ir.emu.tr

4. INTL 201 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

6. Altay Nevzat

8. Course Objectives to provide students with an understanding of the fundamental concepts, precepts, principles and perspectives of the field of international relations to familiarize students with key institutions and actors that operate therein to provide students with a good grounding for comprehending the material of more advanced international relations courses

9. Course Description A comprehensive introduction into international security issues. The political, economic, and social sources and consequences of international security dynamics will be presented and discussed. Special attention will be given to power politics, alternatives to power politics, foreign policy, international conflict, military force, international organizations, and international law.

10. Textbook J.S. Goldstein, International Relations (5thed.), New York: Goldman,2003. [Companion website: www.internationalrelations.net] Additional References M. Griffiths, International Relations: The Key Concepts, London: Routledge, 2002. J. Baylis & S. Smith, The Globalization of World Politics : an introduction, Oxford: OUP, 2001. J.T. Rourke, International Politics on the World Stage, Guilford: Dushkin/McGraw -Hill, 2001. G. Youngs, International Relations in a Global Age, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1999.

11. Course Assessment Mid-term Exam = 25% * Final Exam = 35% * Written Assignments = 20% ** Quizzes & Tests = 15% Attendance & Participation = 5% *** * Min. 60% short essay/essay questions ** Term Paper min. 1250 words *** - 1 point for every 2 hours absent

12. Key Course Policies Academic Honesty: Academic integrity does not just mean that you don’t copy in exams; it also requires that you avoid plagiarism. All written assignments MUST include the plagiarism statement as written in the course outline & be signed by the student, or they will be considered not to have been handed in. Assignment Deadlines: - 2 points for every day overdue Attendance: Attendance is mandatory. In case of illness a valid doctor’s report must be provided.

14. International Relations:Defining the field (1) A strict, narrow and somewhat classical definition of International Relations would be that it is : “the study of relationships among the world’s governments”

15. International Relations:Defining the field (2) In practice, when talking of international relations, we also take into account the international dimensions of the relations of governments with other actors, (not just with each other). These other actors, such as international organizations, multinational corporations and individuals can also interact with each other in the international sphere, an area shaped not only by the direct political association of government leaders, but also by economic structures, culture, domestic politics, and geographical and historical influences.

16. IR and Daily Life It is not then, as sometimes thought, just government leaders and ministers who shape international affairs. For example, each time you buy a product, (e.g. is it Japanese, American, French? Is it environmentally friendly?), you will be having an impact on international relations; or, when you vote in domestic elections, (e.g. for a pro- or anti-EU party), you will be having an impact on international relations. The inverse is also increasingly true! In other words developments in international relations also have an impact on our daily lives (e.g. A major war in the Middle East would be almost bound to lead to an increase in fuel prices, leaving us with less income to spend on entertainment, or making us more likely to walk or use public transport).

17. IR & Its Issue Areas We refer to key topics studied in international relations as its “issue areas”. The importance of an issue area can vary over time depending upon developments, but we can give the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Regional Integration, Terrorism and Climate Change as exmples which are prominent.

18. IR & Its Subfields (1) International Relations is closely related to political science, (in fact in many places, esp. in the U.S.A. it is considered a subfield of political science), and as such it is concerned with international politics, i.e. “the decisions of governments concerning their actions towards other governments”. However, the boundaries of the field of international relations are somewhat uncertain and it can be considered to be in some respects an interdisciplinary field which relates international politics to other fields, such as history, economics and sociology.

19. IR & Its Subfields (2) We can also try to determine the limits of IR by outlining the subfields it encompasses. Generally speaking, we can identify two main subfields: International Security & International Political Economy (IPE).

20. IR & Its Subfields (3) Traditionally study of IR has focused on the central questions of war and peace (Why is there war? How can more peaceful relations amongst states be established? Does a ‘balance-of-power’ help prevent war? How do ‘arms races’ develop? Etc.). We call the subfield focusing on such issues that of International Security. By the 1970’s the growing role of economics in international relations was increasingly becomming recognised. A second major subfield of IR developed and gained importance under the name of IPE (or, ‘International Political Economy’). This subfield focused on the political relevance of trade and financial interactions amongst states for international relations. Today the close association between these two main subfields is commonly recognised.

