power and politics in international relations theories: a strategic framework approach
TRANSCRIPT
7/23/2019 Power and Politics in International Relations Theories: A Strategic Framework Approach
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/power-and-politics-in-international-relations-theories-a-strategic-framework 1/10
Power and Politics in International Relations Theories:A Strategic Framework Approach
Ricardo Abreu (14707)European and International dimension of policy-making
Professor Michael Bauer
PhD Programme in Public Policy
This article aims to identify the main concepts of power and politics involving international
relations in the age of globalisation. The essay describes briefly the main types of power exerted in
the context of diplomatic relations between countries and the emerging policies to ensure
international diplomatic strategy. Further, I propose an analytical framework of convergence among
the different types of power and political levels..
ISCTE-IULJanuary 2013
7/23/2019 Power and Politics in International Relations Theories: A Strategic Framework Approach
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/power-and-politics-in-international-relations-theories-a-strategic-framework 2/10
List of Contents
Introduction! 2
Power and politics in International Relations ! 3
The type of power: Hard and Soft! 4
Levels of politics: High and Low! 4
When power and politics meet! 5
Conclusions! 7
References ! 8
Power and Politics in International Relations Theories: A Strategic Framework Approach! PPEI
Ricardo Abreu ©2013 ISCTE-IUL! 1/9
7/23/2019 Power and Politics in International Relations Theories: A Strategic Framework Approach
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/power-and-politics-in-international-relations-theories-a-strategic-framework 3/10
IntroductionThis article aims to identify the main concepts of power and politics involving international
relations in the age of globalisation. The essay describes briefly the main types of power exerted in
the context of diplomatic relations between countries and the emerging policies to ensure
international diplomatic strategy. Further, I propose an analytical framework of convergence among
the different types of power and political levels.
The phenomenon of globalization has dominated the debates and controversies of scholars of
international relations (IR) over the last few decades. Foremost two theories adjacent to IR must be
reminded here: Realism and Liberalism. After World War II began a heated debate between the
proponents of such theories and during the 1970s new developments of such theories emerged,
widening the dichotomy between them.
Realism and its defenders state that the world of relations among countries is real in the most
common sense of the world. From this standpoint, the state is the only interlocutor of the country’s
affairs and global politics is mostly about power and self-interest. According to the realist view,
politicians and citizens have the same perspective of the different levels of national interest, first
and foremost geopolitical matters and security, and, secondly, economic politics. This model of
international politics is designated by many as “power politics” (Heywood, 2011b; Hix & Hoyland,
2005).
Liberalism, on the other hand, has essentially dominated the ideologies of the western world,
characteristic of industrial societies and at times confused with western civilization itself. It peaked
immediately after World War I, although still connected to the promises of Kant’s idealism,
universal and perpetual peace. This view changed considerably over the 1970s, in particular with
the advent of neoliberalism1. For Liberalism, the state is not the only actor in the system of
international relations. The preferences of this system are formed by a type of social construction
where there is competition among the different social groups. This competitiveness emerges from
the diverse economic interests more than from geopolitical specificities. Both liberalists and realists
presume that international relations are shaped socially through the competitiveness among states,
which takes place in a framework of harmony and cooperation. (Heywood, 2011b; Hix & Hoyland,
2005).
In the context of the theories of IR it is imperative to identify and analyse the main bridges between
states. This essay proposes to analyse the different types of power and political levels chosen by
governments in their relations with other states. The text is structured into four parts: I begin with a
general view of power and politics in IR; secondly, I present a framework of recent concepts of
power in IR; thirdly, I identify different political levels within IR; and finally I propose a framework
of strategic analysis which conjugates different types of power and political levels.
Power and Politics in International Relations Theories: A Strategic Framework Approach! PPEI
Ricardo Abreu ©2013 ISCTE-IUL! 2/9
1 Perspective of international politics of a reformulation of liberalism emphasising the cooperative behaviour of theinternational system, which however does not preclude its anarchical nature.
7/23/2019 Power and Politics in International Relations Theories: A Strategic Framework Approach
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/power-and-politics-in-international-relations-theories-a-strategic-framework 4/10
Power and politics in International RelationsWhat is power? It is a matter extensively debated in a plethora of fields of knowledge, but takes a
peculiar relevance in the context of relations among countries. Power in this context is the ability of
a country to design its international strategies and affairs without the interference of third parties,
i.e., the capacity for autonomy in decisionmaking pertaining to its relation with other countries. In
global politics power can be interpreted as capacity, the attribute of possession relatively to others,relational power over other countries, and structural power which is the common denominator to the
former types. (Heywood, 2011a). The level of capacity of a country reflects the analysis of its
tangible and intangible assets. On the one hand, we have military force, natural resources, wealth,
dimension and the skill level of the populations, geographic position, etc. On the other, less tangible
assets such as morals or leadership skill at world level
As for relational power, the analysis usually reflects the actions and results of the exercise of power.
