To understand changing patterns of global power is no easy feat, but several theories may give us an insight to the shift of power in our modern world, I wish to talk about these theories and how we can use them to better understand our past and present global power situations.
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
Three levels of analysis, each with its own distinct strength, reveals three different ways of understanding international relations. The first states that all nation-states behave similarly, the second emphasizes the unique internal factors of a nation-state, while the third level of analysis focuses on the individual deciding a state&#8217;s course of action. Each level of analysis is useful in the study of international relations. Indeed, used all together, it is not long before arriving at a point where a vast number of explanations for the actions of a country are brought to light. However, to best understand international relations, one level of analysis is more useful than the rest, because it provides the most comprehensive
A key word in these definitions is power and I believe power is a major factor in both of the approaches to comparative politics this paper will cover. Power as defined by the Oxford Dictionary is the ability or capacity to direct or influence the behavior of others or the course of events. The Eurocentric approach to the study of comparative politics which Robert Marks attempts to contest in his book The Origins of the Modern World is one that favors European nations as the central powers in the formation of modern world as we know it today. On the other hand, James C. Scott’s approach to the study of comparative politics is state centric and it focuses more on the development of the state as the central and dominant aspect of society today.
The Modern world is divided up by self-determining, different states; often defined by their military forces. Before the sixteen-seventieth century the idea of states wasn’t like it is now. The world was unconnected by rulers, and no major states of authority. Many believe the concept of the Military Revolution that refers to a radical change in military strategy that altered a change in the government. According to Jeremy Black, in Beyond the Military Revolution, suggest the reason for an advance in military warfare was due to the development of the independent state. He tells how in the independent state the leader shows gloire to provide, build and protect. War and expansion appeared necessary and successful throughout this era.
In regards to international relations, power is influence and control one state has over another. Often times, state power is an indication of economic and military strength. According to Joseph Nye, the concept of using economic and military forces to coerce other political bodies is known as hard power. In contrast,
The Peace of Westphalia incorporates the two treaties, the Treaty of Münster and the Treaty of Osnabrück, that ended the Thirty Years’ War. The Peace put to rest a stalemate between the Holy Roman Empire and its enemies. It effectively limited the power of the Empire and, in regard to France in particular, enhanced the strength of the opposing states. These details could only be disputed with difficulty. The overriding debate concerning the Thirty Years’ War, however, is one that is discussed in the articles presented by Leo Gross and Andreas Osiander. Both authors write in exploration of the legacy of the Peace of Westphalia. Gross and Osiander argue that the Peace either established the basis for international law and international relations,
The balance of power theory is viewed as critical policy in the handling of international relations. To fully comprehend how the balance
Despite its action of the past and it apparition on the World War II, Japan nowadays represents one of the most powerful countries in the world, and it is a clear representation of redeemed and proof that the choice of accurate decision could empower a State. Even though it is a small country, Japan is comprehensibly a demonstration that a big territory is not meaning of power, and that in fact, it has more influence in the world than most of the biggest countries. Why is it a powerful country? I will consider power as the ability to keep the relations between States and the capacity of persuade others in order to achieve the own country goals. It means the idea of having the political control over the international sphere. Taking decisions is an important factor when we want to talk about power; they are the ignition point which enables politics and institutions work. Throughout the whole history, power is closely related with military forces and hard power; however, power is also represented by the consequences of proper manage of domestic policies, not only economically, but also socially, which can influence in both regional and international level, making the country a power influence. It is considered that power is everywhere and it is not necessarily repressive, prohibitive, negative or exclusionary; it is closely related with the idea that power is also positive. The essence of soft power relies on the use of diplomacy, negotiation, communication,
The significance of the Peace of Westphalia has long been lauded as beginning of international relations as it is recognized today. Many have attributed the popularity of this belief to the article, Peace of Westphalia, 1648-1948 by Leo Gross which was published in 1948. It discusses the merits of the agreement in sparking the establishing the modern state system. A more recent piece, Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth by Andreas Osiander takes an entirely different approach by attempting to debunk what Peace of Westphalia stands for in the current world. Both articles have strongly argued for their respective views on the issue, however it is clear that when it comes to whether or not the two treaties that make up the Peace of Westphalia actually contribute as much as ???? However it is clear that Osiander is more convincing??? While both articles make strong arguments to convince the reader of their respective views, Osiander employs By
The final level of analysis Morgenthau considers to be important is whether or not the power is legitimate and moral or if it is illegitimate and immoral. Legitimate and moral power carries considerable weight in the international community. However, if the power of a state is derived from illegitimate sources such as a dictatorship the international community will be less responsive to that state, weakening its power. Weak or small states may enter into alliances with stronger states to increase their power and influence within the international community (Kleinberg 2010, 33-34). Morgenthau also believed that the charisma and personality of a leader was very important when reviewing the balance of power and understanding a state’s self interest (Kleinberg 2010, 32).
In the early 1990s, Joseph Nye’s book Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature Of American Power ignited a huge discussion among society of the need to transition from America’s traditional use of hard power to something more benign which he termed soft power. Before looking at the two branches of power, we first define power as the ability to do something or act in a certain way. As Nye had pointed out, nations can wield power in two forms, soft and hard power. Soft power, as coined by Nye (1990) is defined as “the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than through coercion.” In contrast, hard power is seen as the use of military might or economic sanctions to coerce others into
The Balance of Power is a fiercely debated topic within the realm of international relations. Its true definition has been impossible to pin down and how it manifests itself has been argued over by many academics, in addition to this the idea is divided between the schools of thought that it is a force for preserving peace or a force for tension and war. This essay will look to examine the balance of power using retrospective analysis of historical events, focusing on the lead up to and the outbreak of WWI and its conclusion and the Cold war. Through this it can be hoped to find a clearer definition of the balance of power, whether it is really a balance analogous to a set of scales and whether the balance of power is a way of preserving peace and stability or whether it is on the whole, better termed as the balance of war, creating only tension and instability.
Power and truth play different but equal roles in maintaining control in a nation. Modern societies create regimes of truth that are enforced by power structures such as government, discipline and laws. When it comes to power, the government, queen or dictator is in charge. They tell their citizens what the main expectations are and how to abide by them. Nevertheless, the government should uphold fairness and not abuse its power unless it is necessary. Power is something that is earned; it is not something that is granted by default. The proper qualities, such as integrity, assertiveness and truth, in government or person can benefit its leadership skill set. Sometimes truth can be manipulated by the government to influence its people so
International change takes place when great powers rise and fall and followed by the shift in the balance of power (Jackson and Sorensen, 2003).