Political Science 7 – International Relations - Power Point #3
Dr. Tabakian’s Political Science 7 Modern World Governments – Spring 2013 Supplemental Power Point Material #3
LECTURE HIGHLIGHTS• Introducing International Relations• Applying Theory• Rational Choice Theory• Realism• Power Theory• Transparency• Idealism/Liberalism• Core Principles• Dominance, Reciprocity & Identity• Actors & Influences• State and Nonstate Actors
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (1)International relations theorize mainly on conflict in the world system andhow to prevent chaos from ensuing by managing power relations throughthe use of deterrence. Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, Jr. states that decisions madeby foreign poly decision makers examines problems by equating fivevariables:(1) the societal and individual values of their state and that of the case being examined;(2) their own and the world’s understanding of the problem at hand;(3) those capabilities available on hand and what the goals of their nation in correlation to other nations;(4) the bureaucratic and organizational framework where decisions affecting foreign affairs are constructed; and(5) how that individual defines the international system, whether it may be bipolar, multipolar, classical balance of power, unilateral, etc.
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (2)International relations is like the philosophy of science as both aredefined as, “a symbolic construction, a series of inter-related constructsor concepts, together with definitions, laws, theorems and axioms.” Thefield of study came about following World War I by those who sought tounderstand what causes conflict so that the barrage of conflict may notbe repeated again. The field consists of contending theories that somehave argued has not been able to reign uncontested. One can argue thatthe field as a whole is wrought with contesting theoretical approaches,which have yet to achieve recognition as a new paradigm or standing asa law that all researchers can depend on. Found within the naturalsciences are certain laws retaining equal standing among researchers inthat field. None of the subfields of IR or the entire discipline for thatmatter have yet achieved this state. All of the competing theoreticalapproaches and methodologies applied in IR depend on each other toform a nucleus of knowledge that researchers may utilize in differentconfigurations to strengthen or attack hypotheses.
ROLE OF THEORYEveryone uses theory whether they know it or not. Manyof us devise our own theories through our childhoodsocializations up to adulthood. Disagreements within thefield of political science for example come about whenthere is no agreement over the basic forces that shapethe discipline. Students become disillusioned whensituations arise that sweep forecasts into the abyss.Elitism and Pluralism serve as the foundation for thesocial sciences with political science being more inclinedto adhere to pluralist arguments. Readers are encouragedto utilize both theories throughout the text. This will assiststudents of the political sciences to critically analyzethose arguments presented by the author in order todevise their own methodologies concerning politicalscience. Theory also helps researches to classify certainvariables. It may be thought of as a pair of sunglassesthat helps us filter unwanted information.
EXAMPLE OF THEORY – REALISMRealism accords that as human nature remainsthe predominant factor in a nation-state’sforeign policy, it is further determined that suchpolicies are focused upon self-interest. As theinherent motive for man is survival, it applies tothe applied foreign policies of nation-states forthe actions of a state are determined accordingto the actions of a state are determined according to the tenets of politicaldetermination. Considered to be a synonym for power politics, though at timesconstrued as pragmatic and wrought with simplicity, it is a somewhat abruptphilosophy focused on the inherent evils of mankind. Let us look at a clip from themovie “Failsafe”. Walter Matthau plays the role of National Security Advisor whoapplies rational choice and realist theory to explain why striking at the SovietUnion is necessary to survive.
RATIONAL CHOICE (1)What is the primary goal of the individual? The answer may besummed up in one word: Survival. This basic human requirementserves as the foundation for all action. If survival is the ultimate goal,then one must assume that individual parties are determined to makedecisions that are based on rationality. This of course assumes thatpeople as individual units will base all decisions on self-interest. Let useven assume that the decision maker is in possession of perfectinformation. Why then do people make irrational or even foolhardydecisions even when all signs point to negative or even disastrousresults? The answer is simply that human beings are not robots orcomputers. We are fallible to emotions that encompass belief systemslike religion that in turn are great influences over individual behavior.