This influential ability may be exerted in two ways: compellence, i.e., using strategies to force
others to make concessions they would not otherwise; or deterrence, i.e., the use of strategies to
prevent the other to do something that they would otherwise do (idem, 2011a).
Structural power, reflected in the social structures which make the connection and distribution of
power among the different actors are the privileged platforms where actors and agents relate and
make their decisions. According to Susan Strange (1996), there are four influential power
structures: knowledge structure, influencing beliefs, ideas, and perceptions; financial structure,
conditioning access to credit and investment; security structure, shaping matters relative to defense
and strategy; and productive structure, influencing economic development and prosperity.
Power analysis in the context of international politics enters a new stage when we identify the
transformation of the equilibrium of military force among countries. The end of the Cold War and
new security challenges such as cyberterrorism have demanded of countries new ways of wielding
power. In the last few years a tendency is evident towards demilitarization, a diminishment of
military force in the use of power.
According to Joseph S. Nye (2005), we are facing a radical change in the way countries use
power. He finds two main reasons to reach this change: the diffusion of power and the transitions of
power. The former relates to the phenomenon of the revolution of information and communication
technologies, whose main feature is the low cost of access, allowing a greater diffusion of
information among the diverse social and political actors. As he puts it, “ In, principle, as costs and
barriers of entry into markets diminish, the Information Revolution should reduce the power of
large states and enhance the power of small states and nonstates actors” (idem). This means that
power is distributed according in a vast way, bringing to the international chess table organisations
less formal than governments.
The second, transitions of power, is a consequence of the first. The fact that power is more widely
distributed worldwide, though not in an equitative way, increases the odds of certain regions and
countries to affirm themselves in the international agenda. Adding to this the recent growth of Asia
and South, we face a transition of power among nations, com states rising to power and others
descending from power. As the previous author states: “No matter how power is measured, an equal
distribuition of power among states is relatively rare. More often the processes of uneven growth
mean that some states will be rising and others declining” (idem). The same position is held in
defense of the supposed decline in world hegemony of the USA coinciding with the rise of China
and other emerging nations.
Power and Politics in International Relations Theories: A Strategic Framework Approach! PPEI
Ricardo Abreu ©2013 ISCTE-IUL! 3/9
7/23/2019 Power and Politics in International Relations Theories: A Strategic Framework Approach
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/power-and-politics-in-international-relations-theories-a-strategic-framework 5/10
The type of power: Hard and Soft Nye further claims that there is a transference from “hard” power, including military and economic
power, to “soft” power. By this he means that power rests on behavioural characteristics: “power is
one´s ability to affect the behavior of others to get what one wants”; and he identifies three ways to
attain this goal: coercion, payment, and attraction. Nye defends that hard power is the use of
coercion and payment, while soft power pertains to the ability to obtain the same goal through(Nye Jr, 2009). For the author, these dimension coexist simultaneously and in when used
intelligently in the action of states, he calls them smart power (2003).
A nation’s hard power strategies may be of different types: militar intervention in order to reach
political goals; coercive diplomacy; economic sanctions to reinforce national interests (Wagner,
2005). Coercive diplomacy is an alternative to militar intervention, denying the adversary’s ability
to respond, and based on a political-diplomatic strategy with the aim of influencing the will of the
adversary, by way of threat, persuasion, or positive incentives, used by political actors. (George,
1994; Levy, 2008).
Coercive diplomacy is an alternative to militar intervention, denying the adversary’s ability to
respond, and based on a political-diplomatic strategy with the aim of influencing the will of the
adversary, by way of threat, persuasion, or positive incentives, used by political actors (Wagner,
2005). If we exclude military and economic power, soft power emerges as a vague idea whereby
several ways of reaching political aims may be conflated (Cooper, 2004) .
Smart power is referred to in several studies (Nossel, 2004; Wilson III, 2008) as an instrument for
the external politics of governments. Susan Nossel (2004), discusses smart power from the
international perspectives of liberalism and conservativism. The former advocates and external
policy based on diplomacy, the economy, and ultimately military. In the case of more conservative
policies, military power is held as the main instrument of external influence. Neo-realist approaches
tend to underscore the hard power of states, while liberal institutionalists hold soft power as an
essential resource in external politics (Wilson III, 2008).
