The concept of power is central to the study of international politics. International politics has been defined in terms of influencing major nations in the world to advance the purpose of a nation against the opposition of other nations. Thus, it is rather not surprising that power, either by means of influence or control, has been a dominant concept that is intertwined in discussion when it comes to the study of international politics. Before getting into the fundamental nature of power in international relations, it is needed to consider just what power is. Power in the study of international politics can be derived in several ways as a goal of states or individual; as a measure of influence or control over actors, events, outcomes, and international affairs; as reflecting triumph in conflict and obtaining security; as control over capabilities and resources. Power can broadly be considered of as the ability to manipulate others to act according to our benefit, and to avert them from doing the same to us.
Power is the creation, in and through social relations, of outcomes that characterize the ability of actors to find out their status and fate. This wide-ranging concept involves two fundamental critical dimensions: the types of social relations through which power works in relations of interaction or in social relations of constitutions and specificity of social relations through which effects are produced. The more power inclines more foreign policy choices; the lesser-known theory of "balance of power," where nations compete for dominance in a complicated chess game of military spending and diplomatic posturing. Possession of power permits both individuals and countries to successfully endorse and guard their interests con...
... middle of paper ...
... Jammu and Kashmir between India and Pakistan. Stronger states such as the US waged war against weaker states such as Vietnam. Interestingly, the defeat of the United States in Vietnam and of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan indicates to a more intricate concept of power which is broader than mere financial or military strength. In fact, a lot of the current theories of international relations dispute that power as conventionally described by realists is intrinsically unclear and open to analysis based on particular state of affairs. Nevertheless, it can be successfully concluded that power is primarily associated with what a state can stop another state from doing to it and what a state can do. The ways by which power is executed may be changing, yet the fundamental nature of competing desires and interests remain predominant in defining the international relations.
Part 1. 2009. The 'Secondary' of the Print. The. Landstreet, Peter. A. The “Power and Power Relations Lecture”.
In analyzing the institution of power so closely, the author has brought to light a multiple
is at odds with the idea of a civil society since it is illogical to think that people would consent to be governed by a government that is worse than the state of nature. A society in which the government is above or outside the law remains in a state of nature because there is no security against violence and oppression. Therefore, this exercise of arbitrary power again puts the absolute government in a state of war against its people because, as Locke writes:
Pierre Bourdieu was a highly influential theorist. He provides a unique and fascinating definition or understanding of power as well as an explanation and analysis into how power works. This work serves to outline what is this specific concept of power means and contains, how it is created, what are the various forms it takes on and in general, how power works. Power is a difficult concept to define conclusively or definitively however, Bourdieu explains power to be a symbolic construct that is perpetuated through every day actions and behaviours of a society, that manipulate power relations to create, maintain and force the conforming of peoples to the given habitus of that society (Bourdieu, 1977). Power, is a force created through the social conventions of a specific community that dictate what is expected or accepted by the people while also determining how they understand the world in which they live (Bourdieu, 1977).
Almost every conflict situation consists of one party having more power than the other. When the power differential is significant, this usually has a major effect on both the matter and process of the dispute. In order for the outcome of the conflict to be fair, both parties must be relatively equal when it comes to power if resolution of the conflict is to be fair. If one side is far more powerful than another, they are more likely to impose their solution on the weaker party, who in turn will be forced to acquiesce, because they have no other choice.
The purpose of this essay is to inform on the similarities and differences between systemic and domestic causes of war. According to World Politics by Jeffry Frieden, David Lake, and Kenneth Schultz, systemic causes deal with states that are unitary actors and their interactions with one another. It can deal with a state’s position within international organizations and also their relationships with other states. In contract, domestic causes of war pertain specifically to what goes on internally and factors within a state that may lead to war. Wars that occur between two or more states due to systemic and domestic causes are referred to as interstate wars.
Military power is not the only form of power. Economic and social power matter a lot. Exercising economic power is more valuable than exercising military power.
