World Superpowers

10 Key excerpts on "World Superpowers"

• 

  eBook - PDF

  Superpowers in the Post-Cold War Era

  • K. Aldred, Martin A. Smith(Authors)
  • 1999(Publication Date)
  • Palgrave Macmillan

    (Publisher)

  In short, the leading powers are likely to be the most active ones. This view has been popular amongst political scientists. Professor Samuel Huntington of Harvard University, for example, has written that ‘international primacy means that a government is able to exercise more influence on the behaviour of more actors, with respect to more issues than any other government can’. 3 Edward Luttwak made a similar point pithily, albeit somewhat controversially, in 1 2 Superpowers in the Post-Cold War Era 1994 when he wrote that ‘great powers are in the business of threat- ening, rather than being threatened’. 4 Power resources can be divided into three major component parts. These are military, economic and political. Whilst there are differ- ences of opinion over what is meant by these terms, there is nevertheless broad agreement that they embrace the key facets of power. 5 The first two are the best known and most discussed. Mili- tary power resides in the level and sophistication of the armed forces which a country is able to maintain. In international terms there is a strong body of opinion which sees possession of the means of projecting military power beyond national borders, and the will- ingness to do so, as essential for those states which wish to be considered great powers. As Luttwak has put it: a great power cannot be that unless it asserts all sorts of claims that far exceed the needs of its own immediate security . . . It must therefore risk combat for purposes that may be fairly re- condite, perhaps in little-known distant lands, but definitely in situations where it is not compelled to fight but deliberately chooses to do so. 6 Economic power can be measured in various ways; with a com- parison of Gross National Products (or equivalent) being perhaps the most widely used.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  Available until 15 Jan |Learn more

  Political Power

  The Development of the Field

  • Mark Haugaard, Kevin Ryan, Mark Haugaard, Kevin Ryan(Authors)
  • 2012(Publication Date)
  • Verlag Barbara Budrich

    (Publisher)

  Political power at the level of world politics is thus becoming less like old-fashioned “power politics” or Realpolitik , and more like the domestic politics of: • interest group pressure, competition and conflict; • the clash of ideologies and social values; • the construction of – and resistance to – evolving norms and rules of the game; and • an uneven but growing “civilianization” of power relations. More controversially, I argue that, paradoxically, while these crosscutting processes can be destabilizing at some levels, they are likely to be broadly stabilizing at system level. The centrality of power in international relations The concept of power has traditionally played a crucial role in the analysis of International Relations and World Politics. It has been seen as the key factor, variable, driving force or “currency” in relations among states. Indeed, this role has been seen by many observers since Thucydides as the defining at-tribute of the international system itself. This interpretation of the role of power is derived from the understanding that no seriously effective level of organized, authoritative or legitimate governmental or socio-political struc-ture exists above the level of the state that does not itself emanate from, and in the last analysis remain responsible to, autonomous sovereign states. In Globalization and the Transformation of Power 187 other words, there is no genuinely supranational overarching power structure or political process in world politics. Therefore, in order to explain what hap-pens in world politics – as distinct from politics within states – it is necessary to privilege (a) power-seeking actions of states (taken as structurally coherent “unit actors” in and of themselves: Waltz 1979) and of “state actors” (actors acting through or on behalf of states, mainly politicians and bureaucrats) and (b) structured, ongoing relations of power between and among states, over the claims of other potential actors or causal variables.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Global Turning Points

  The Challenges for Business and Society in the 21st Century

  • Mauro F. Guillén, Emilio Ontiveros(Authors)
  • 2016(Publication Date)
  • Cambridge University Press

    (Publisher)