Levels of politics: High and LowLike power, politics is an instrument in the relations among nation-states. Studies show that the
emergence of high politics (HP) and low politics (LP) are centred on postwar relations between East
and West. Among the several descriptions of policy levels, high politics is associated with military-
type policies, while low politics has a socioeconomic dimension (Clemens, 1990; Couloumbis &
Wolfe, 1990:288; Kegley, 2008:38; Pearson & Rochester, 1988:327-329; B. Yu & Chung, 1996:87).
In the international context, states debate at high political level over which is more powerful than
which; at low political level, the debate includes simultaneously other states and non-governmental
bodies, interacting in a functional way, such as trade, scientific cooperation and other interests
without resorting to military intimidation (Clemens, 1990). The Russian geopolitical strategy is an
example of the combination of the two levels of politics: ‘The "high politics" of Soviet security
policy evolved in tandem with 'Low politics" issues of trade, environmental protection, and
scientific and cultural exchange. High politics led the way toward imited collaboration with the
West ’ (idem, 1990).
Kegley (2008:38) defines high politics as matters pertaining to the national and international
security geostrategy, war and peace. On the other hand, low politics are here defined as matters
Power and Politics in International Relations Theories: A Strategic Framework Approach! PPEI
Ricardo Abreu ©2013 ISCTE-IUL! 4/9
7/23/2019 Power and Politics in International Relations Theories: A Strategic Framework Approach
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/power-and-politics-in-international-relations-theories-a-strategic-framework 6/10
related to economic, social, demographic, environmental relations among governments and citizens.
The author partakes of a certain critique to liberalism in its support of the idea that international
institutions are presided by a logic of low rather than high politics, when it is difficult to separate
the line between economic questions and the security of a country.
In a more functionalist approach, Pearson and Rochesters (1988), attributes to non-govermental
actors a predominat role in external politics. They consider that states are transferring low-politicsdecision-making processes to NGOs, keeping to themselves military affairs. In this view, high
politics involve the more controversial and crucial affairs for the states, such as taxes for
international post, sharing of climate information, R&D data, river management, etc.
When power and politics meetThe relevant literature demonstrates there are two useful dimensions to analyse IR: the type of
power used by countries; and the level of politics exerted by governments. Within the typology of
powers used by countries in order to pressure and influence other nations, we find hard and soft
power. At the level of political action, we find high politics and low politics.
The above mentioned authors discuss the type of external political action as a complementary
strategy between hard and soft powers, i.e., a strategy to reach the country’s goals by way of
military force, sanctions, or engagement. In order to reach these objectives, several political actions
are necessary and they may be categorized as high and/or low level politics, that is, actions between
defense and security politics and policies of economic and cooperative nature. This mean we may
find in IR a strategic framework that combines simultaneously both types of power and both levels
of politics from a strategic perspective of foreign affairs.
Table 1.1 - Strategy Framework
Type of owers
Hard Power Soft Power
Level of
High Politcs
Politcs
Low Politics
HH Strategies HS Strategies
LH Strategies LS Strategies
Source: compile by author
The convergence between these types of power and political levels may be characterised by four
different types of strategy, according to the IR aims of each country. Below I highlight the most
evident strategies and examples emerging from the literature:
a) HH strategies consist of the use of defense and security measures in order to influence other
countries and pursue policies than ensure national interests and integrity.
Power and Politics in International Relations Theories: A Strategic Framework Approach! PPEI
Ricardo Abreu ©2013 ISCTE-IUL! 5/9
7/23/2019 Power and Politics in International Relations Theories: A Strategic Framework Approach
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/power-and-politics-in-international-relations-theories-a-strategic-framework 7/10
I tis common to find hard power strategies combined with high political actions. For example, after
9/11 and the US war on Iraq, the US chose to focus its strategy in the consolidation of its network
of security and defense with its allies, supporting them economically and politically, in detriment of
its investment on the pursuit of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), or incessantly pursuing
terrorists (Kim, 2003). Another example of the use of high politics in armed conflict is the position
taken by Italy in the so-called “Arab Spring.” Due to matters of national security and international
positioning, the Italian government, initially reluctant, chose to engage with the UN resolution
towards military intervention in that region (Kashiam, 2012).
Another case that has deserved attention from scholars are the tensions around the Arctic territory.
Despite considerable international consensus around the management of this territory, there is a
competition among northern potencies, for security and energy resources. Robert Murray (2012) ,
refers that “states appear willing to use militarism and arms racing behaviour as a possible means
for ensuring their claims are taken seriously” and adds that “no hard power conflict has taken place
over Arctic territorial claims, but it is also important to bear in mind that the recent intrigue in the
region has taken place in the unipolar moment of American hegemony”. This means that with the
economic and political rise of other world regions and the decline in hegemony of the USA, there
may result a turn to high politics in the dispute for the Arctic territories.
b) HS strategies use security and defense policies with the aim of influencing other countries to
cooperate at other political levels.
