1

Lecture-4

Concept of Power in International Relations

Introduction

1. In the 21st century, the world is undergoing a critical transformation, with nation-
states facing serious political and socio-economic issues.
2. The challenges are global in their nature and affect the policies of many countries.
3. A prevalent trend in today’s global context is the individual nation-states’ concern over
their power and influence.
4. This is especially significant in light of the growing geopolitical tensions, as well as the
diffusion of power among global actors.

There are many different definitions of power that are used in politics and international relations.
However, one of the most commonly accepted definitions is that

“Power refers to one's ability to exert a degree of influence over someone else.”

1. This influence makes someone do something they would not have done otherwise.
2. Power often has negative connotations associated with it, and therefore wanting to seek
power is viewed unfavorably, and words like power hungry are used in a non-
complimentary manner.
3. Given that power simply means being able to make someone do something they would
not otherwise do, power itself is not innate negative or bad, rather it's what can be done
with power that stirs up those negative associations.

Theory of power in international relations

While there are many theories that discuss power in international relations, the most important
point to understand is how these theories of power argue that states are about to gain power.

There are three main ways though their capabilities, relationships, and structures.
 2

1. Capabilities look at how many resources a state has, these can include financial resources,
population, military capability, and even the geography of the country.
2. A poor country with a small population usually has less capability than a rich country with
a large population; for example, if they went to war with each other, some would argue that
this means they have less power.
1. Relationships are also an important part of gaining power in international relations.
2. This means things like joining an alliance or an international organization.
3. This can give you more power than you would otherwise have.
4. For example, Canada is more powerful because of the strong relationship it has with the
US.
5. When you gain power from relationships like this it is called 'relational power'.
1. Lastly, structures are important when looking at theories of power in international
relations
2. . Gaining power from structure means that a state has created or has control of important
areas like specific knowledge or security and production networks.
3. For example, Germany is a lot more powerful because of how important it is in creating
and leading the European Union.

Types of power in international relations

Despite the numerous definitions and categorizations of types of power in international
relations, generally, we refer to three types of power. These are; hard power, soft power
and smart power.

1. Hard Power
1. Hard power is power that is commanding.
2. With hard power, you are able to make someone do as you usually want through the use
of the carrot or stick approach.
3. This refers to the idea that if one complies with your wishes they will be rewarded, and if
one does not do as you wish they will be punished.
4. Hard power is usually associated with a country's military and economic capacity.
1. The British Empire used hard power to colonize approximately a third of the world.
 3

2. At the height of the empire, the British possessed an unrivalled naval force.
3. This allowed the British to violently expand and colonize many nations, particularly
across Africa and Asia.

As mentioned previously, not only is military capacity an important element of hard

power, but economic capacity is too. This can take the form of sanctions, which may be
used on nations that do not fall in line with the desires of the sanctioning country.

2.Soft Power

1. Soft power in international relations is a form of power that has an attractiveness

or allure to other states.
2. It is based upon shared values, culture, and diplomacy.
3. The resources that soft powers utilize are usually economic power, relational
power and historical relationships.
4. Unlike the way in which hard power uses economic power to impose
punishments, soft power states use their strong economic position to appear
desirable to other nations.
5. If a state has a stable and strong economy, this state has power as other nations
will seek to engage in trades with this state in hope of benefitting from the strong
economy of the state.
The UN Security Council is an example of relational power, many states desire to be
among the non-permanent members of the UN Security Council due to the relational
power it brings with it. States that get to sit on the Security Council often feel a sense of
importance as they are among the 'top dogs' in regard to powerful states and are able to
contribute to important decisions.
In general, the UK is among the leading soft power states this is because globally there is
a cultural allure to Britain which contributes to the UK's power. This is mainly due to the
historical ties that the UK created during and after its long periods of colonization which
 4

has resulted in the Commonwealth of Nations. The Commonwealth consists of 55

primarily former British colonies and dominions and the UK. This has created special ties
throughout history, such as strong trade relations and joint sporting competitions.

