Kowalski Midterm

Lili Kowalski lykowalski@wisc.edu Power is fundamentally defined as, “the ability or potential to influence others’ behavior” (Pevehouse & Goldstein, 2020, p. 43). This definition encompasses both tangible assets such as military and economic capabilities along with intangible assets like ideology and social influence. These tangible and intangible aspects of power allow states to exercise influence in ways that are not only reliant on military strength, but also on cultural, economic, and ideological factors which can have similar, if not as effective outcomes (Pevehouse & Goldstein, 2020, p. 44). Similarly, Robert Dahl asserted that “the ability to get someone to do something they would not otherwise do” represents the crux of political power and its wide variety of implications (Lecture 5, Slide 12). This underscores the notion that power is not just about the ability to act but also the ability to shape the actions of others. These two explanations emphasize that power is present in international relations, both physically and diplomatically. The idea that “actors are powerful to the extent that they affect others more than others affect them” (Pevehouse & Goldstein, 2020, p. 43) signifies that power is often determined by and reliant on relationships. This also means that power is not stagnant, but rather, quite dynamic as it can fluctuate easily based on interactions with different actors. This perspective is essential to understanding and studying international relations as many of the dynamics between states reflect complex interdependencies. The power of a state can be cultivated very differently depending on the context and the other actors involved which further emphasizes that it’s important to understand that power is not an unchanging reign but an ever-evolving characteristic that is shaped by ongoing relations. The multifaceted nature of power is evident when discussing its various forms, including material, social, and agenda-setting power. Material power is commonly identified in the forms of military forces and GDP as these factors directly influence a state’s ability to exert influence (Lecture 5, Slide 14). On the other hand, social power relies on a state’s ability to attract and persuade others by way of shared values and ideologies, which further emphasizes the role that soft power plays in international relations. An example of this duality of use of power is illustrated in the case of the U.S. Marshall Plan which was implemented to combat the influences of World War II. This plan allocated 12.4 billion American dollars to Europe which not only facilitated European recovery but also increased the U.S.'s influence without having to exercise direct coercion (Lecture 4, Slide 17). Additionally, feminist perspectives, such as those like Tickner, challenge traditional ideas of power in the sense that it is not merely about domination, but rather, that it emphasizes collaboration and collective empowerment (Tickner, 1988, p. 434). The ability to understand these diverse dimensions of power can allow political scientists and actors themselves to have a well-rounded analysis of international relations as they examine how various forms of power–whether material, social, or ideological–interact with one another to shape global political dynamics, influence state behavior, and influences international outcomes without the sole use of direct force or coercion . Sovereignty is defined as the idea that states have the authority to govern themselves without interference from outside powers. In other words, this idea can be described as the principle that “a government has the right, in principle, to do whatever it wants in its own territory” (Pevehouse & Goldstein, 2020, p. 46). This notion of sovereignty is not codified but rather seen as a fundamental norm or custom of the international system with its origins tracing back to the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 (Lecture 3, Slide 16). This was a set of treaties that ended the Thirty Years’ War, and it reinforced the idea that each state had the authority to practice religion independently of the Holy Roman Empire’s reign. This has been seen as a key moment in establishing state sovereignty as the inherent guiding principle in international relations. Understanding sovereignty and its influence on international relations is vital because it lays the foundation for how states can and will interact with one another while also establishing boundaries for each state’s authority. This principle of sovereignty permits states to co-exist as independent entities, however, while this autonomy is important, it also creates challenges such as domestic relations of states conflicting with international norms and when more powerful states exert influence over weaker ones. In these situations, states often contemplate: Can sovereignty be violated? If so, when is it appropriate to intervene? (Lecture 3, Slide 21). The harsh restrictions on Germany, outlined in the Treaty of Versailles is an example of an event where a large power stepped over the bounds of sovereignty. This treaty imposed strict regulations on the German military, forced Germany to give up territory, and forced them to pay significant reparations for the war. This example represents the long-term stability that is sacrificed when sovereignty is undermined by external forces as this act fosters conditions for resentment and conflict, as seen with the rise of Hitler and the onset of World War II (Lecture 3, Slide 34). Similarly, the deconstruction of an independent Kurdistan after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire has also been cited as a fundamental