  In April 2011 the International Monetary Fund predicted that China would become the world ’ s largest economy by 2016. Thus, it is quite likely that during most of the twenty-fi rst century India will be the biggest country in terms of population, China the largest The global powers of the twenty-fi rst century 163 in output, and the United States the richest among the major economies on a per capita income basis. Global powers A global power is a state with the ability to shape events and conditions worldwide. Global powers typically exert their in fl uence through economic, political, diplomatic, military, ideological, religious, and/or cultural means. The political theorist Joseph Nye distinguished between hard and soft power, predicting that in the twenty-fi rst century global powers would turn to less coercive and tangible means of exerting their in fl uence. The modern concept of global power has its origins in the Peace of Westphalia of 1648, which introduced the concept of the sovereign state and set the stage for the diplomatic interaction among states. Historians consider the Congress of Vienna of 1814 – 1815 as the fi rst explicit recognition of the status of the various European powers, although one could also point to the Treaty of Tordesillas of 1494, which de fi ned global spheres of in fl uence for Portugal and Spain. During the second half of the twentieth century the term superpower was used almost interchangeably with global power, and was meant to represent a notch above the status of a mere great power. Superpower status came to be associated with the possession of nuclear weapons and with the ability to project force around the world. For instance, after World War II, France and Britain, though nuclear armed, were not deemed superpowers because they could no longer independently pro-ject force everywhere on the planet.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Understanding Politics

  Ideas, Institutions, and Issues

  • Thomas Magstadt(Author)
  • 2020(Publication Date)
  • Cengage Learning EMEA

    (Publisher)

  hard power In international politics, the use of military force or the threat to use force or other coercive measures such as freezing foreign assets or imposing strict economic sanctions. Copyright 2021 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 568 CHAPTER 17 WORLD POLITICS that derives from scientific research, technological advances, industrial innova- tion, and entrepreneurship—in other words, the kinds of derivative power that accompany modernization and are often associated with vibrant market econo- mies. Moreover, a whole host of intangibles—sometimes called soft power—are extremely important. These more amorphous characteristics include political stability, social harmony, national character, and the congruence between a nation’s self-image and its reputation in the outside world. In the “global vil- lage” that is now the arena of international politics, the ability of one country to get other countries to see the world the way it does—and to want what it wants—is a major, often woefully underrated, dimension of power. Nations seeking to change existing power relationships are typically opposed by nations wishing to freeze them. Dissatisfaction with the status quo is often the motivation for behavior designed to provoke wars, initiate arms races, promote revolutions abroad, and generally destabilize the international system. Although the distinction between aggressive and defensive states is clear in theory, it blurs in practice (see Ideas and Politics: Power and Morality).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Political Globalization

  State, Power and Social Forces

  • Morten Ougaard(Author)
  • 2003(Publication Date)
  • Palgrave Macmillan

    (Publisher)

  (Gilpin 1981, p. 9) 145 The application of this general principle to the set of social arrange- ments that make up the contemporary global governance system is not as straightforward as it may seem. Power, as frequently noted, is an essentially contested concept that is subject to ongoing definitional discussions about power as capabilities, as relations, structural power, ideational and discursive power, and so on (see Baldwin 2002 for an overview). These controversies, however, are not central to the present discussion where it suffices to say that power here is defined as the capacity to influence social outcomes in accordance with interests and preferences, indicating that the concept points to capabilities as well as relations, and that it is open to a variety of power-resources. The central problem in the present context is another one, namely the referent object of power – i.e. the question of to whom or to what power is ascribed. In the international relations literature this question is addressed in at least three different ways. One answer is that states are the referent objects of power. This is a staple of international relations theory, in particular, of course, state-centred approaches like realism and neo- realism. Although there is debate about what constitutes power – mili- tary capabilities, structural economic power and various sorts of ‘soft power’ (Baldwin 2002; Nye 1990) – discussions of power in world society focus on the power of states and nations. Another possibility is to consider social forces or classes as the referent objects of power. For instance Robert Cox has suggested the existence of a powerful ‘transnational managerial class’ (Cox 1987, pp. 358–9), Kess van der Pijl argued along similar lines for the existence of an ‘Atlantic ruling class’ (Pijl 1984), whereas in a more recent and more complex argument he pointed to an ‘international of capital’ as the dominant social force (Pijl 1998, p. 133).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Social Power in International Politics