21. Theoretical Perspectives in IR (1)

22. Theoretical Perspectives in IR (2):The Conservative World View Values maintenance of the status quo Regards ‘change’ in IR to be insignificant or negative Focuses on ‘power politics’ & considers the ‘laws’ of power politics to be constant Values order (& believes that change can disrupt the hierachy of power leading to instability & war) Concentrates on the subfield of International Security (esp. military power) Focuses on states as most important actors in IR (esp. because they control most military power) Emphasizes the relative condition/position of states rather than absolute condition, because in an anarchic world with the constant possibility of war the most important thing is whether or not you have more power than your potential enemies Approaches international trade from the basis that it can increase national power vis-a-vis potential enemies

23. Theoretical Perspectives in IR (3):The Liberal World View Values reform of the status quo through evolutionary process of incremental change Focuses on mutual benefits that can be gained in IR through interdependence & reciprocity Believes that gaining wealth/prosperity in absolute terms is more important than gaining ‘power’ (esp. military) vis-a-vis other states Focuses more on the IPE subfield (especially because of the potential for mutual gain through trade and if states concentrate their economies on their areas of comparative economic advantage) Values freedom (esp. free trade and the free exchange of ideas) Sees war as a tragic mistake (NOT as an inevitable outcome of the anarchic order) Believes that war can be prevented/minimized through international agreements and international organizations

24. Theoretical Perspectives in IR (4):The Revolutionary World View Values transformation of status quo through rapid, revolutionary change Focuses on injustice and exploitation in IR & values need for justice in IR Tends to concentrate studies on North-South relations & “3rd World” Development Tends to see war as being an outcome of exploitative economic relationships Believes that transforming international economic relations and making them more ‘just’ will be key to solving the problem of war

25. Theoretical Perspectives in IR (5):The Revolutionary World View The Conservative perspective, (often referred to under the label of ‘realism’ or ‘neorealism’), has generally dominated scholarship and policy-making concerning international security, while the liberal perspective, (originally referred to as ‘idealism’), has tended to be moresignificant in terms of IPE. In recent decades, however, more radical & revolutionary perspectives have emerged to challenge classical study of these two areas.

27. Actors in IR (1)

28. Actors in IR (3):State Actors We often talk about states taking actions in the international arena. Britain decides to go to war after Argentina occupied the Falklands; China decides to join the WTO; Sweden gives $1 billion in credit to developing countries... etc. Actually though focusing on the state per se my help simplify things, it overlooks the fact that there are various individuals and groups and organizations that can and do take or implement decisions in the name of the state, including, for example, governments and diplomats, parliamentary committees and assemblies.

29. Actors in IR (4):Non-State Actors (a) While a state-centric understanding of the international system traditionally dominated, there is now increasing recognition of the role of non-state actors in what some refer to as a multi-centric international system, i.e. one where media companies like CNN or Al Jazeera, and environmental groups such as Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund, and terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda, and transnational or multi-national corporations such as Coca Cola, IBM & Toyota and Unilever, and even influential individuals such as say Bob Geldof.

30. Actors in IR (4):Non-State Actors (b) While states may still be the most important actors in IR, they are often strongly limited or influenced in their actions by a variety of non-state actors We can Identify 3 main categories of Non-State Actors in IR: Substate Actors Transnational Actors Nongovernmental Organizations

31. Actors in IR (4):Non-State Actors (c)Substate Actors Defined as: “Groups & interests within states that influence the state’s foreign policy.” E.g. Greek-American lobby & arms embargo on Turkey in 1975 or TÜSIAD & Turkey’s policy regarding the EU, or Turkish consumers who boycotted Italian products when Italy gave temporary shelter to PKK leader Öcalan.

32. Actors in IR (4):Non-State Actors (d)Transnational Actors (i) Defined as: International actors who “operate across state borders” Businesses which are commonly described as Multinational Corporations (or MNC’s) have become very important transnational actors that over the past century have had an increasingly large impact on IR. One of the earlier famous examples of this was related to the term ‘banana republic’.

33. Actors in IR (4):Non-State Actors (d)Transnational Actors (ii) The ‘BaNaNa RePuBlic’ ...

34. Actors in IR (4):Non-State Actors (e) Nongovernmental Organizations Nongovernmental Organizations (commonly known as NGO’s) can also be important international actors. Such NGO’s are private organizations which have mebership, collect finances from and take actions in various parts of the world. E.g. Greenpeace, The International Committee of the Red Cross & Red Crescent, Amnesty International.

35. Actors in IR (4):Non-State Actors (f)Intergovernmental Organizations IGO’s* are not actually states, but rather organizations with memberships composed of various national governments. No doubt, the most famous is the United Nations (UN), but there are thousands of others from OPEC to NATO to ASEAN to the EU to the WTO & the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Council.