example of failure to respect the sovereignty of a distinct ethnic group. These examples portray the serious consequences when sovereignty is either restricted or not properly respected. In a broader sense, sovereignty is a catalyst for both conflict and cooperation in the international system. One example of this tension is demonstrated in the European Union (EU), where each member state has willingly given up aspects of its sovereignty in exchange for political and economic benefits. By joining this international organization, each state is adopting a shared set of regulations and a common currency which in turn, means that they’re also limiting their ability to independently regulate their own economies and policies. Similarly, states that have decided to join NATO also face these trade-offs as well. Just like the way the UN works, states must give up a certain level of autonomy in exchange for collective security (Lecture 4, Slide 23). This tension raises a larger question: how much sovereignty are states willing to lose for the benefits of collective action and security guarantees (Lecture 4, Slide 23)? Another example is the imposition of economic sanctions. These are often utilized when exercising power in terms of reciprocity and have the ability to challenge state sovereignty by pressuring states to change their domestic policies. This interventionist approach demonstrates the tension between a state’s right to govern itself and the responsibility of a global community to ensure collective security and human rights standards are upheld. Ultimately, the meaning of sovereignty continues to evolve as states struggle with the complexities of globalization and expectations of interstate cooperation. The security dilemma is a situation in which actions taken by a state to ensure its own security–such as increasing military power–can unintentionally appear as a threat to other states, promoting them to take similar actions in response (Pevehouse & Goldstein, 2020, p. 48). This concept is derived from the inevitable uncertainty and anarchy that is present in the international system, where there is no global authority that can govern or regulate states’ behavior and actions. In turn, states are compelled to operate in a “self-help” system, where they must constantly compete and protect themselves, driven by fear that other states will take whatever measures necessary to ensure their own security (Lecture 5, Slide 27). This drawback in the system emphasizes that offensive and defensive military action is often hard to differentiate. This implies that what one state sees as a protective measure, another could see as a threat that can escalate tensions and lead to an arms race (Lecture 5, Slide 28). Understanding the security dilemma is important because it highlights a core contradiction in international relations: actions that are intended to improve a state’s security often do the opposite by triggering reactions from other states. Morgenthau writes in his realist perspective that uncertainty of intentions adds a layer to this dilemma due to the notion that states will always prioritize their own survival and security over cooperation (Morgenthau, 1948, p. 9). Additionally, the security dilemma helps actors and political scientists understand how the absence of a reliable global authority forces states to act in self-interest, often at the expense of long-term stability. Finally, it highlights how arms races and conflicts can emerge even when the states involved lack aggressive intentions, as fear and mistrust become powerful driving forces when states interpret each other’s actions as threatening or hostile. In a broader sense, the security dilemma illustrates the complex ways in which fear and mistrust lead to arms races and conflict. This phenomenon highlights how defensive measures can be misunderstood as threatening actions to other states and how they can prompt them to adopt similar actions to maintain their own security. The arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War exemplifies this tension where both nations expanded their military capabilities in response to one another, which ultimately led to intensified mistrust and a hazardous environment (Pevehouse & Goldstein, 2020, p. 48). The constant escalation of nuclear capabilities by the United States and the Soviet Union during this time shows how the security dilemma can not only spiral into a full-blown arms race but also increase the risk of mutual destruction. Understanding this dilemma is vital for policymakers who are seeking to balance national security interests while also promoting international cooperation as it highlights the delicate nature of trust and communication between states. The Peloponnesian War represents a pivotal conflict between two dominant Greek citystates, Athens and Sparta, and their respective allies, as they competed for hegemonic control over Greece. Drawing from Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War, this conflict was the result of various imbalances of power and rising tensions between the two city-states. In the end, Sparta was victorious, and this war illustrated how fierce competition can be for hegemonic control. This historical case serves as a fundamental analogy of just how influential the dynamics of power are to international relations. Grasping the importance of the Peloponnesian War is essential because it exemplifies how the characteristics of realism appear in real-life events. The conflict between Athens and Sparta emphasizes that the pursuit of security, power, and self-interest are driving factors for state behavior. Thucydides’ narrative highlights how states often resort to the exertion of hard power and violence to ensure their survival, and those actions are often in response to fear of being dominated. As highlighted in his observations of society at that time, the impending anxiety of a rival state gaining power can compel states to adopt aggressive stances (Drezner, 2020, p. 2). This observation further exemplifies the effects of the security dilemma and how it frequently leads to conflict. The lessons of the Peloponnesian War continue to hold significance in today's international system as it allows us to make comparisons between then and now. In fact, a political scientist, Graham Allison, introduced a term known as the “Thucydides Trap” which draws intriguing parallels between the historical dynamics of the Peloponnesian War and current U.S.