4. Smart Power in International Relations

1. Smart power refers to the strategic combination of both hard and soft power.
2. Not every scenario can be won with a hard power approach, nor can it be won by the use
of soft power.
3. Therefore, it is important for states to discern when to approach with a smile or when to
approach with their fangs bared.
1. The ability to skillfully combine hard and soft power for the development of
integrated strategies is called smart power (Nye and Armitage, 2007: 7).
2. In other words, smart power is the capacity of an actor to combine elements of hard
power and soft power in ways that the actor’s goals are advanced effectively and
efficiently (Wilson, 2008: 115).
3. Smart power can take on different forms. What has been called smart power is in fact a
combination of diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal and cultural tools, and the
European Union could be regarded as one of the best examples of this (Pallaver, 2011:
20).
The large amount of investment made by China to promote its own culture around the
globe is a clear example of soft power. Nye sees the establishment of hundreds of
Confucius Institutes around the world and the rapid growth of Chinese international radio
and televisions broadcasting as a powerful means of attracting foreign students to China.
Combining the growth of its hard power with a compelling discourse on soft power,
China has sought to use smart power to convey the idea of the peaceful rise of knowledge
and culture.
NATO or the UN peacekeeping forces can be viewed as an example of smart power as
there is a large military capability that instead of seeking to instill fear or create
destruction is often used to maintain peace and diplomatic efforts between nations.
 5

Balance of Power

1. Balance of Power has been traditionally an important fact of international relations.

2. It has been guiding the decisions and policies of nations.
3. Since the 17th century Several scholars regard it as the best guide for securing the goals
of national interest without getting involved in war.
4. Up to the first half of twentieth century, Balance of Power was regarded as being the
only known modern device of international management of power.

“Balance of Power is a nearly fundamental law of politics as it is possible to find.” —Martin

Wright

1. Palmer and Perkins also hold that balance of power principle has been “a basic principle
of international relations.

2. Balance of power is a theory within international relations that posits state power is in
flux and that states ensure their survival via preventing enduring military supremacy by
any one state.
3. The central argument of the theory is that as one state amasses power, other states
cooperate through a defensive coalition to mitigate the concentration of power.
4. Thus, there is a constant rebalancing of power in international affairs.
Contemporarily, the United States has been seen as a global hegemon in a unipolar
international environment; the economic and military rise of China could be explained
via the balance of power theory.
Some theorists of international relations believe that a balance of power environment is
more suitable than a dominant state system as aggression becomes less profitable and
rivals create and reset a global power equilibrium.
Hegemony
1. The term balance of power means there is usually a dominant state at a given moment.
2. This state is referred to as a hegemon - a state with predominant political, economic, or
military capabilities over other states.
3. Hegemons can be international (like the U.S. currently is) or regional.
4. For example, Saudi Arabia could be viewed as a regional hegemon in the Middle East
region.
 6

1. Hegemony is central to the balance of power theory.

2. Hegemons represent a potential security threat to other nations. When one state amasses
enough power, it can dictate the rules of the international system, launch unilateral
attacks within the territory of another sovereign state, use economic coercion or other
tools of diplomatic or military tradecraft to accomplish its goals. It is this concentration
of power that encourages other states to cooperate to achieve a balance of power and
ensure unilateral moves by the hegemon don't risk the longevity of other middle and
lower powers.
Countering Balance of Power
There are several techniques that can be employed to counter hegemonic power
concentration and achieve a balance of power internationally. These techniques are
detailed below.
Balancing
When states balance, they make concerted efforts to join other threatened states to defy
or resist the demands of a hegemon. This in practice results in diplomatic, economic, or
military coordination between two or more states, excluding the hegemon. Common
tactics involve naming and shaming a hegemon, conducting military drills and training
exercises collaboratively, and more. Theorists of balance of power, who predominantly
come from the realist school of international political thought, argue balance of power
works precisely because of the anarchical set-up of international affairs. As states seek
their own survival and are assumed to be rational actors, they can form alliances and
balance collectively against a hegemon at will because it is in their own best interest to do
so. Kenneth Waltz, the founder of neorealism, summed this up in his attestation that the
only two requirements for balancing to work are (1) an anarchical international system
and (2) a desire for states to survive.
Bandwagoning
1. Bandwagoning is another technique used by weaker states to balance power
internationally and mitigate potential threats against their own survival.
2. In contrast to balancing, bandwagoning states will align themselves voluntarily
with the hegemon to curry favor and avoid coercion and manipulation from the
hegemon.
 7