When we enter the field of high politics the relations between the US and Europe are a main
example, namely in the context of legal and jurisdictional relations: “The objectives of EU-US legal
relations are expressly dominated by State-security concerns” (Fahey, 2012). The war on global
terrorismo originated international cooperation at the level of intelligence comparable only yo to the
period between the two great wars. The two great Western platforms, the US and Europe, are a goodexample of cooperation beyond the relation between intelligence and security agencies. As Richard
Aldrich (2009), states, “In public, intelligence and security services talk a great deal about
globalisation and their co-operation is certainly increasing”. The need for the exchange of
information has brought closer these regions as a whole, even when self-interest is at odds. We are
here in the face of soft power strategies combined with high level politics.
c) LH strategies are based on economic cooperation politics which influence others to pursue
policies ensuring national integrity and interests.
Hard power strategies are recognised as militar force or as economic restrictions and sanctions over other countries. However, in a recent study (Martin, Mayer, & Thoenig, 2012) it was found that the
use of low politics, such as regional economic agreements, may be instruments to avoid military
conflict among countries. The authors conclude: “Economic agreements to prevent conflits in
countries with war background”. In another prvious study (L. Yu & Chung, 2001) touristic projects
between countries with a propension for hostile tension, such as North and South Corea ou Tawain
and China, were identified as alleviating and even preventing future conflict and initiating
reconciliation.
d) LS strategies require economic, cultural or scientific cooperation in order to influence others
towards cooperation at other political levels.
Brazil’s external politics in terms of global health is a genuine example of the use of low politics
within a soft power strategy (Lee & Gómez, 2011). Brazilian authorities have recognised that
Power and Politics in International Relations Theories: A Strategic Framework Approach! PPEI
Ricardo Abreu ©2013 ISCTE-IUL! 6/9
7/23/2019 Power and Politics in International Relations Theories: A Strategic Framework Approach
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/power-and-politics-in-international-relations-theories-a-strategic-framework 8/10
demographic change had a positive effect regarding the epidemic of HIV/AIDS. They swiftly
implemented policies of easy access to medication by the population, a policy internationally
acclaimed and recognized by UNESCO and other high-level institutions, allowing Brazil to propose
to the UN universal access to medication as part of the Universal Rights of Man. This international
recognition has taken Brazil to find allies not only in South America, but also Asia, thus reinforcing
its international profile as a BRIC country, as well as allowed access to medication through the
contracting of pharma in countries such as Argentina and China.
Another evidence of low soft power combined with low politics is the new way of public diplomacy
used by the USA. In 2009, President Barack Obama gave an address in the city of Cairo in which he
described a new dimension of the dialogue with the Muslim world. This public dimension of
diplomacy included science as an instrument of the external politics of his administration. As his
science envoy to the Middle-East expressed: “By harnessing the soft power of science in the service
of diplomacy, America can demonstrate its desire to bring the best of its culture and heritage to bear
on building better and broader relations with the Muslim world and beyond” (Zewail, 2010).
ConclusionsIn IR we must take into account two dimensions of analysis; a contextual one and an instrumental
one. In the first, we may include the influential strategies between countries based on the type of
power exerted: hard power, consisting of the military and economic power of the country; and soft
power, based on the ability of influencing others by way of engagement. The latter consists of
policies applied to obtain the designed strategy of defense and security (high politics) and policies
of an international cooperation character (low politics).
According to the realist theories, based on hard power strategy and resort to military force, HH and
HS strategies would be the most adequate for the development of relations between the states.
Realists are more predisposed to use policies of security and defense to demand of or influence
others to partake in their own interests. In the case of the 9/11 events and the war on terrorism, the
US called on the international community to a reality in which defense and security policies
suddenly became the focus for many nations worldwide, stimulating in many cases a reinforcement
of extra-defense relations.
On the other hand, liberalists would favour LH and LS strategies to lure other states to their national
interests and agendas. Within IR theory, liberalism would then be the most adequate approach to
cooperation policies, whether in military contexts or strategic influence. The interdependence of
states in a globalized world is a clear example of the use of cooperation policies, whether to
alleviate or avoid military conflict or as a way of influencing some to follow the interests of others,
as is the case with international commercial policies and great global challenge policies.
The framework for strategic analysis model was developed based on the available literature. To
justify this argument further study is suggested using more examples of political action strategies in
international relations from the countries.