-China relations. In both instances, a rise of new power generates an overwhelming feeling of apprehension and insecurity and in turn, established powers exert competitive responses (Palmer, 2020, p. 2). While this war brings to life many of the recurring concepts we study in international relations, some oppose that solely relying on this historical event to explain currentday issues, is not comprehensive enough to capture the complexities of modern geopolitical challenges (Palmer, 2020, p. 3). However, regardless of these challenges, the Peloponnesian War will continue to serve as a disturbing reminder of the capacity of power dynamics over the influence of state interactions. When discussing collective action problems, realism offers solutions that primarily rely on power, specifically through hegemonic enforcement. This approach reflects realism’s dependency on the principle of dominance, which establishes a power hierarchy where the weaker states are forced to comply with what the more powerful ones mandate (Pevehouse & Goldstein, 2020, p. 5). This method explains how hegemonic enforcement ensures cooperation, regardless of the level of mistrust or conflicting interests, as the dominant state forces weaker actors to comply with their guidelines. In the context of the Prisoners’ Dilemma, the realist emphasis on power provides an explicit solution to this problem. In the scenario where two actors would benefit from cooperation but are tempted to defect due to mistrust in one another, realism finds that the rational choice for each actor is to defect rather than blindly trust each other. This option seems to be the only viable one as trusting another actor would mean placing one’s state in a vulnerable position where the probability of betrayal is high. Additionally, this solution works because a hegemonic power can override the temptation to defect by imposing consequences for non-compliance. This provides a level of security because even if trust is absent, actors will be more compelled to cooperate in fear of punishment if they act otherwise (Lecture 2, Slide 51). Therefore, for realists, power serves as the imperative variable that resolves collective action problems because an overarching authority has the ability to force cooperation and secure stability. Liberalism addresses collective action problems by emphasizing the influences of international organizations and domestic efforts, primarily focusing on the principle of reciprocity. Liberal institutionalism emphasizes the role of international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and the European Union, which can utilize mechanisms like extending time horizons, facilitating improved information exchange, and creating enforcement entities that can reward those who comply and punish those who defect (Lecture 6, Slide 12). Liberal institutionalism argues that international organizations provide the necessary oversight and enforcement of consequences to make trust between states feasible (Lecture 6, Slide 13). This is crucial when it comes to games like the Prisoners’ Dilemma, where the level of uncertainty prevents cooperation, even when it would lead to better outcomes for both parties. On the other hand, liberal internationalism emphasizes the role that domestic political structures play in promoting cooperation. An example of this is rooted in the democratic peace theory. This theory states that democracies rarely right one another due to their internal structures, public accountability, and commitment to peaceful norms that discourage defection and promote cooperation with other states (Walt, 1998, p. 39). For instance, countries like the United States and Canada maintain peaceful relations, not because they have the same views on policies, but because they have a mutual understanding and institutional frameworks (Lecture 7, Slide 16). Constructivism goes about collective action problems through emphasizing the significance of identity and norms, specifically shared values and ideologies, and how they influence states’ behavior. This approach explains that states construct their interests by way of interacting with others, meaning their goals and the way they perceive threats are not set, but rather ever-changing based on social contexts and historical relationships (Pevehouse & Goldstein, 2020, p. 88). By fostering collective identities, actors are able to develop a sense of mutual understanding which is vital for mitigating conflict peacefully. A notable example of this was after the Cold War when Mikhail Gorbachev reformed Soviet foreign policy to reflect new ideas such as “common security” (Walt, 1998, p. 41). Unlike realism and liberalism, constructivism was able to recognize the importance of identity in shaping international relations. Gorbachev’s new policies redefined the Soviet Union’s identity from an adversary to a nation that valued and promoted