37. The International System (1) Classically defined as: “the set of relationships among the world’s states, structured according to certain rules and patterns of interaction.”

38. The International System (2) The modern international system, composed of states with clearly defined sovereignty interacting, in principle, as equal political units, has been around for about 500 years. In 1648 warring parties in Europe finally made peace in what is known as the ‘Peace of Westphalia’, whereby they ended the “Thirty Years War” and recognised the supremacy of states. Yet while Westphalia is often noted as the starting point of the modern states system, the principle that states were sovereign and rules for relations between them had actually been in the making during the previous century. For about the last 2 centuries, (post-French Revolution), most, though not all, states have been considered (or claimed to be), ‘nation-states’, i.e. States belonging to a particular nation (i.e. A people sharing a common national identity, usually based on a common language/culture). The same 2 centuries, however, have witnessed many conflicts based on the belief that the borders of the state do not coincide with those of the nation, when, in fact, it is believed, they should. Such ‘nationalist’ conflicts have been a threat to the notion of sovereign states and to the states system more broadly, as have been and are other developments such as the communications revolution and the process of globalization.”

39. Major Powers, Great Powers & Superpower(s) (1) Ofcourse, while in principle all states might be considerd equally sovereign, in reality they can have very different power capabilities; their sizes (geographically and in terms of population), their GDP & GDP per capita; and their ability to command military force can vary greatly. While the following terms are not exact, we typically refer to a few of the larger states which have particularly powerful armed forces &/or economies as ‘Great Powers’, (& to the relationship amongst them as the ‘Great Power System’). These states treat each other in special ways and play especially important roles in the international system of which they are a subset. We also sometimes refer to states which we might not quite consider to be in the league of the Great Powers, but which nevertheless can still play an influential role in international relations &/or have larger populations as ‘Major Powers’.

40. Major Powers, Great Powers & Superpower(s) (2) In the latter half of the C20th the term ‘Superpower’ also became a common part of IR vocabulary. Superpowers can be defined as those ‘states with truly global influence’; they are something more than just great, as they have substantial power and influence all over the world in various spheres to a degree significantly greater than others. From the 1950’s onwards the United States & the Soviet Union (USSR*) were considered to be the world’s 2 superpowers, but since the collapse of the Soviet Union at the beginning of the 1990’s the USA has perhaps become the only true superpower, (and some would question whether, in a world where the ‘Cold War’ has come to an end and several large developing countries such as China, India & Brazil are on the rise, we can even call the USA a superpower any longer.)

41. Major Powers, Great Powers & Superpower(s) (3)

43. LEVELS OF ANALYSIS in IR (1)*

44. LEVELS OF ANALYSIS in IR (2) As should gradually be becomming clearer IR is a complex field, with various points of view, theories, actors and perspectives. To try and cope with this complexity one way of categorizing international affiars is to use the idea of ‘levels of analysis’. In studying IR we importantly want to look at why certain situations arise or events occur. Using ‘levels of analysis’ can help us do this. A ‘level of analysis’ is: “a perspective on IR based on a set of similar actors or processes that suggests possible explanations to ‘why’ questions.”

45. LEVELS OF ANALYSIS in IR (3)1) The Individual Level Focuses on the impact that decision-making individuals’ characters, personality, psychology, ideology and beliefs can have on IR. E.g. Would Bill Clinton have taken the same actions regarding opening war against Iraq as did George Bush? Some would argue that he had a greater faith in multilateral diplomacy and the use of international organizations than did Bush, and therefore, would have been less likely to have pursued war against Iraq in the face of such international opposition. E.g. What about the role of Ecevit in Turkish intervention in Cyprus in 1974?

46. LEVELS OF ANALYSIS in IR (4) 2) The Domestic Level Sometimes refered to as the ‘level of the state’, we are referring here to the impact that nationalism &/or ethnic conflict, public opinion and political parties and party systems, and other domestic coalitions, aswellas different types of government (e.g. Democtratic vs. Authoritarian) could have on IR. E.g. Some would argue that the increasingly negative perception of the public regarding the authoritarian regimes in say Greece (1974) and Argentina (1982) led these regimes to try and harness nationalistic sentiments and regain legitimacy and popularity.

47. LEVELS OF ANALYSIS in IR (5) 3) The Interstate Level Concerns the international system and patterns of relationships between states. Systemic matters such as the power distribution, changes to the balance of power, formations and breakdown of alliances, diplomacy and bargaining and the activities of IGO’s are all included at this level. E.g. It could be argued that in an anarchical international system, where the takeover of Cyprus by Greece would, from Turkey’s perspective, have meant a detrimental change in the balance of power with Greece.

