Power and Developments Flashcards
What is power?
The ability to exert influence through various means over others
What is hard power?
Coercive power to compel other states to follow orders via threats or incentivise them to do so via material rewards
(includes military and economic power)
What is soft power?
Power via attraction and identification, by sharing common values and ideas with other actors
e.g. US journalist O’Rourke said that communism collapsed ‘because nobody wanted to wear Bulgarian shoes’
What is smart power?
Term coined by Joseph Nye which refers to a state using both hard and soft power methods to achieve its aims
Best example of this is Obama’s Cairo speech in 2009, which focused on the benefits of Islamic culture and emphasised the need for cooperation and co-existence, while also stating in no uncertain terms that the US would not tolerate any threats to its national security
Define military power
Military power is the capacity of a state to commit or threaten aggression against another state. This may involve assassinations, drone strikes, bombing campaign or the possession of nuclear weapons
Define economic power
Economic power is the capacity of a state to induce another actor to do something by threatening economic penalties or offering favourable terms. This may involve trade deals, trade wars, embargoes or sanctions.
Examples of hard power
Obama ordered drone strikes in various countries, including Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq
Russia’s invasions of Crimea in 2014 and Ukraine in 2022 have challenged Ukraine’s sovereignty through use of hard power
In February 2024, the UK, US and EU announced 500 new economic sanctions on Russia
Examples of soft power
Formation of the BRICS increased their soft power by bolstering their diplomatic influence, especially within IGOs like the G20, the IMF and the World Bank
The USA has significant global cultural influence, such as in popular culture, food, fashion and music
What is a great power?
A state that has significant regional influence, the capacity for significant military outreach, a major role in international organisation and a strong economy.
What is a superpower?
A state that has significant global power (specifically ‘mobility of power’, such as by possessing nuclear weapons) and dominant structural power.
What is unipolarity?
A system with one single pre-eminent state (a hegemon) in global politics, which is relatively unconstrained and has no serious rivals (either as individual states or alliance blocs).
What is bipolarity?
A system revolving around two major states, with other states clustering around one of the two dominant states to form ‘blocs’. Between the two blocs, a near-equal balance of power exists and neither is able to challenge the other decisively
What is multipolarity?
A system with three or more states with significant global power, which have independent interests and goals. They constrain each other and none are able to decisively affect the actions of the others alone (although they may cooperate to do so)
What do realists say about unipolarity?
Realists would say that unipolarity is the ideal system of polarity for international relations. The existence of a global hegemon allows it to act as a de facto sovereign and establish a worldwide peace through force of arms. In the absence of challengers, the hegemon can utilise both hard and soft power to achieve a unitary set of objectives. During the 19th century, the British Empire was instrumental in eradicating the Trans-Atlantic slave trade (albeit after doing a great deal to spread it in the first place)
What do liberals say about unipolarity?
Liberals would say that unipolarity is dangerous, because the existence of an unconstrained hegemon is equivalent to a global tyranny. For liberals, peace is generated through cooperation, but if the hegemon can do whatever it wants without repercussions, then it will disregard concerns about human rights, the legitimacy of war, poverty, the rights of other states, etc. During the 19th century, there were millions of deaths from famine and colonialism in Britain’s Empire across Africa and Asia
What do realists say about bipolarity?
Realists would argue that bipolarity is a natural tendency in the world order and is stable, like unipolarity. States seek to establish such a balance to curb the hegemonic ambitions of other states. By establishing a balance of power, either major state is less likely to seek hegemony because they anticipate being countered by the other bloc. The ensuing equilibrium generates peace and stability because of rational fear of the costs of conflict. During the Cold War, neither the USA nor the Soviet Union launched direct attacks on each other or dared to use nuclear weapons, keeping the rivalry relatively ‘cold’
What do liberals say about bipolarity?
Liberals would argue that bipolarity is more stable than unipolarity, but still not ideal. This is because unforeseeable circumstances (domestic revolution, natural disaster, economic collapse, etc.) may at some point give one of the dominant states in the bipolar system the ability to emerge as a hegemon. The competition between the two blocs means that more resources are invested into military rivalry and arms races, and there is a lack of proper global integration in terms of trade and common institutions (preventing the emergence of a Kantian peace)
What do realists say about multipolarity?
Realists would argue that multipolarity is the least stable system of international relations; because states are always self-interested and amoral actors, they will seek an advantage over other states where it can be gained. Because the system is so finely balanced, even a few states building up an alliance bloc to ‘pool’ their power can upset the balance of power and lead to conflict. As the number of powerful actors increases, so does the number of possible conflicts due to the security dilemma. Realists would argue the breakdown of the multipolar interwar system after the Great Depression (1929 onwards), and the rise of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan were what lead to WWII – there was no strong hegemon to counter them and maintain ‘peace’ and those states felt that they had a rational chance of achieving global dominance
What do liberals say about multipolarity?
Liberals would argue that multipolarity is the most preferable system of polarity – it means that states are forced to co-operate with each other, because no one state has sufficient power that it can wield unilaterally. There is no one hegemonic de facto sovereign to impose its will and global solutions on other states, so the only way to solve issues like poverty; conflict; human rights; environmental crises, etc. is for states to work together to build some kind of interdependent international architecture. The potential gains of conflict are negligible, whereas the potential gains of cooperation are significant. In the 1920s, France and Germany (despite having been enemies in WWI) collaborated to settle disputes over reparations/payments and their post-war borders, because they recognised neither was powerful enough to ‘enforce’ a solution on the other