peaceful dialogue and cooperation. This shift highlights how identity, based on changing ideas and norms, can change and foster collaboration even in conflict-prone situations. In scenarios like the battle of the sexes, where both actors have different preferences but still want to cooperate, the outcome is heavily influenced by their level of mutual understanding and shared identity. If both actors view each other as partners, they are more likely to cooperate and reach a resolution that benefits both parties. Hence, constructivism emphasizes the importance of norms and shared identities in shaping the behavior of states, further highlighting that cooperation can come from social frameworks rather than just strategic calculations. The enduring peace and stability between the United States and Canada over the past 120 years can be understood through the lens of realist, liberal, and constructivist theories; each presenting unique explanations for how these states have maintained their prosperous relationship. Given their focus on material power, realists would acknowledge that both countries, despite their proximity, have not needed to exert military force on one another. Seeing as power is the central concept in realism, the lack of military threats symbolizes a stable balance of power, where neither state sees the other as a security threat (Morgenthau, 1948, p. 8). Liberalism would likely highlight the role of economic interdependence as a key feature of prosperity. Various economic ties through trade and other sources promote cooperation and create shared values, further suggesting that upholding peaceful relations would be the best course of action, to see mutual benefits (Walt, 1998, p. 32). On the other hand, constructivism would focus more on the significance of shared identity as the key factor that sustained their peaceful relationship. In this case, both countries see themselves as a part of a community that values democracy, the rule of law, and peaceful dispute resolution, which has lessened the probability of the security dilemma. Additionally, the democratic peace theory further supports the idea that these two countries have prolonged peace because of their domestic political structures (Pevehouse & Goldstein, 2020, p. 86). That being said, constructivists would point to these shared democratic identities and norms as the root cause for the enduring peace between the United States and Canada. Realist, liberal, and constructivist theories offer distinct explanations for the economic and political instability during the interwar era and the onset of World War II, each analyzing separate factors of this turbulent time. Realists would acknowledge how the effects of World War I and the Treaty of Versailles created a significant power imbalance (Lecture 3, Slide 34). According to realists, this imbalance directly led to insecurity and competition, with countries like Germany seeking to reinstate their authority, leading to the outbreak of World War II. Liberalism, on the other hand, would say that these events were indicative of the failure of international institutions, such as the League of Nations. Liberal institutionalists would say that they were unsuccessful in promoting cooperation. However, Liberal internationalists would argue that the rise of authoritarian regimes undermined the ability for peaceful cooperation, as they did not adhere to the democratic norms of peaceful mitigation of conflict. The lack of democratic accountability allowed for aggressive expansionist policies, while states with democratic political structures were stalled by domestic forces which weakened their ability to respond effectively to rising threats. Lastly, constructivists would point to the rise of nationalist and militaristic ideologies as a driving force of aggressive policies. The interwar period saw an era of rejection of democratic and cooperative norms and saw a rise to expansionist ideologies in its place which helped lay the foundation for war (Lecture 3, Slide 48). The lessons drawn from each of these perspectives is that peace and stability are delicate matters that are dependent on a combination of the balance of material security, international cooperation, and shared norms that promote peaceful conflict resolution. In the case of the Interwar period, the absence of these vital elements ultimately created conditions where conflict and war could thrive. While realism, liberalism, and constructivism each provide unique solutions to collective action problems and emphasize different aspects of events, each theory highlights how cooperation plays a pivotal role in resolving international disputes. While realism focuses on power and self-interest, liberalism underscores international institutions and domestic intervention, and constructivists highlight the importance of shared norms and identities. Although each theory has its strengths, critics often argue that they may oversimplify modern geopolitical dynamics. Ultimately, to address today’s collective action problems, we must integrate insights from all three perspectives rather than relying on a single approach. References Drezner, D. (2020, August 5). Oh God, not the bashing of the Peloponnesian War Again. Morgenthau, H. J. (1948). Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (1st ed.). A.A. Knopf. Palmer, J. (2020, July 28). Oh God, Not the Peloponnesian War Again. Pevehouse, J., & Goldstein, J. (2020). International Relations. Pearson. Tickner, J. A. (1988). Hans Morgenthau’s Principles of Political Realism: A Feminist Reformation. Millennium: Journal of International Studies. Walt, S. M. (1998). International Relations: One World, Many Theories.