Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
essay on foreign policy in china
the difference between hard and soft power
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: essay on foreign policy in china
State Diplomacy Models
Through recent history, state diplomacy wad divided dichotomously, only involving soft or hard power. Soft power is the ability to obtain preferred outcomes through attraction while hard power involves the use of coercion and payments to force the other party to consent to the coercer nation’s desires . When determining which diplomatic approach to pursue, countries often consider four core motivations: its past relations with the target country, its international image or the image it wishes to project, its citizens’ level of implicit consent, and dependent and independent variables.
Dependent and independent variables shape the specific course of action taken by a nation. According to Steiner in Diplomacy and International Theory, “diplomacy as dependent variable takes into account rising constraints upon diplomatic statecraft, such as public opinion, ideology, and the intrusion of specialized actors.” Nations must understand how to adapt to constraints placed on them by dependent variables on the international field; protean diplomacy should be pursued and should incorporate a nation’s ability to adapt to unforeseen political, military, and economic changes which affect the diplomatic initiative . Diplomacy as an independent variable, on the other hand, occurs when “diplomats push for dispute management in opposition to pressures that increase chances of war.” In other words, independent diplomacy proactively addresses negative influences to better the position of one’s nation on the international field.
Related to the notion of dichotomy represented by soft power and hard power is the carrot and stick approach to diplomacy, a preferred method by many western nations, including the United State...
... middle of paper ...
...gement Executive 14, no. 1 (February 2000): 80-92. Accessed December 2, 2013. doi:10.5465/AME.2000.2909841.
Steiner, Barry H. "Diplomacy and International Theory." Review of International Studies 30, no. 04 (October 2004): 493-509. Accessed December 2, 2013. doi:10.1017/S0260210504006199.
Suisheng, Zhao. "Chinese Foreign Policy under Hu Jintao:The Struggle between Low-Profile Policy and Diplomatic Activism." The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 5, no. 4 (July 29, 2010): 357-78. Accessed December 2, 2013. doi:10.1163/187119110X531840.
Wang, Jay. "Public Diplomacy and Global Business." Journal of Business Strategy 27, no. 3 (2006): 41-49. doi:10.1108/02756660610663826.
Wilson, E. J. "Hard Power, Soft Power, Smart Power." The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616, no. 1 (March 2008): 110-24. Accessed December 2, 2013. doi:10.1177/0002716207312618.
Frieden, Jeffry A., David A. Lake, and Kenneth A. Schultz. World Politics. New York: W.W. Norton &, 2013. Print.
Mingst, K. A. (2011). Essentials of international relations. (5th ed., p. 79). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
Viotti, P., & Kauppi, M. (2013). International Relations and World Politics. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc.
Shiraev, Eric B., and Vladislav M. Zubok. International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Nye, Jr., Joseph S. “Hard and Soft Power in American Foreign Policy.” In Paradox of American Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. 4-17. Print.
Mingst, K. (2011). Essentials of international relations. (5th ed., p. 70). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
Balaam, David. Introduction to International Political Economy, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Pearson Education, 2005.
The creation of the study of international relations in the early 20th century has allowed multiple political theories to be compared, contrasted, debated, and argued against one another for the past century. These theories were created based on certain understandings of human principles or social nature and project these concepts onto the international system. They examine the international political structure and thrive to predict or explain how states will react under certain situations, pressures, and threats. Two of the most popular theories are known as constructivism and realism. When compared, these theories are different in many ways and argue on a range of topics. The topics include the role of the individual and the use of empirical data or science to explain rationally. They also have different ideological approaches to political structure, political groups, and the idea that international relations are in an environment of anarchy.
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.
Doyle, Michael W. and G. John Ikenberry, eds. (1997) New Thinking in International Relations Theory. Boulder, CO: Westview Pres.
The discipline of international relations (IR) contains several theories that contain theoretical perspectives to the idea of power. Within the realist perspective there are two approaches that help paint the portrait of the realist theory, the classical approach to realism and the neo-realist approach. Classical realism and neorealism both have been subjected to criticism from IR scholars and theorists representing liberal and constructivist perspectives. The key tenets to realism contain three essential characteristics of international relations which are the state, anarchy and the balance of power. This essay will closely analyse all three characteristics with special regards to power being central to the realist perspective.
Diplomacy has a variety of definitions which depending on the user perspectives on the term “diplomacy”. In the context of international relations, diplomacy is the negotiator’s ability in conducting negotiations between the representatives of nation states in a peaceful manner. The essential of negotiation is to resolve a conflict without offending others. According to Iragorri (2003), an effective negotiation is being able to achieve mutual agreement by peaceful means. The process of a negotiation in diplomacy goes through five important stages that is preparation, discussion, proposing, bargaining and settling process (refer to Figure 1 in Appendix 1).
Often, war is considered a method of negotiation. Through force, one party persuades another to concede to their demands. The loss of life, land, and property can be especially convincing. However, diplomacy is another method of negotiation that tries to eliminate the bloody process of war and get right to conversation which will lead to a mutually satisfying solution without extreme costs. Diplomacy, then, is when “agreements or understandings are obtained among states, through the efforts of trained government representatives.”1 Most importantly, diplomacy seeks to address the problem of escalations (like arms races) which can result in war by using communication. Occasionally, these trained professionals called diplomats may employ coercive diplomacy to achieve these goals. This coercion uses a threat as an incentive to make a state stop or undo an action. Coercive diplomacy seems to be the most effective method because it both motivates and demands a response, which can be either conflict or compromise.
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).