Some theorists believe that ‘power is everywhere: not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere… power is not an institution, nor a structure, nor possession. It is the name we give to a complex strategic situation in a particular society. (Foucault, 1990: 93) This is because power is present in each individual and in every relationship. It is defined as the ability of a group to get another group to take some form of desired action, usually by consensual power and sometimes by force. (Holmes, Hughes &Julian, 2007) There have been a number of differing views on ‘power over’ the many years in which it has been studied. Theorist such as Anthony Gidden in his works on structuration theory attempts to integrate basic structural analyses and agency-centred traditions. According to this, people are free to act, but they must also use and replicate fundamental structures of power by and through their own actions. Power is wielded and maintained by how one ‘makes a difference’ and based on their decisions and actions, if one fails to exercise power, that is to ‘make a difference’ then power is lost. (Giddens: 1984: 14) However, more recent theorists have revisited older conceptions including the power one has over another and within the decision-making processes, and power, as the ability to set specific, wanted agendas. To put it simply, power is the ability to get others to do something they wouldn’t otherwise do. In the political arena, therefore, power is the ability to make or influence decisions that other people are bound by.
McShane and Von Glinow define Power as “the capacity of a person, team, or organization to influence others” (300). Furthermore, they state that power derives from five main sources and four main contingencies like the following figure illustrates.
The first paradigm of international relations is the theory of Realism. Realism is focused on ideas of self-interest and the balance of power. Realism is also divided into two categories, classical realism and neo-realism. Famous political theorist, Hans Morgenthau was a classical realist who believed that national interest was based on three elements, balance of power, military force, and self interest (Kleinberg 2010, 32). He uses four levels of analysis to evaluate the power of a state. The first is that power and influence are not always the same thing. Influence means the ability to affect the decision of those who have the power to control outcomes and power is the ability to determine outcomes. An example of influence and power would be the UN’s ability to influence the actions of states within the UN but the state itself has the power to determine how they act. Morgenthau goes on to his next level of analysis in which he explains the difference in force and power in the international realm. Force is physical violence, the use of military power but power is so much more than that. A powerful state can control the actions of another state with the threat of force but not actually need to physical force. He believed that the ability to have power over another state simply with the threat of force was likely to be the most important element in analysis the power of as state (Kleinberg 2010, 33-34).
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
The international system is an anarchical system which means that, unlike the states, there is no over ruling, governing body that enforces laws and regulations that all states must abide by. The International System in today’s society has become highly influential from a number of significant factors. Some of these factors that will be discussed are Power held by the state, major Wars that have been fought out in recent history and international organisations such as the U.N, NATO and the W.T.O. Each of these factors, have a great influence over the international system and as a result, the states abilities to “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development”.
The study of international relations takes a wide range of theoretical approaches. Some emerge from within the discipline itself others have been imported, in whole or in part, from disciplines such as economics or sociology. Indeed, few social scientific theories have not been applied to the study of relations amongst nations. Many theories of international relations are internally and externally contested, and few scholars believe only in one or another. In spite of this diversity, several major schools of thought are discernable, differentiated principally by the variables they emphasize on military power, material interests, or ideological beliefs. International Relations thinking have evolved in stages that are marked by specific debates between groups of scholars. The first major debate is between utopian liberalism and realism, the second debate is on method, between traditional approaches and behavioralism. The third debate is between neorealism/neoliberalism and neo-Marxism, and an emerging fourth debate is between established traditions and post-positivist alternatives (Jackson, 2007).
Power is the ability to control or influence others, especially socially or politically. We often hear of the horror stories, in which corrupt dictators with too much power kill innocent citizens, eliminate all competition, and hurt others for personal gain. Power itself is not necessarily the bad thing here; it comes as an instinctive need to humans, rooted in the primal purpose of survival (Anchor text). The abuse of power leads to corruption. Power is an unstable force that can have positive or negative outcomes, depending on why it was sought and the attitude of those on the receiving end of the control.
The dependency theory is a very different approach than the others. It offers great insight into a concept that is often overlooked, however, this theory risks being too narrow. It does not do a great deal to account for other types of international relationships. Power is at the center of this theory as well, and in this situation, it is beneficial to one