Behavioral Sciences. 41.
  18.  Lewis, Gerard j. (1997). "A cybernetic view of environmental management: the implications for business organizations".business strategy and the environment. Vol. 6.
  19. Mutch, Alistair (2002). "Actors and Networks or Agents and Structures: Towards a Realist View of Information Systems". Organization. 9.
  20. Palla, Gergely, Pollner, P´eter, Barab´asi, Albert-L´aszl´o and Vicsek, Tam´as (2009). Social Group Dynamics in Networks   in Thilo Gross · Hiroki SayamaEditors  Adaptive Networks Theory, Models and Applications. Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg London New York.
  21. Pierpaolo, Andriani (2001). Complexity Theoryand the Management of Networks G Proceedings of the Workshop on Organizational Networksas Distributed Systems of Knowledge. London: Imperial College Press.
  22. Rosenau, James N. (1990). "Turbulence in World Politics: A Theory of Change and Continuity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  23. Rosenau, James N. (2003) Distant Proximities: Dynamics beyond Globalization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
  24. Schwaninge, Markus (2006). "System Dynamics and the Evolution of the Systems Movement Systems". Research and Behavioral Science Syst. Res. 23: 583-594.
  25.  Schwaningera, Markus and Ríosb, José Pérez (2008). "system dynamics and cybernetics: a synergetic pair System". Dynamics Review. Vol. 24. No. 2.
  26. 26.       Xu. Wei Identifying (2007). "Problems and Generating Recommendations for Enhancing Complex Systems: Applying the Abstraction Hierarchy Framework as an analytical Tool". Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. 49.