Lecture Four Power in International Politics

8/8/2019 Lecture Four Power in International Politics

1/15

Power in International Politics

State Power/Power PoliticsBalance of Power

International Systems


2/15

Key Concepts

Anarchy and self-help.

The security dilemma.

Security dilemma within a society of states.Power Politics: whereas power is unequally distributed,each state must provide its own security, and whereasone states security is anothers threat, states

continually vie for power to be secure.PP includes diplomacy, alliance, BoP, War, Peace,even IL and IO. Primacy is Power.


3/15

Types of State Power

The form of PP changes, but the nature of staterelations remains the same.

Great Powers have five features. (Roman, Napoleonic,British empires, USA/USSR post 1945).

Middle Powers: GPs value its resources, strategicposition and military value added. (Regional MPs:

France, Indonesia).Small Powers: do not affect BoP (Netherlands), aremost insecure, can be flashpoints (Israel).


4/15

Nature of GP Power Politics

Status Quo vs. Revolutionary GPs.

Tools: national power, alliances, diplomacy. (Classical

vs. Cold War: Structural Realism {K. Waltz})

GPs may seek concert for world domination.

GP may seek universal empire.

Former GPs may be submerged in power structure ofsupplanter: Holland-England, A-H Empire-Germany,

UK-US, ?USA-China?


5/15

End of Part I


6/15

Balance of Power: various meanings

Historical/descriptive assessment of power.

BoP not as conscious state policy but as a function of

systems equilibrium.Grotian (Liberal) Balance: enlightened self-interestmakes near equilibrium a founding principle of thesociety of states (eg: Concert of Europe), used to limit

conflict, grant compensation, and avert hegemony,eventually overcome war.

Machiavellian Balance: BoP is inevitable. States onlyhave permanent interests: maintaining the scales in

their favour. BoP is inherently unstable.


7/15

Realist Rules for BoP

Always increase capabilities, but choose

diplomacy over war. (Morton Kaplan)

War rather than a loss in capabilities.

Oppose preponderance by one GP.

Avoid uncertainty of eliminating other GPs

(Versailles, Gulf 1991) or allowing a new order

not based on Power Politics.


8/15

Preponderance rather than Balance

Preponderance of Power school of thought. (balances

are unstable, benevolent hegemony is better {Cold

War}, war is likely when hegemon declines orchallenger closes the gap).

Hegemonic stability theory: hegemon underwrites rules

of trade and diplomacy which creates stability

Declining hegemons/stability causes war or systems

change


9/15


10/15

Types of Structure

Unipolar (tether pole). National or bloc power: RomanEmpire.

Multipolar (merry-go-round). National power andalliances. (1648-1814 Europe), South Asia today.

Bipolar (see-saw). National power and alliance blocs.Triple Alliance {Ge, It, A-H, 1882) and Triple Entente

{Eng-Fr-Rus. 1907}, and Cold War.Each has its own type of dominant security problem:challenger/assimilation; shifting alliances;escalation/zero-sum conflict


11/15

Conflict Potential and Risk

calculationDeutsch and Singer definition of stability (no dominant,

all GPs remain, no large-scale war)

Multipolar: potentially many conflicts, but alsocountervailing alliances and BoP holder.

Bipolar: potential zero-sum and high risk of escalation,

but more political control.(offset by ideology and MAD)

Structure of IS is also contextual: rules of war and

diplomacy change.


12/15

Todays International System

Boundaries: global strong points

Units: democracies vs. the rest

Interaction: eco, pol, mil, cult.

Structure: unipolar and multipolar mixed.


13/15

Complicating Factors

Non-state actors and intrastate wars.

Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and Weapons of

Mass Destruction (WMD).Trade blocs vs. WTO

USA is not a traditional empire. It is a mixture of: primusinter pares, benevolent hegemon, globocop, and

traditional GP.Triumph of Liberalism and instant communicationchallenges legitimacy of national interest and possibilityof limited war.


14/15

Conclusion

Does the end of territorial aggrandizement mean theend of GP Power Politics?

Does the presence of Nuclear Weapons mean the endof GP Power Politics?

Does Globalization?

Can regional or global organization (NATO/UN)

prevent/overcome GP politics?Each GP has its own power and normative context.

Todays Power Politics: The Role of one Hyper Power.


15/15

Future System Watch

Will a multipolar MAD be as stable as the Cold War

MAD?

Will missile defence replace deterrence?

Will WMD replace Nuclear Weapons?

Will rigid trade blocs emerge from globalization?

Will the state system weaken from quasi states andglobal economics?

Will civilization/religion clashes replace inter-state war?

Documents

Lecture Four Power in International Politics