Power and International Relations - Assignment Example

Topic: Lecturer: Presentation: Introduction s relate with each other in different ways. Some s cooperate, form alliances in order to achieve a goal. Some states are referred as more powerful than others in the international arena but there is no standard measure of power for states. As a result, long discussions about the role of power in international relations have been going on and no agreement has been reached so far. Various theorists have come up with different explanations regarding the role and nature of power. The realists believe that states are sovereign and are directed by state interests that arise from human nature; to control and dominate others hence conflict is inevitable. They also view the international arena as a form of power politics hence power balancing is continuous. The structuralists believe that the world is a single capitalist system where states engage in continuous search for accumulation of capital and goods (Griffiths, 1999). The world system as such is divided into core, semi-periphery and periphery characterized by unequal division of labour. Neorealists like Waltz on the other hand, believe there are structural constraints that drive states hence power balancing is a systemic effect. The paper will discuss how various theorists conceptualize power in international relations. First, the paper will discuss international relations. Secondly, it will look at realism theories such as that advanced by classical realist Hans Morgenthau and its shortcomings. Thirdly, the paper will discuss neorealist theories such as Kenneth Waltz’s theory of international politics and how it depicts power in international relations. Its criticisms will also be discussed. Then it will look at Immanuel Wallerstein’s world systems theory, its application and criticisms. Conclusions will then be formed regarding the theories discussed. International Relations International relations are concerned with relationships between nations which enable formulation of foreign policies. It involves states, non governmental organizations, and multinational corporations, among other international bodies which affect relations among states. It is concerned with issues such as sovereignty of states, interdependence among states, economic development, and security issues, among others (Baldwin, 2005). It can be traced back to colonialism and decolonization where states began to be independent and achieve sovereignty. Some states like Britain became great powers due to their ability to influence others. Many states have been incorporated into an international system. International relations try to explain the relations between states in domestic and international level. The relations among states are explained by use of various theories. The international relations theory sees the nation state as a unit which strives to control its interests. In doing so, conflicts are bound to occur between states. Some states are influential than others hence control the weaker states in the system. However, states differ in their level of capabilities; some have military capacity, some are economically capable hence there is no standard to define a powerful state (Griffiths, 1999). Some states try to control others through; use of force, diplomacy and cultural exchange. Other states control the world economy forcing others to depend on them hence a wide gap exists between nations. Others form alliances in order to be able to control or influence others. Organizations such as World Trade Organization are meant to control the international system. Multinational corporations have also played a great role in defining the relations among different nations where the companies operate and are powers by themselves. However, most of the international relations power debate is about war and peace conditions. Power is seen as a force that drives nations. Realism Advocates of realism theory of international relations include; Morgenthau, John Herz, and E.H Carr among others. The theory is concerned about how power is distributed among states. According to Griffiths et al (2009: 1), it tries to answer questions such as the source of stability and instability in international system, balance of power among states, and the behaviour of great powers to one another and towards weak states as well as the sources and dynamics of contemporary changes in the balance of power. As for Morgenthau, egoism and self-interest are inherent in human nature hence man will always have a tendency to dominate others. These characteristics are also inherent in a state thus the ultimate goal of a state is to protect its interests and dominate other states. States thus fight to guard their security and as a consequence, other states perceive this as a threat and also up their security in preparation for any eventualities. This leads to an Arms race among states leading to continuous conflicts. According to this theory therefore, there is no way out of the security dilemma. Morgenthau argues that states are not likely to collaborate because each state is guided by self-interest (Freyberg-Inan, 2004). Instead, a lot of suspicion among states is apparent thus hostile relations. According to realists, each state is sovereign and a unitary actor in the international system. Each state thus decides on actions to take individually and rationally. However, the actions of the state are a response to external forces as opposed to domestic political forces. The state feels threatened by laws of other states and hence acts to protect itself from external environment. The foreign policy of a state is therefore guided