48. LEVELS OF ANALYSIS in IR (6) 4) The Global Level Trys to understand and explain IR as a consequence of global trends and forces that go beyon (or ‘transcend’) states and their interaction with one another. E.g. Ceteris paribus ? , would the U.S. Have gone to war with Iraq 100 years ago? Deals with concerns such as the North-South gapWorld environment, Technological change, Information revolution, Global telecommunications, Worldwide scientific and business communities

50. POWER POLITICS

51. REALISM Realism is a somewhat theoretical approach to IR which has traditionally dominated the study of IR. Realism can be seen in simple terms as: “a school of thought that explains international relations in terms of power.”

52. Realism vs. Idealism* Realism took shape largely in reaction to an opposing school of thought known as ‘Idealism’. Idealism emphasized the importance of international law, morality, and international organizations. People (human nature) were seen as basically ‘good’, and if they are well educated and informed, and develop good habits and useful international organizations, laws and practices, then they can establish a better, more cooperative and peaceful world.

53. REALIST ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT IR 1) The State-Centric Assumption: (The state is by far the most important actor in IR) 2) The Unitary Rational-Actor Assumption: (The state acts rationally as a single actor, as a whole like an individual) 3) The Anarchy Assumption (States act in an anarchical international system)

54. Realism & Power Realists take the position that all states, (no matter what cultural/religious background they have, or whatever ideological position their leaders may espouse), base their actions primarily on the effort to increase national power vis-a-vis other states. What the is power? It can be defined in the following or similar terms as: “the ability to get another actor to do what it would not otherwise have done.” ... or “ the ability or potential to influence others’ behaviour, as measured by the possession of certain tangible and intangible characteristics.”

55. ‘Measuring’ State Power Measuring a state’s overall power precisely is an impossible task. One of the best indicators is GDP, but even this can only give us a rough estimate of tangible power and doesn’t indicate the intangible. Tangible power refers to power that is clear and quite easy to approximate in numbers. Intangible power, on the other hand, refers to power that is more abstract and not so easy to put a number to the value of it.

56. Tangible vs. Intangible Power Tangible E.g. Size of Army, no. of tanks, gold reserves etc. Intangible E.g. Patriotism, domestic cohesion, leadership skills of president, diplomatic experience, the mobilizing ‘power of ideas’ etc.

57. Hard vs. Soft Power The terms hard and soft power are also sometimes used to make distinctions between different forms of power. Hard power at its ‘most hard’ is militay coercion. We could, however, refer to other forms of coercion too within this category. Joseph Nye has described soft power, on the other hand, as, “a power based on intangible or indirect influences such as culture, values and ideology; it is the ability to make others do something by persuading them.” Hard power is typically used in a negative form, soft power in a positive, or relatively positive one. [The carrot vs. The stick]

58. CARROT & STICK

59. Relative Power For the realists it is relative rather than absolute power which critical. Relative power is: “the ratio of power that two states can bring to bear against each other.”

60. Elements of Power

61. Moral Legitimacyas an Element of Power Particularly strong differences exist between realists and idealist as to whether or not moral legitimacy is a significant element of power, with the realists tending to dismiss its importance. Nevertheless, note that states have increasingly felt the need to justify military actions in moral terms as signifed by the use of terms like “Operation Just Cause”, the “Happy Peace Operation”, “Operation Enduring Freedom” etc.

62. The ‘Fungibility’ of Power This refers to: “the extent that one element of power can be converted into another.” Money is clearly the most fungible element of power as it is easily convertible, but other elements of power can also be fungible. E.g. Well trained, experienced and effective bureaucrats maybe able to negotiate the supply of financial credits or military hardware.

64. Bargaining & Leverage (1) Bargaining can be defined as: “Tacit* or direct communication that is used in an attempt to reach agreement on an exchange of value.” If power is being exercised (used) there must be at least two parties involved. When states try to reach the outcome they desire by using their power against each other, they enter, either explicitly or implicitly a process of bargaining. IR can thus be interpreted as a series of bargaining interactions between states. We must remember though that raw power is not enough to determine the outcome. States’ strategies and luck will also be influential. When reached, bargains or agreements are certainly not always “fair”. However, even unfair bargains, in terms of alternative potential outcomes resulting from a failure to reach agreement, can include some sort of mutual gain.