  • Peter van Ham(Author)
  • 2010(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  The debate about power is ongoing, and remains central to the study of international politics. 7 The godfathers of the discipline of international relations (IR), like E.H. Carr, Hans Morgenthau, Kenneth Waltz, and Karl W. Deutsch, were all primarily concerned with the working and distribution of power in the international system. Going further back in time, the philosophical roots of IR can be found in the classical works of Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Hobbes, whose tracts on war and conflict tried to answer the key questions: what is power and how can, or should it be used? Today, the debate about power is predicated on the understanding that the character of international politics is changing, and that we are moving away from classical state-based authority towards “global governance.” 8 As David Held has it, “we must recognize that political power is being repositioned, recontextualized, and, to a degree, transformed by the growing importance of other less territorially based power systems.” 9 But radical change is not limited to the sphere of international politics. Social scientists remind us that power is all around us. No one can escape power relationships, since we all influence each other and are in turn influenced by others. Since the most common definition of power is the sense of someone getting someone else to do something they would otherwise not do, we are confronted with power within the family, as consumers, voters, lovers, and in all other social relationships. 10 Why we buy a certain product, support a certain presidential candidate, or accept a foreign country’s political leadership, all boils down to the power of branding, spin-doctoring, or loyalty

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Power and Policy

  Lessons for Leaders in Government and Business

  • Wesley B. Truitt(Author)
  • 2010(Publication Date)
  • Praeger

    (Publisher)

  NATION STATES’ POWER A nation’s power ‘‘means the total capabilities of a state to gain desired ends vis- a-vis other states.’’ 2 These capacities, which are also types of power, are political, economic, diplomatic, propaganda, and most impor- tantly military power. 3 In the end, the critical test of the power of one state versus another is its warfighting power. ‘‘Where the ultimate form of conflict is war, the struggle for power becomes a struggle for war power, a preparation for war.’’ Improving the relative power position of one state versus another becomes the primary objective of the internal and external policy of states. ‘‘All else is secondary.’’ 4 Whatever enhances that power is desirable, and whatever detracts from it is to be rejected. National leaders who ignore or reject this maxim do so at their nation’s peril as well as their own. War has been an inherent part of the nation state system since its be- ginning in 1648 with the signing of the Peace of Westphalia, which ended the 30 Years War. States must be willing or appear to be willing to go to war to defend or expand their vital interests. In balance of power situations, states must also be willing to go to war to preserve the balance. In the 17th century, Europe was at war 75 percent of the time, in the 18th century 50 percent, in the 19th century 25 percent, and in the 20th century it was at war within Europe 12 percent of the time—World Wars I and II, Soviet attacks on Hungary and Czechoslovakia, and NATO’s war with Serbia over Kosovo. The frequency of war has declined, but its intensity and destructiveness increased. 5 For the first decade of the 21st century, the world was at war more than 90 percent of the time. To better assess states’ power, it is critical to begin with an under- standing of the material bases of state power. At the same time it must be recognized that power is not immutable; it can change in quantity and/or quality and at times very quickly.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Great Power Conduct and Credibility in World Politics

  • Sergey Smolnikov(Author)
  • 2018(Publication Date)
  • Palgrave Macmillan

    (Publisher)

  the Theory of Power Credibility , that accounts for an explication of the major pattern in great powers’ behavior at the stage of their relative decline.

  Passage contains an image

  © The Author(s) 2018 Sergey Smolnikov Great Power Conduct and Credibility in World Politics https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71885-9_2

  Begin Abstract

  2. Operationalization of Power

  Sergey Smolnikov

  1  

  (1) Department of Politics, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada

   

  End Abstract

  1 Concerns of Great Powers

  Economically integrated, yet politically fragmented and strategically uncertain, the international system in the twenty-first century engenders a complex and dynamic decision-making environment for every nation around the globe, be it a poor island state in the Pacific, or a wealthy country in the Western Hemisphere. And while for each and every nation the ensuing age of global uncertainty presents an array of rampant challenges, at times even casting doubts on their political and economic future, the strongest of them are prone to experience a unique set of concerns.

