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-IUL January 2013

Power and Politics in International Relations Theories: A Strategic Framework Approach!

PPEI

List of Contents

Introduction! Power and politics in International Relations! The type of power: Hard and Soft! Levels of politics: High and Low! When power and politics meet! Conclusions! References !

2 3 4 4 5 7 8

Ricardo Abreu 2013 ISCTE-IUL!

1/9

Power and Politics in International Relations Theories: A Strategic Framework Approach!

PPEI

Introduction
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. 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 countrys 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 Kants 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.

Perspective of international politics of a reformulation of liberalism emphasising the cooperative behaviour of the international system, which however does not preclude its anarchical nature.
1

Ricardo Abreu 2013 ISCTE-IUL!

2/9

Power and Politics in International Relations Theories: A Strategic Framework Approach!

PPEI

Power and politics in International Relations

What 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.
Ricardo Abreu 2013 ISCTE-IUL! 3/9

Power and Politics in International Relations Theories: A Strategic Framework Approach!

PPEI

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 ones 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 nations 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 adversarys 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 adversarys 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 Low

Like 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 militarytype 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
Ricardo Abreu 2013 ISCTE-IUL! 4/9

Power and Politics in International Relations Theories: A Strategic Framework Approach!

PPEI

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-politics decision-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 meet

The 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 countrys 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 Powers Hard Power HH Strategies Soft Power HS Strategies

High Politcs Level of Politcs Low Politics

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.

Ricardo Abreu 2013 ISCTE-IUL!

5/9

Power and Politics in International Relations Theories: A Strategic Framework Approach!

PPEI

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 good example 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. Brazils external politics in terms of global health is a genuine example of the use of low politics within a soft power strategy (Lee & Gmez, 2011). Brazilian authorities have recognised that
Ricardo Abreu 2013 ISCTE-IUL! 6/9

Power and Politics in International Relations Theories: A Strategic Framework Approach!

PPEI

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).

Conclusions
In 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.

Ricardo Abreu 2013 ISCTE-IUL!

7/9

Power and Politics in International Relations Theories: A Strategic Framework Approach!

PPEI

References
Aldrich, R. J. (2009). US-European Intelligence Co-operation on CounterTerrorism: 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-US Legal 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: Denition 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 from soft 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., & Gmez, 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 Conicts 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.
Ricardo Abreu 2013 ISCTE-IUL! 8/9

Power and Politics in International Relations Theories: A Strategic Framework Approach!

PPEI

Yu, L., & Chung, M. H. (2001). Tourism as a Catalytic Force for Low-Politics Activities between 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.

Ricardo Abreu 2013 ISCTE-IUL!

9/9