by international political reality. For Morgenthau, there are no ethical considerations while formulating policies as a state must act to protect its interest no matter the circumstance (Jervis, 1997). He also notes that states continually struggle for power and status in the international political arena. They therefore exploit any opportunities available without any further considerations though they are limited to a certain extent by laws, ethics and morals. Winning the war according to the realism theory is the standard of judgement (Baldwin, 2005). Since power is unevenly distributed among the states, the international relations are about power politics and are necessary for states to survive. Any change in the balance of power among states constitutes a change in the international system as the system continually seeks to balance the power among states. However, there is no standard as to how the power should be distributed among states. The struggle for power within the boundaries of the state is dealt with by forming loyalties and through the constitution while in the international arena it is minimised by disarmament (Griffiths et al. 2009). By disarming nations, they will not be involved in arms race leading to hostile relations rather they will be able to gain some trust of each other thus reducing power struggle. Criticism The realism theory has been criticized for basing its arguments of state relations on human nature. International relations involve many dimensions and not just war and conditions of peace. The economic conditions can also define international relations. The human nature element of egoism and self interest cannot therefore fully explain the many aspects of international relations (Carlsnaes & Simmons, 2005). This is due to the fact that human nature is constant. According to Waltz, states have different capabilities which may lead to struggle for power and not necessarily due to the realist belief that men are born seeking power. It also does not believe in collaboration among states even when common interests demand as each state is a political unit. However, states have globalized and incorporated into the international system and depend on each other for survival. Alliances are formed to protect interests of the states rather than acting alone. Waltz Theory of International Politics According to Waltz, there are structural constraints that force men to act regardless of their nature and not simply because they are born seeking power (Waltz, 2000). His theory is based on three principles; ordering principle, characteristics of units, and distribution of capabilities. Just like the classical realists, Waltz argues that the international system has nation-states as primary actors. The system is therefore anarchic and decentralised. The system is not hierarchical in nature, units perform the same functions. Waltz therefore, concludes that the only variable that varies among states is their capabilities or power. Since states are rational actors, a continuous balance of power is maintained as states strive to preserve their interests. According to Waltz therefore, power balancing is a systemic effect rather than a foreign policy choice (Freyberg-Inan, 2004). Waltz argues that the state behaviour can be explained and predicted without consideration of political decision maker or state-level variables. It cannot be linked to foreign policy as it does not explain the processes or outcomes of the policy but systemic effects. States are ranked according to their capabilities although each state has different combination of capabilities. The state may have military strength, economic capability, endowed with resources or be politically stable or have a mixture of the capabilities. It is therefore difficult to measure the capability of each state (Baldwin, 2005). Just like in realism, international relations according to Waltz are guided by use of force. Winning the war is therefore the standard used to score the capabilities of states and determine which is more powerful. There is a lot of competition among states as they struggle for preference. However, there are no government authorities to oversee the competition hence force is used by the competitors to achieve their goals. When the distribution of power or capabilities among states change, the international system also changes. Criticisms Waltz theory has been criticized for various reasons. It has been criticized for being broad in scope and for lack of explanatory power. A state power varies from one issue to the other, hence not easy to measure its capabilities. It can have a lot of influence in regard to military power but be weak economically hence not easy to determine its capability or predict its behaviour (Waltz, 2000). It has also been criticized for not being able to account for changes in the system. It also makes assumptions about the units thus balance of power is assumed to be the result of uncoordinated state actions. The structural constraints are not explanatory hence may not be real. There is also no standard measure of state capabilities to ensure proper ranking of states and predicting their behaviour. Wallerstein World Systems Theory Wallerstein asserts that the international system is made up of only one world system referred as world capitalist state. The theory takes into account economic development issues, exploitation and poverty among states unlike Morgenthau and Waltz theories which focus on use of force or war to guide international relations. According to Wallerstein, there exists different classes within and between nations and the capitalist system is characterized by unequal division