65. Bargaining & Leverage (2) Click on the icon below to link to an on-line news article on bargaining between Turkey and the US over the use of military bases in Turkey before the opening of war against Iraq.*

66. Bargaining & Leverage (3) As the issues are important & interactions are based on long-standing rules, customs & traditions, with sophisticated participants, most important bargaining in IR is usually formal. We call such formal bargaining, (e.g. where delegations typiclally sit around a table & try to reach agreement), negotiations. In negotiations, or more generally in the bargaining process, the “bargaining space” is the name we give to, “the distance between the position of two participants concerning their preferred outcomes.”

67. Bargaining & Leverage (4) A lever is a tool that creates a force which makes something else move. Leverage, in the context of bargaining and negotiation, refers to the, “process whereby power capabilities allow one actor to influence the other to reach agreements more favourable to the first actor’s interests.”

68. Bargaining & Leverage (5) Leverage, as a form of power, can be used along 3 dimensions: Promise of positive sanctions (incentives / rewards) Threat of negative sanctions (punishment) Appeal to the other’s feelings of love, friendship, sympathy, or respect for oneself.

69. Strategies & Tactics (1) Strategies are: “Plans to develop & deploy power capabilities to achieve goals.” Strategies include decisions about what types of power capabilities to develop, whether or not to form alliances and who to form them with, when and where to actively use your power capabilities etc. Tactics, on the other hand, refer to short-term plans which apply to a specific situation. Whereas strategies basically deal with what you want to do, tactics focus more on the details of how you are going to do it. There are different forms of bargaining strategy. You may start-off with an extreme (maximalist) position and then try to end-up at what is your (hidden) minimum acceptable level; or you might use the strategy of the “hard bargain” whereby you stick v. close to your original position and refuse to budge in the belief that the other side will give-in; nor you may adopt the strategy of “pre-emptive concessions”, whereby you make concessions unilaterally in order to encourage the other side to make concessionary moves (and thereby speed-up the process). “Fractionation” is another possible bargaining strategy whereby we split or divide the problem into more manageable “fractions” or pieces & negotiaite separately on each part of the problem. In “linkage”, on the other hand, different, (sometimes not even closely related issues are negotiated together, (E.g. China’s access to western markets being linked to human rights improvements).

70. Strategies & Tactics (2) “Reciprocity” is a strategy whereby we use positive forms of leverage if the other side does what we want, and negative forms if it refuses to do so. It is explicit and quite simple, and is effective when you are unsure as to what the other side wants. “Deterrence” is a special form of reciprocity, based on the threat to punish another actor if it takes a negative action. E.g. Turkey threatens a military attack against South Cyprus if it tries to install S-300 missiles, or situation of mutual nuclear deterrence between Pakistan & India, or USSR & the USA during the Cold War. “Compellence” is used often after deterrence fails. It aims to make another actor take some sort of action (instead of trying to deter it from taking an action). Ofcourse this is usually much more difficult than deterrence as it requires you to actually take action, rather than just threaten to do so (& also requires the actor you are trying to compell to reverse an action that has already been taken)

71. Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) MAD is a doctrine based on a special form of deterrence in which it is believed that neither side in a conflict can afford to start a war as the other side will have sufficient capacity to retaliate and destroy the state which launches the first attack.

72. Strategies & Tactics (3) Instead of going all-out and using all available sources of power with a comprehensive strategy of compellence, you might choose to use a strategy of (less costly and sometimes effective) “escalation”. Escalation in IR can be defined as: “a series of negative sanctions of increasing severity applied in order to induce another actor to take some action.” By building-up step by step you establish a pattern which shows you are serious and enforces your credibility and convinces the other side to give-in.

73. Arms Races (1) However, the danger with a strategy of escalation is that it can spin out of control if both sides keep escalating their negative actions. Arms races are such negative forms of mutual escalation that have often gone far beyond intial intentions to the mutual detriment of all sides. We can define an arms race as: “a reciprocal process in which two (or more) states build-up their military capabilities in response to each other.” The objective in the arms race is to stay ahead of the competition, hence absolute improvements/gains are rarely significant, only relative gains count.

74. Arms Races (2) Numerous examples of arms races can be found in the modern era, such as the naval arms race between Britain & Germany in the lead-up to World War I & the nuclear arms race of the Cold War era.

