What is Power in International Relations - Essay Example

What is ‘Power’ in International Relations? Introduction In the modern political dis the concept of power in international relations has been defined as “the degree of resources, capabilities, and influence in international affairs, relating primarily to coercive power, such as the use of force, and soft power commonly covering economics, diplomacy and cultural influence” (www.wapedia.mobi, 2009). International relations are defined as the study of relations among and between states, organizations and multilateral bodies. Thus it’s clear that power in international relations is determined by each state’s capabilities, capacities and physical control over resources. Thus a country with superior power projection capabilities would extend its control beyond its own physical borders and command authority over other states. Realist theory of international relations is divided into two broader categories – classical theory and structuralist theory. These two realist theoretical constructs have two different approaches to the concept of power in international relations. Finally the interdependence theory places emphasis on economic interdependence among states. Analysis In international relations the concept of power has acquired such a far reaching dimension of influence both with regard to interstate relations and their direction. In other words power is dynamic, orientative and pre-determined. The causal factors of power include power as a control mechanism over resources; power as a goal or aim; power as a security provider; and power as an influence. Power as a control mechanism was advocated first by such influential political theorists like Thomas Hobbes who maintained that power gave individuals and states the capacity and resources to face contingencies much better than those without it (Parsons, 1997). Thus power according to these early political thinkers was an all inclusive means to achieve a final end. In later developments of the idea of power, modern writers concentrate on the many faceted theoretical constructs of power as the ultimate end in interstate relations. When power enables states to assert control over resources as in the modern case where the US control over the Arctic region is clearly seen as an attempt at power projection over hitherto neglected territories and resources thereof, the concept of power as a control mechanism is fulfilled. Secondly power as a goal or aim in international relations was first advocated by early classical realists such as Niccolo Machiavelli and Hans J. Morgenthau who thought of power as an inalienable tendency possessed by men and used effectively in international relations to achieve certain predefined goals (Williams, 2007). Despite a plethora of writings on the subject, there is very little effort at the construction of theoretical postulates on the lines of power as a goal except to advocate that power be used in achieving desired and desirable goals. For example economic goals such as a surplus in the current account is a desirable goal and therefore every state is empowered to seek it though in the process more powerful states would prevail and the less powerful ones would give up. Next power as a means to ensure a country’s security is an age old idea though it wasn’t so refined in the past. For instance Kautilya’s Arthshastra had a lot of references to state security and connected power (Rao, 1958). According to modern interpretations of this conceptual theoretical construct, there is much more to gain by political leaders of a state by adopting power as a means to achieve state security. In other words the modern concept of state security as practiced and understood in countries like the US shows that there is an urgency and appeal in the approach to protect citizens of a country from terrorist activities at a substantial cost. Just what Israel is doing now is in conformance with this ideological theoretical postulate though many political analysts question the creditability of adopting such Kautilyan tactics in a modern epoch where interstate relations are basically determined by moral obligations towards each other. Finally power has been projected as an influence. It can be either a soft influence or a hard influence. Soft power is a concept advocated by modern political thinkers who suggest that state power has much to do with qualitative outcomes such as social and economic welfare of citizens. According to them soft power is persuasive and constructive and thus could be used to effectively solve problems between states. When the Bush Administration persuaded India to allow international inspections of its civilian nuclear facilities without signing the International Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it was considered to be an example of soft power being used to achieve a desirable end. On the other hand hard power is essentially replete with such acts of economic and politically motivated sanctions, coercive pressures, threats of attacks and even war. These actions when fully carried out essentially compel the recalcitrant state to toe a commonly acknowledged line as is now seen in respect of North Korea’s behavior. Though North Korea has been acting against the wishes of the international community by testing nuclear weapons and missiles, its fear of hard power being exerted by the US and the UN Security Council is obvious enough. To what extent North Korea would relent isn’t known yet though. Power in international relations acquires a still greater dimension when it’s considered against the backdrop of an evolving unipolar world order dominated by the US in a cold war free environment. Thus the realist theory of power in international relations as mentioned above lends an extraordinary interpretation and seeks to place it in a conflict-ridden context where power structures and ideologies would play a very significant role in determining the relative outcomes of relations between states. Articulate power concepts that realist theory brings to bear on the international order of affairs are basically the opposing adjuncts of liberal tradition though the latter tradition invariably supports power related concepts as inherently causative in international relations and connected actions. For instance while Kant, Cobden and Paine all three liberal traditionalists, regarded power as an adjunct that did not reflect necessarily in the liberal creed in the US, there has been enough agreement among them on the virtual reality of power expressed through trnasnationalist institutional arrangements (Dueck, 2006). For example the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) weren’t there when they wrote but they adequately recognized the existence of classical liberal influences expressed through institutional arrangements. Thus by extension liberal tradition and classical realism have been in league to some extent in identifying the institutionalist tradition as a power corollary to achieve liberal ends in international relations. The US liberal tradition is invariably connected with its power dynamics including the internationally preponderant role that it has been playing ever since the WW 1. To deny this is to commit an error because despite its liberal creed that’s associated with its economic and political evolution, the political leaders, especially after the WW 1 realized the significance of power and its structural elements as essential prerequisites to achieve certain predefined goals. Belatedly though the current tendency of political leaders in many countries is identical to this typical American approach. Russia has learnt it all after its disintegration into many economically powerless confederationist states. As much as the evolution of power as a concept thus has been marked by conflict, it has also been underlined by a virtual ideological shift away from pro-communism to pro-liberalism. Passive institutional transformations have failed to register their imprint on these states though. In other words these states in the new international order of arrangements and political dispensation acquire less of a universal recognition than those other states which pioneered the catalytic changes at the grassroots. In this dispensation power and its related adjuncts in international relations occupy a more realist-theoretical domain. Indeed interdependency theory of power and international relations has supported these outcomes much in the same way as any other theory by emphasizing the relative importance of economically interdependent dispensation of affairs. In other words globalization and its related developments have forced states and their political leaders to acknowledge the significant impact of international trade and trade related interdependency on power among states. Thus power is a relative concept whose raison d’être for existence is inexplicably determined by a diversity and complexity of factors in international relations. In this backdrop a set of a priori and a posteriori principles for the immediate and primal existence of power in the eyes of state leaders as an essential adjunct in international relations will serve as a benevolent force (Pavehouse, 2004). Conclusion Power defined as a relative concept in international relations, goes a long way in determining the nature and shape of international relations in the modern world where state borders and their compactness have very little bearing on the conduct of interstate affairs. Realist theoretical constructs – defined as two broader categories - on the concept of power in international relations identifies a near universal causal relationship between power and its associated adjuncts. Thus according to realism power is an essential corollary to chive an end in interstate reactions. Finally interdependence theory also recognizes power as a relatively influential factor though the supporters of this theory place stress on economic interdependence thus ignoring all other nuances of power. REFERENCES 1. Dueck, C. (2006). Reluctant crusaders: power, culture, and change in American grand strategy. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 2. Parsons, M. D. (1997). Power and politics: federal higher education policy making in the 1990. SUNY Press, New York. 3. Pevehouse, J. C. (2004). ’Interdependence Theory and the Measurement of International Conflict’ . The Journal of Politics.Volume 66, Number 1, pp. 247-266. 4. Rao, K. M. V. (1958). Studies in Kautilya. (2nd ed). Munshi Ram Manchal-Lal. 5. Williams, M. C. (2007). Realism reconsidered: the legacy of Hans Morgenthau in international relations. New York: Oxford University Press 6. www.wapedia.mobi/en/international-relations Read More