  As the permanent members of the prestigious United Nations Security Council (UNSC) , and, through the second half of the last century monopolists on the most devastating weapons in the human history, the “Big Five” —the United States, Russia , France, Britain, and China—got accustomed to a superior international standing. While the commanding status of the world’s most powerful nations obliges those to burdensome commitments, it also grants them special privileges to decide upon the core issues of peace and war.1

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Understanding American Power

  The Changing World of US Foreign Policy

  • Bryan Mabee(Author)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Red Globe Press

    (Publisher)

  Political power is mainly about the power of the state. We can always see this in two dimensions: first, in the territorial reach of the state internally, and, second, in its international relations or geopol-itics. The main issue is the power of the US state as it connects to other power organizations, and especially internationally in terms of how it relates to other political units. The interaction domestically between the sources of power is important here. While the internal territorial reach of the American state is uncontested, it is also frag-mented in terms of federalism, and it is also a relatively weak state in terms of its overall levels of intervention, although it allows for a great deal of access from the economic sphere. Internationally, the main question concerns the level of interference the US has with other states. While formal empire is highly unlikely (and difficult) in the current international system due to established principles of sovereign non-interference, degrees of influence through more ‘informal measures’ (e.g. military bases, influence over policy, dependence) are important to consider, and certainly play a role in many accounts of American power in the world (and link quite clearly with ideas about structural power and many notions of 78 Understanding American Power American hegemony). The formal institutional mechanisms of inter-national politics found in international organizations are also impor-tant in the more liberal ways of viewing power: they ‘mobilize bias’, but are not fully determined by their participants. Military power is embedded in the clear networks of organiza-tional power that comprise the armed forces themselves, and to a certain extent, their civilian masters. Power projection here is in a more straightforward sense – the power of the military is the power to coerce, and is most clearly linked to compulsory power.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Introduction to a Theory of Political Power in International Relations

  • Zlatko Isakovic(Author)
  • 2019(Publication Date)
  • Taylor & Francis

    (Publisher)

  There are two basic reasons for the differences in the ways of expressing and using political power in internal political and international relations. First, power in international relations is based on a specific type of interdependence existing between the subjects of those relations. Secondly, that type of interdependence, coupled with the actions of many actors and factors (economic, geographic, technological, ethnic, military, political and others) calls for the use of special procedures.

  Traditionally, states were as a rule at least relatively autarkic or tried to be (tried to set up so-called full societies, in a specific territory and with a specific political system), but have been unable to conquer territories, populations and other elements of social power potential identical in terms of quality and quantity. Not one state has so far been able to gain possession of resources and abilities for producing all the goods and services it needed, in quantities which would fulfil all the needs of its population forever. The internal abilities to compensate for those deficiencies of potential grew in time, but this process did not develop at the same rate in all states. This has induced states to set up links (based primarily on the principle of complementarity), resulting in interdependence in international relations (compare: Stojanovic, 1998: 17-18, 30-31). Today, there are few truly autarkic states left, and it seems that most of the key states are actually in favour of greater interdependence.

  The external component of rule encompasses actions taken in keeping with the rules determining international relations. In essence and form, these actions belong to the group of political relations. The political nature and form of international relations arise precisely from the inequalities of their most significant actors (states), created by the political monopolies on unique natural resources (the initial differences chiefly included the acreage and quality of land) on which social and political power is partly based (for more details see Dimitrijevic and Stojanovic, 1998: 22). There were no undiscovered and uninhabited land or maritime territories at the beginning of the twentieth century, save the frozen Antarctica and some other small territories. The oceans were already covered by regular maritime traffic; the speed of travel and communication has incessantly grown since, forcing small and big nations to increase their interaction and interference. In this way, most states and their nations became increasingly interdependent. Judging by everything, this process will continue in the future.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book