76. Anarchy & Sovereignty (1) Realists, as all ready noted, emphasize that the rules of the international system create anarchy. When we talk about anarchy in IR, however, we are not talking about total chaos or the absence of rules or structure. We are instead referring to: “the lack of a central government that can enforce rules.” In such a situation, states can rely, realists believe, only upon themselves, i.e. Self-help. States must take great care, therefore, in developing foreign policy, being especially cautious not to trust, and constantly calculating their relative power in the face of potential threats from other states. It’s not what other states say or promise that counts in developing foreign policy, but rather what their capabilities are.

77. Anarchy & Sovereignty (2) Sovereignty refers to the idea: “that a government has the right ... To do whatever it wants in its own territory.” By definition this also means that a state should should not interfere in the internal affairs of other states.* Together with recognition of each others sovereignty, states also recognise one anothers “territorial integrity”. They recognise each others borders &, at least in principle, accept the ‘inviolability of state frontiers’ (i.e. That states’ borders can not be changed by force). Though some areas are disputed, the vast majority of the world’s territory (not the ‘high seas’) is considered to belong to, or be the sovereign territory of one state or another.

78. The Security Dilemma While they tend to see it as an inescapable consequence of the anarchy in the international system, most realists will acknowledge a real ‘security dilemma’ in IR. By “security dilemma” we are referring to: “a situation in which states’ actions taken to assure their own security tend to threaten the security of other states.” Indeed the “security dilemma” can be seen as a principle cause of arms races.

80. Balance of Power (1) As noted, realists see the state at the center of IR, and as their is anarchy only states can counter each others power, or stop each other from using their power capabilities. The “theory of balance of power” argues that such counter-balancing occurs regularly & helps maintain stability in the international system. The balance of power might not lead to permanent peace, but wars initiated to maintain the balance, support the overall stability of the system of sovereign states by preventing it from collapsing into universal empire, (or preventing any one power from being so dominant as to impose its will on all others). Sometimes the term balance of power is used more simply to refer to the ratio of power between states, but for our purposes the following is a more appropriate definition, whereby: “one or more states’ power being used to balance that of another state or group of states” A state can either buil-up its own power capablilities to balance that of a rival, or, often more easily, it can seek to form alliances. Balance of power theory predicts that weaker states will joint together to balance the more powerful (though hisorical/empirical evidence is somewhat mixed). What might we predict in the post-Cold War world???

81. Balance of Power (2) A Sino-Russian Alliance? Take a look at the following news article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/839207.stm

82. Containment (1) Containment refers to a policy or process geared to prevent the expansion of a rival power or ideology, and can lead to geopolitical alliances aiming to prevent the balance of power from being overturned by a rising power’s expansion. In the post-World War II era containment, as first explained by George F. Kennan in an anonymous article in Foreign Affairs, sought to prevent the Soviet Union (Communism) from expanding its influence to the non-communist states, for fear that if one state fell too communism then its neighbours would too (“domino theory”). The goal was therefore to counter the Soviets wherever they appeared to be moving their influence into new territory.

83. Containment (2)

85. The Distribution of Power (1) The pattern of distribution of power among states (particularly among the Great Powers) is for the realists the critical feature of the international system. Neorealists, especially, try to explain international developments in terms of the international distribution of power, (or the ‘system structure’). Some argue, for example, that regional wars will be more probable when there is no hegemonic power (a state with preponderant power & influence)* in the world & no balance of power in the region.

86. The Distribution of Power (2) The distribution of power in the international system is often described in terms of polarity. In a multipolar system there are typically 5-6 independent centres of power, relatively equal with each other, (e.g. Concert of Europe in C19th) In a tripolar system (rare), there are 3 main centres of power (some have argued that it might develop with N.America, Europe & East Asia being the 3 key centres) In a bipolar system there are 2 great centres of power, (as during the Cold War) In a unipolar sytem there is only one, hegemonic, overpowering international actor) There are conflicting views as to which of these leads to greater stability and lessens the likelihood of war, though the empirical eveidence suggests that there may be less probability of war within a hegemonic/unipolar system.

87. The Distribution of Power (3)Power Transition Theory (i) Power Transition theory holds that war is most likely within the international system when the top position in the ‘status hierachy’ is being challenged. Conversely, peace will prevail when one state is clearly more powerful, i.e. much further up than the others in the ranking of status hierachy. If one state is in relative decline in terms of its power capabilities, and others are closing the gap, the rising powers may feel that they don’t have the recognition/ advantages that they deserve and may be more willing to go to war to defend their interests. On the other hand, the leading power may start a preventive war to stop threats from rising challengers before it is too late.

88. The Distribution of Power (3)Power Transition Theory (ii)