Power and Politics in International Relations Theories: A Strategic Framework Approach! PPEI
Ricardo Abreu ©2013 ISCTE-IUL! 7/9
7/23/2019 Power and Politics in International Relations Theories: A Strategic Framework Approach
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/power-and-politics-in-international-relations-theories-a-strategic-framework 9/10
ReferencesAldrich, R. J. (2009). US-European Intelligence Co-operation on Counter‚ÄêTerrorism: Low
Politics and Compulsion. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations,11(1), 122-139.
Clemens, W. C. (1990). Can Russia Change?: The USSR Confronts Global Interdependence : Unwin Hyman.
Cooper, R. (2004). Hard power, soft power and the goals of diplomacy. American power in the 21st century , 167-180.
Couloumbis, T. A., & Wolfe, J. H. (1990). Introduction to international relations: power and justice : Prentice Hall.
Fahey, E. (2012). Reviewing High Politics A Methodology for the Justiciability of EU-USLegal Relations. Fahey “Reviewing high politics: global governance and the justiciability of EU-US relations before the Court of Justice of the European Union” in Pawlak ed. The EU-US security and justice agenda in action (EUISS Chaillot Paper, 2012).
George, A. L. (1994). Coercive Diplomacy: Definition and Characteristics. The limits of
coercive diplomacy , 7-11.Heywood, A. (2011a). Global Politics : Palgrave Macmillan.Heywood, A. (2011b). Theories of Global Politics. Global Politics (pp. 53-66): Palgrave
Macmillan.Hix, S., & Hoyland, B. (2005). Foreign Policies: Theories of International relations and
Political Economy. The Political System of the European Union (pp. 374-378):Palgrave Macmillan.
Kashiam, M. A. A. (2012). The Italian role in the Libyan spring revolution: is it a shift fromsoft to hard power? Contemporary Arab Affairs, 5 (4), 556-570.
Kegley, C. W. (2008). World Politics: Trend and Transformation : Cengage Learning.Kim, T.-H. (2003). War on weapons of mass destruction and terrorism: The right track for
human security? Global Economic Review, 32 (3), 85-93.Lee, K., & Gómez, E. (2011). Brazil's Ascendance: The soft power role of global health
diplomacy.Levy, J. S. (2008). Deterrence and Coercive Diplomacy: The Contributions of Alexander
George. Political Psychology, 29 (4), 537-552.Martin, P., Mayer, T., & Thoenig, M. (2012). The Geography of Conflicts and Regional
Trade Agreements. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 4 (4), 1-35.Murray, R. W. (2012). Arctic politics in the emerging multipolar system: challenges and
consequences. The Polar Journal, 2 (1), 7-20.Nossel, S. (2004). Smart power. Foreign Affairs , 131-142.
Nye Jr, J. S. (2005). Soft power: The means to success in world politics : PublicAffairs.Nye Jr, J. S. (2009). Get Smart-Combining Hard and Soft Power. Foreign Aff., 88 , 160.Nye Jr, J. S. (2011). The future of power : PublicAffairs.Pearson, F. S., & Rochester, J. M. (1988). International relations: the global condition in
the late twentieth century : Random House.Strange, S. (1996). The retreat of the state: The diffusion of power in the world economy
(Vol. 49): Cambridge university press.Wagner, C. (2005). From Hard Power to Soft Power. Ideas, Interaction, Institutions, and
Images in India's South Asia Policy, Heidelberg (Heidelberg Papers in South Asian and Comparative Politics, Working Paper No. 26).
Wilson III, E. J. (2008). Hard power, soft power, smart power. The annals of the American
academy of Political and Social Science, 616 (1), 110-124.Yu, B., & Chung, T. (1996). Dynamics and Dilemma: Mainland, Taiwan and Hong Kong in a
Changing World. Edited by Yu Bin and Chung Tsungting : Nova Science Publ.
Power and Politics in International Relations Theories: A Strategic Framework Approach! PPEI
Ricardo Abreu ©2013 ISCTE-IUL! 8/9
7/23/2019 Power and Politics in International Relations Theories: A Strategic Framework Approach
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/power-and-politics-in-international-relations-theories-a-strategic-framework 10/10
Yu, L., & Chung, M. H. (2001). Tourism as a Catalytic Force for Low-Politics Activitiesbetween Politically Divided Countries: The Cases of South/North Korea and Taiwan/ China. New Political Science, 23 (4), 537-545.
Zewail, A. (2010). The Soft Power of Science. New Perspectives Quarterly, 27 (3), 78-80.
Power and Politics in International Relations Theories: A Strategic Framework Approach! PPEI
Ricardo Abreu ©2013 ISCTE-IUL! 9/9