3. States often choose to bandwagon as a form of appeasement and because of a

desire to avoid coercion (defensive reason) or to share in the spoils of victory
achieved by the hegemon.
4. In general, the weaker and less influential the state, the more it is likely to
bandwagon as opposed to balance.
5. This is because there is likely to be a negligible impact if the state worked in
concert with other states as opposed to working with the hegemon itself.

Impact on International System

1. A Source of Stability in International Relations:
1. Balance of Power provides stability to international relations.
2. It is a device of effective power management and peace.
3. During the past 400 years it was successful, at most of the times, in preserving
peace.
4. “Balance of Power has many a times prevented war. War breaks out only when
any state assumes excessive power.” —Fredric Geniz
2. It suits the real nature of International Relations:
1. Balance of Power is in tune with the dynamic nature of international relations.
2. It helps continuous adjustments and readjustments in relations without any grave
risk of war among states.
3. Ensures Multiplicity of States:
1. Since Balance of Power postulates the presence of a number of major
international actors (7 or 8 even more), it ensures multiplicity of nations and their
active participation in preserving balance in international relations.
4. Guarantees the Freedom of Small States:
1. Balance of Power ensures the preservation of small and weak states.
2. Its rule that no nation is to be completely eliminated, favors the continued
existence of all states.
3. Each state feels secure about its security in the balance of power system.
5. Balance of Power Discourages War:
 8

1. Balance of Power discourages war because each state knows that any attempt to become
unduly powerful shall invoke an action, even war, by all other states and hence, it keeps
its ambitions under control.
6. A Source of Peace in International Relations:
1. Finally, Balance of Power is always a source of peace and order in international relations.
2. It supports status quo in relations.
3. Between 1815-1914 it successfully prevented war.

International system and hegemony

1. Historical examples show that the policies based on balancing power are more successful
when the international system is bipolar. In cases where the international system is
unipolar, such policies may not produce positive results because the power disparity
between the dominant power and all others is so huge that even if all other states join
their forces, it is nearly impossible for them to balance the dominant power. Between
1991 and 2008, the U.S. was the hegemonic power and other states had simply two
alternatives. They would either bandwagon with the U.S. or maintain a soft balance
through the employment of nonmilitary instruments.

In cases where the international system is multipolar, policies are implemented more easily
because the number of potential allies is greater. Besides, material power capacity is dispersed
among major powers more evenly. Today's international environment has already become
multipolar in many different dimensions. If not directly forming an anti-American military
alliance, states such as China and Russia are increasing their military cooperation as well as
coordinating their foreign policies on multiple institutional platforms. The transition from soft to
hard balancing is likely to occur as the multipolar character of the current world order is
entrenched with the irreversible erosion of American primacy with each passing day.

On the other hand, we also see the U.S. has increased its efforts to counterbalance China all over
the world, most notably in East Asia. China is now seen as the No. 1 threat leveled against the
American primacy in global politics. There is now a bipartisan consensus on this point inside the
U.S. American attempts at forming an anti-Iranian alliance in the Middle East, consisting of
Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), is another example of
power politics pursued regionally.

Indeed, the concept of Balance of Power is bound to continue so long as the struggle for power
among nations continues to characterize international relations. Even the staunch critics of
Balance of Power like, Martin Wright and Friendrich admit that Balance of Power is still a basic
element in international relations. Balance of power is neither totally obsolete nor dead. Its role,
however, has changed from a global device to a regional device of power management.
9