Despite a plethora of writings on the subject, there is very little effort at the construction of theoretical postulates on the lines of power as a goal except to advocate that power be used in achieving desired and desirable goals. For example economic goals such as a surplus in the current account is a desirable goal and therefore every state is empowered to seek it though in the process more powerful states would prevail and the less powerful ones would give up. Next power as a means to ensure a country’s security is an age old idea though it wasn’t so refined in the past.

For instance Kautilya’s Arthshastra had a lot of references to state security and connected power (Rao, 1958). According to modern interpretations of this conceptual theoretical construct, there is much more to gain by political leaders of a state by adopting power as a means to achieve state security. In other words the modern concept of state security as practiced and understood in countries like the US shows that there is an urgency and appeal in the approach to protect citizens of a country from terrorist activities at a substantial cost.

Just what Israel is doing now is in conformance with this ideological theoretical postulate though many political analysts question the creditability of adopting such Kautilyan tactics in a modern epoch where interstate relations are basically determined by moral obligations towards each other. Finally power has been projected as an influence. It can be either a soft influence or a hard influence. Soft power is a concept advocated by modern political thinkers who suggest that state power has much to do with qualitative outcomes such as social and economic welfare of citizens.

According to them soft power is persuasive and constructive and thus could be used to effectively solve problems between states. When the Bush Administration persuaded India to allow international inspections of its civilian nuclear facilities without signing the International Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it was considered to be an example of soft power being used to achieve a desirable end. On the other hand hard power is essentially replete with such acts of economic and politically motivated sanctions, coercive pressures, threats of attacks and even war.

These actions when fully carried out essentially compel the recalcitrant state to toe a commonly acknowledged line as is now seen in respect of North Korea’s behavior. Though North Korea has been acting against the wishes of the international community by testing nuclear weapons and missiles, its fear of hard power being exerted by the US and the UN Security Council is obvious enough. To what extent North Korea would relent isn’t known yet though. Power in international relations acquires a still greater dimension when it’s considered against the backdrop of an evolving unipolar world order dominated by the US in a cold war free environment.

Thus the realist theory of power in international relations as mentioned above lends an extraordinary interpretation and seeks to place it in a conflict-ridden context where power structures and ideologies would play a very significant role in determining the relative outcomes of relations between states. Articulate power concepts that realist theory brings to bear on the international order of affairs are basically the opposing adjuncts of liberal tradition though the latter tradition invariably supports power related concepts as inherently causative in international relations and connected actions.

For instance while Kant, Cobden and Paine all three liberal traditionalists, regarded power as an adjunct that did not reflect necessarily in the liberal creed in the US, there has been enough agreement among them on the virtual reality of power expressed through trnasnationalist institutional arrangements (Dueck, 2006). For example the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) weren’t there when they wrote but they adequately recognized the existence of classical liberal influences expressed through institutional arrangements.

Read More