Widely used by realists, the nation-state level of analysis attributes world events to the general make-up of the one hundred two government authorities. This level has the largest advantage of making sense of a single interstate event because spectators can not only take the liberty of distinguish among world players unlike the next level of analysis in the international system, but also study them in great detail like the national ideology for example (a major cause of Germany going to War in 1939) and so much more. Although, as David Singer argued this viewpoint offers no guarantee that consistent and contradictory-free theories could be constructed for the implementation of foreign policy. Perhaps the reason is that there is too much chaos among the one hundred two nations. Instead of acting rationally, countries act on their own interests of attaining power as Thomas Hobbes argued. .
Many Idealists focus on this model crediting world incidences caused by global systemic issues. In reference to the Cold War again, these academics would hold the international system of bipolarity (as opposed to a uni-polar and multi-polar system) as the chief factor responsible for the conflict that arose between the United States and the Soviet Union. This conclusion was made based on the assumption that the two superpowers will always come into conflict with each other because they simply are the most powerful nations. Is a bipolar system in which the two superpowers could be allies not fathomable? As Singer points out, this level stresses the impact of the world arrangement. One could argue the system may have made the Cold War more likely, but to be the sole cause of the predicament does not seem likely.
This paper has raised nothing new; the strengths and weaknesses of each level of analysis have been explored time and time again.
