Power Theory in International Relations

By David Alfredo, eHow Contributor

Print this article

Much is made of "power" in international relations, both from the pundits commenting on
foreign policy, and from the general public. Yet beyond the obvious notion that more power
tends to equal more foreign policy options, there is the lesser-known theory of "balance of
power," in which nations compete for dominance in a complicated chess game of military
spending and diplomatic posturing.

Related Searches:

1.
o

Smart Power
Power Plug

What is Power?
Before getting into the essence of power in international relations, it is
necessary to consider just what power is. Power can generally be thought of as the ability to
influence others to do what we want them to do, and to prevent them from doing the same to
us. Having power allows both individuals and nations to effectively promote and protect their
interests regarding others. Classical realism, one of the founding theories of international
relations, would argue that nations will always seek to maximize their power to serve their
interests. This creates competition which can and often does lead to war.

Power in International Relations

o

For the classical realists, the desire to seek power comes from a combination
of human nature, which is inherently self-interested and rational, and certain historical
conditions that make international anarchy the status quo between nations. In society,
human nature is restrained through the law and its enforcement by the government; because
there is no "world government," countries can only be restrained by the power of other
countries. Thus for the realist, a "balance of power" is the state of affairs most likely to
produce a stable peace.

How Balance of Power Works

o

Balance of power consists of nations having more or less equal military,

economic, and diplomatic weight and freedom of action. Because each nation has similar
capabilities, none has the capacity to effectively dominate the others. This lessens the
possibility of aggression and conflict because there is much to risk in going to war with an
equal power. This is in contrast to a situation in which a very powerful country deals with a
very weak one--victory seems more assured to the more powerful country and thus
aggressive action is more attractive as a means to protect a country's interests. When a
balance of power is achieved, nations are necessarily forced to deal with each other and
fight for their interests through nonviolent or at least less overt means.

A Modern Example of Balance of Power

One can see this played out in the Cold War, where the United States and
the Soviet Union had parity both in terms of conventional weapons and nuclear arms. In
response to that development, many realists, such as Stephen Walt, created the idea of
"balance of threat," in which the ability to be destroyed through mutually assured destruction
meant that full-scale war became a very remote possibility.

Changes in Conceptions of Power

o

We can see evidence of conflict during the Cold War. Strong powers such as
the United States waged war against weaker ones such as Vietnam. Interestingly, the de
facto defeat of the United States in Vietnam and of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan points to
a more complex conception of power than mere economic or military might. Indeed, many of
the more recent theories of international relations argue that power as traditionally defined by
realists such as Hans Morgenthau is inherently vague and open to interpretation based on
particular situations. Still, it can be effectively concluded that power is fundamentally
concerned with what a country can do, and what it can prevent another country from doing to
it. The means by which this is done may be changing, as irregular warfare and terrorism
become more prominent, yet the essence of competing wills and interest in the international
arena remains.

Read more: Power Theory in International Relations |

eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_5367569_power-theory-internationalrelations.html#ixzz1lo9bZcTW