of labour. The system consists of the core, semi-periphery and periphery states. The core comprises of the developed countries or wealthy nations which exploit the periphery in order to accumulate capital. The periphery comprises of the developing states that depend on the core for survival in the system and enable the core to achieve its goals. The semi-periphery acts as a link between the core and periphery whereby it is exploited by the core but on the other hand, exploits the periphery for capital gains (Sjolander, 1994). The theory is based on the dependency theory whereby the poor depend on the rich. Wallerstein explains how the system has progressed over time. He also explains the rise and fall of major powers in the world system. He believes the actors in the system continually search for accumulation of capital hence the core has technologically advanced over the years. The theory also opposes the state as a unit but a part of the system (Griffiths et al.2009). He also believes that the periphery must follow the path followed by the core in its success so as to gain economic power or reduce poverty and underdevelopment. He does not also believe in ideologies such as liberalism and socialism; to him they are just political programmes. The theory indicates that conflicts between states are due to competition for capital accumulation. The units as opposed to realism are not similar but are different culturally, politically and economically hence the difference in accumulation of power and capital. There is a wide gap between the core and periphery determined by division of labour. The core is advanced technologically and uses cheap labour from the periphery to accumulate profits (Griffiths, 1999). The core also sells products to periphery at high price and buys at low price from them. The periphery is used as source of raw materials for the core. Wallersteins theory indicates the nature of power in international relations. Most developed countries continue to exploit the developing countries and determining the nature of relations between the states. This has continued to widen the gap between the rich and poor nations who thus continue to be dependent on the developed states for aid. They provide cheap labour to expand the developed nations such as Britain, USA and other super powers. However, Wallerstein predicts that capitalism will eventually disappear. This is due to some contradictions such as; imbalance between supply and demand. This is because most production decisions are based on firm level hence controlling total production (Sjolander, 1994). The system is also affected by availability of workers to maintain the system; core will be forced to incur high costs in order to co-opt workers. There is also coexistence of plural and world-system which may hinder development of the world system. Some states may experience decline in power as more states from the semi-periphery attain the core status hence accelerated technological advancements to ensure the core maintains status or economic power. Criticisms The theory has been criticised for ignoring nation-states and the fight against insecurity. Unequal development can be explained in other terms other than capital accumulation. Some countries are constrained by factors such as geographical and cultural factors and not because they can’t accumulate enough capital to enable them control others. The theory is founded on wage-labour relations; however, existence of other forms of labour renders the theory unreliable. Furthermore, it depends on willingness of labourers to offer their services (Griffiths, 1999). Others argue that states can develop within their boundaries without relying on the world capital system. Realists also argue that capitalism cannot account for struggle for power among sovereign states moreover; the rise of states to the core status cannot be accounted for by the rigid divisions of core, semi-periphery and periphery. Conclusion Power in international relations can be explained by use of various theories. Power refers to the ability to influence, control outcomes, events and actors. Power determines how states relate with each other in the international system. However, there is no agreement as to the nature and role of power in international relations. Realists assert that nations are sovereign and rational thinkers whose goal is self-interest which is security. Power is thus gained through struggle in the political arena where winning is the standard. Conflict is natural and inevitable. Waltz stresses on states capabilities as the power of states while Wallerstein views the world as one system where different a class guided by division of labour exists. The core controls the periphery to maintain world order. References Baldwin, D (2005) Power and International Relations. In: Carlsnaes, W & Beth, S. Handbook of International Relations. London: Sage Publications. Carlsnaes, W & Beth, S. (2005). Handbook of International Relations. London: Sage Publications. Freyberg-Inan, A (2004) What Moves Man: The Realist Theory of International Relations and its Judgement of Human Nature. New York: State University of New York Press. Griffiths, M (1999) Fifty Key Thinkers in International Relations. London: Routledge. Griffiths, M., Roach, S., Solomon, S (2009) Fifty Key Thinkers in International Relations.2ed. London: Routledge Jervis, R (1997) System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Sjolander, C., Cox, W (1994) Beyond Positivism: Critical Reflections on International Relations. Colorado: Lynne Rienner. Waltz, K (2000) “Structural Realism after the Cold War”. International Security, 25 (1): 5-41. Read More