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.
Known as one of the most influential senators in American history, William J. Fulbright served as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 1959 through 1974, and at his death in 1995, he was the group’s longest serving reader. During this time, he authored “On the Arrogance of Power, 1966”, in which discussed the tendency of countries to equate power as proof of superiority. In fact, he Fulbright refers to “the arrogance of power – as a psychological need that nations seem to have in order to prove that they are bigger, better, or stronger than other nations” (1). Using a combination of pathos, ethos, and logos appeals, he presents support for his argument. Because power corrupts how people and
In no field other than politics does the justification for action often come from a noteworthy event and the true cause stays hidden behind the headlines. The United States’ transformation from a new state to a global superpower has been a methodical journey molded by international conditions (the global terrain for statecraft), the role of institutions and their programmed actions, and ultimately, the interests of actors (the protection of participants in making policy’s items and i...
At this point, with an understanding of what power is, what it means, how it is created and the various means through which it is expressed, one can begin to conceptualise how it is that power functions within a given society. Symbolic, cultural, social and economic capital distribute and perpetuate power within a society, through a cycle of transformation whereby these capital resources can be interchanged and manipulated to the advantage of individuals who have
Despite the fact that the theory of 'soft power' was coined at the end of the twentieth century , the idea has been diligently used by politicians, fifty years prior, throughout the Cold War, hence the name. Joseph Nye wrote a book which described soft power in depth. He divided power into thre...
The political scientist Robert Dahl (1957:202), defines power as: “A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something B would not othe...
Power was always perceived as a gauge by nations’ military might and ability to impose its will on others; however since taking this course, the perception has changed. There are multiple definitions of power. Power can be used to influence other nations to meet the host nation’s intent. Power can be interpreted through economic influence or old fashion brute force among many things. In essence, power is the means in which influence is bestowed unto nations, or in general in order to maintain order or get what is needed.
Power is a very strong tool that can either be used for the better of mankind or the destruction of it. Theodore Roosevelt stated “speak softly and carry a big stick”, claiming that power of negotiation needs to be backed up with actually military strength. Power is something that is endearing and ambiguous. One’s perceived view of power may be entirely different from another’s but that does not mean that either is wrong. The time, the place, and the situation will all affect the effectiveness of a power. Power is whatever you perceive it to be and more.
Schmidt, B. C. (2007). Realism and facets of power in international relations. In F. Berenskoetter & M. J. D. Williams (Eds.), Power in world politics (pp. 43-63). London: Routledge.
That idea was suggested by American political scientist J. Nye who divided the concept of power into two types: "hard" power and "soft" power. According to this classification military and economic elements are included into "hard" power, since they both involve compelling aspect: with "hard" power s...
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.
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).
In late 1947, the newly created states of India and Pakistan went to war over the valley of Kashmir. A United Nations brokered ceasefire divided the state into Indian and Pakistani controlled territories, and resolved that a referendum would be held in which the people of Kashmir would be able to choose to join either country. The referendum has not been held to this day. India granted its portion of Kashmir a special status within its constitution, allowing for a great degree of self-autonomy. However, successive Kashmiri governments have been dissolved by the government of India, and elections have only been held in the presence of its armed forces. In 1965, Pakistan and India waged a second indecisive war over Kashmir. In the 1980s, resistance within Kashmir itself against the Indian government took on a violent nature, with guerilla attacks against Indian army bases. India responded with heavy army clampdowns, and since then the situation has only escalated and get worse. It is estimated that well over 34,000 people have died within the valley, and the relations between the two countries have become increasingly acrimonious. India blames Pakistan for the militant uprising, claiming Islamabad is supporting cross border terrorism. Pakistan responds that it merely provides diplomatic and moral support arguing, furthermore, that India’s history of human rights abuses in the valley is to blame. With both countries now in possession of nuclear arms; the recent war in KARGIL and the increasing number of civilian deaths, refugees, and other human rights issues within Kashmir, the conflict seems to be taking on a more serious nature. In this paper I will discuss the Kashmir conflict in some depth, examining the problem in...
Wirsing, Robert. India, Pakistan, and the Kashmir Dispute: on Regional Conflict and its Resolution. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1994. Print.
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 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”.