Many political scientists symbolically consider the Balance-of-Power concept central to a firm understanding of classical realism. As T. V. Paul (2004) explains, the Balance of Power’s common form appears as a system of alliances in which the stronger nations deter their weaker counter-parts from acting belligerently (Paul, 2004). This symbiotic concept of balancing power, nevertheless, is not an inherent thought and specifically appeared in the modern era. Its entrance into the world of international politics represented a fundamental paradigm shift in which it became necessary to reevaluate our systematic understanding of the social and political world Wendt (2006). Questions centered on the underlying concepts that drove the system ever forward such as: by whom was the system made, how does such a system function, what brought about such political organizations, and how could a state theoretically enter into the system. Hume, an ancient and respected theorist, largely analyzed the relationship between states and the idea of the Balance-of-Power theory. Similar to Hume, International-Relations thinkers, such as Spykman, Wolfers, and Morgenthau, became paramount to the concept’s realization. For brevity’s sake, thinkers spent a vast amount of time pondering the theory’s many forms insofar as they produced a semi-coherent discourse upon which its modern form operates. The establishment of the discipline’s discourse did not firmly cement its foundational concepts. As such, various forms, such as the balance between great powers and super power, appeared and further fractured its theoretical base. Jack S. Levy (2004) writes that “some say a balance of power helps maintain the peace; others say it contributes to the onset of wa... ... middle of paper ... ...Press. 1959. Pp. Viii, 263. $5.50.)." Political Research Quarterly 13.1 (1960): 255-256. Print. Kolb, Robert W.. Sovereign debt: from safety to default. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley, 2011. Print. Krasner, Stephen D.. Defending the national interest: raw materials investments and U.S. foreign policy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1978. Print. Krasner, Stephen D.. Problematic sovereignty contested rules and political possibilities. New York: Columbia University Press, 2001. Print. Krasner, Stephen D.. Power, the state, and sovereignty: essays on international relations. London: Routledge, 2009. Print. Wendt, Alexander. Social theory of international politics. 9. printing. ed. Cambridge [u.a.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2006. Print. Zhang, Yongjin, and Greg Austin. Power and responsibility in Chinese foreign policy. Canberra: Asia Pacific Press, 2001. Print.
Wendt, A. (1992). “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics,” International Organization, 46(2), pp. 391-425.
Mingst, K. A. and Arreguin-Toft, I. M. (2011) Essentials of International Relations, 5th edition. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
According to Hagan (1995), the politics of international relations can be understood as a two-level game. At the national level, local groups pursue their interest by compelling the government to adopt favorable policies, whereas officials seek power by establishing alliances among these groups. At the international level, the national government endeavors to satisfy domestic requirements at the same time it attempts to lessen the adve...
(2) Second raises questions about whether sovereignty requires the acquisition of full statehood with complete authority over domestic and international affairs, or whether something less than statehood suffices. Although sovereignty is often taken to mean full statehood, some possible exceptions have been recognized. Some authors even
...dence, there is a need for further study perhaps in some larger countries and their relationship with superpower. In this study, I choose the case of a very small nations opposing a large nations not only to show the potential of conflict due to the lack of interdependence and equal legal status but also show the leveraging power of a small nations under the new world system and how that very leveraging power without interdependence can lead to conflict. Base on the evidences presented in the case study that show the two conditions required for a conflict between states to happens, I conclude that as long as the three conditions in which, states are equal legally, are not interdependence upon one another and a states see the other as an obstacle that prevent it from achieving its interest, conflict between two states can happens even when the power is asymmetrical.
Kegley, Charles W., and Eugene R. Wittkopf. World Politics Trend and Transformation. New York: St. Martin's, 1981. Print.
Dimitter, Lowell. World Politics. 1st ed. Vol. 55. New York: Johns Hopkins UP, 2002. 38-65.
ABSTRACT: National sovereignty presents a puzzle. On the one hand, this notion continues to figure importantly in our descriptions of global political change. On the other hand, factors such as the accelerating pace of international economic integration seem to have made the notion anachronistic. This paper is an attempt to resolve this puzzle. Distinguishing between internal sovereignty or supremacy and external sovereignty or independence, I investigate whether some insights from the discussion of the former can be applied to our puzzle concerning the latter. One response to the objection that the notion of internal sovereignty is inapplicable because no group in society holds unlimited political power is to distinguish between different types of internal sovereignty, such as legal and electoral sovereignty. The resolution of the puzzle lies in applying this response strategy to the objection that the notion of external sovereignty is inapplicable because no state is completely independent.
The first argument advocating bounded citizenship is that it ensures security of rights within and from outside the state. Pufendorf (1682:32) and Vattel (1758:389) promoted this statist view because the moral rights transmuted into a legal form are guarded by the sovereign state. Howe...
Rothgeb, John M. Jr. Defining Power: Influence and Force in the Contemporary International System. New York: St. Martin Press, 1993.
There has been a long debate whether globalization is undermining the monopoly of local power of a sovereign state. This debate is due to the fact that the term globalization itself is subjective and broad. There are two distinct approaches in this debate. Hyper globalists argue that the demise of the state sovereignty is the product of globalization. On the other hand, sceptics reject the idea of the “globaloney” of the globalization: they emphasize on the importance of the sovereign state in the international politics (McGrew, 2011). This essay examines the arguments which justify the hyper globalists’ position. We will firstly define the terms globalization and sovereignty. Secondly, we will pinpoint on which aspects of the sovereign state has been undermined by the process of globalization. Then , we will conclude by analysing the various strategies a state can implement to respond to the globalization challenges.
Modern system of international relations is changing and becoming more and more complex, that is why the power cannot be understood as an indivisible concept. It directly affects foreign policies of the countries and makes them develop new efficient methods and instruments to succeed on the world arena, some of which have not been examined to the full extent yet.
Powers is very significant in international relations because this has changed throughout human kind and many great power countries had some time of greatness in history. However, international relations can also define power in many aspects. For example, one way of power in international relations is defined one actor employing influence over another, which this brought so many conflicts in today’s international politics. International relations also can describe this category of power is, hard for soft power. In hard power, there are many ways that can be mentioned. For instance, US has a massive hand of military size and technology over the other great powers. In addition to that, the concept of power in international relations is mostly used by realist thinkers whom they believe more extreme while they say other nations as thereat and they can attack anyone in any time. In other words, every nation must have a strong military and economy to defend themselves in
Before we delve deeper into this topic, it is imperative to properly provide a definition of sovereignty and lay down some foundation on this topic. There are four different definitions of sovereignty – international legal sovereignty, Westphalia sovereignty, domestic sovereignty and interdependence sovereignty. International legal sovereignty deals with “the practices associated with mutual recognition, usually between territorial entities that have formal juridical independence” (Krasner 4). The main definition of sovereignty that this paper will use is the ...
Powers is very substantial in international relations because this has changed throughout human kind and many great power countries had some time of greatness in history. However, international relations can also define power in many aspects. For example, one way of power in international relations is explained one actor employing influence over another, which this brought so many conflicts in today’s international politics. International relations also can describe this category of power is, hard or soft power. In hard power, there are many ways that can be mentioned. For instance, US has a gigantic hand of military size and technology over the other great powers. In addition to that, the concept of power in international relations is mostly used by realist thinkers whom they believe that, the world is more extreme and feel thereat. They believe countries should be very strong because others might attack anyone at any time. In other words, every nation must have a strong military and economy to defend themselves in times of