RATIONAL CHOICE (2)Decisions are based on self-interest…as we define our self-interest tobe. Consider this example. We have a nun and a real-estate mogul.The nun gives up all her worldly possessions and dedicating herself tohelping those in poverty. Her justification may be great rewards in theafterlife. The real-estate mogul does not believe in an afterlife, butdoes believe in making as much money as , spending it all on anoverly extravagant and abusive lifestyle. Who is acting rationally? Bothindividuals are for they are fulfilling their self-interest…as they definetheir self-interest to be.
REALISM (1)American Foreign Policymakers generally believe thatmorality is not a primary factor for basing policy in theinternational arena. Morgenthau offers a propheticHobbesian declaration that “there is neither morality nor lawoutside the state”. He goes on to state, “There is a profoundand neglected truth hidden in Hobbes’s extreme dictum thatthe state creates morality as well as law and there is neithermorality nor law outside the state. Universal moralprinciples, such as justice or equality, are capable of guidingpolitical action only to the extent that they have been givenconcrete content and have been related to political situationsby society.”
REALISM (2)Realists argue that anarchy is not only present in the internationalsystem. It can also spring forth within territories as Barry Posenhas suggested about what possible end results may manifestfollowing the breakup of multiethnic states. This situation cansuddenly place ethnic groups in an anarchical setting with eachdivision acting like states in the international system. Each sidefears one another to the extent that each respective group forgesahead on a campaign to acquire power over one another.Alexander Wendt claims “Anarchy is what states make of it.” Hehas argued that realism does not adequately explain why conflicterupts between states. Walt brings to attention other strands ofconstructivism that claim transnational communication and sharedcivic values have played a distinct role in eroding nationalloyalties, creating radical strains of political association that focuson international law and other normative principles that focus oninternational concerns.
REALISM – HISTORICAL OCCURRENCESRealists desired a return to understanding why nation statesact the way that they do by understanding what role historyhas had on the actions undertaken by the present.Examining historical occurrences allows one to identifyparticular and predictable patterns of international behavior.Power was isolated as a determining variable as statessought to gain and/or maintain their current capacity to bothpreserve their security in an anarchic world and to also gainadditional power when the situation warranted. Morgenthauhas suggested, “International politics, like all politics, is astruggle for power.” If history has shown that the quest forpower is never ending then his assertion may be correct.
REALISM & THE NATIONAL INTERESTRobert L. Pfaltzgraff defines the national interest as, “…ultimatelythe prudent use of power to safeguard those interests most vital tothe survival of the nation-state.” The author further states that bystudying history, realists are able to produce a generalizationabout what certain preconditions have to exist for a nation-state topursue policies of aggression to secure their nation-interest.Nation-states pursue their individual national-interests on a never-ending basis, which in turn leads to a stable international system.Defenders of a competitive security system suggest that statesare forever striving to increase their security in relation to that ofother states. This would entail ego’s gain as alter’s loss and as aresult is prone to security dilemmas. In a cooperative securitysystem, states equate the security of each as a contribution to thecollective good. National interests are seen to bolster internationalinterests.
REALISM – WINNERS & LOSERSKen Booth claims that traditional realist themes of powerand order will always be achieved at someone else’sexpense, forever maintaining political instability in the worldsystem. Emancipation should instead be given priority in thesecurity policies of states to reduce this instability.Emancipation is defined by Booth as a means of freeingpeople from constraints that prevent them from acting freely.People are prevented by war, poverty, oppression and pooreducations from developing themselves to their fullest.Security and emancipation are seen as two sides of thesame coin.
REALISM & SELF HELPStates are succumbed to existing in a self-help system.Robert Axelrod has demonstrated that this reality hasproduced only one method for maximizing collective gainand that is the “tit-for-tat” tactic. Kenneth Waltz argues thatthe self-help system may lead the most powerful states tofurther widen the gaps in economic, military and politicalpower between themselves and weaker members. Manyhave argued as this author that conflict is rooted in humannature and this will always remain so regardless of thestructure of the international system.
REALISM & CORE STATESRealists are more likely to assume that core states are democratic,whereas periphery states remain authoritarian. Core states are prone torecognizing the sovereignty of other core states, but are willing to ignorethe sovereignty of periphery countries if it serves their interests. ThomasBarnet is a professor at the US Naval War College who authored amodel that may enlighten students to how the Bush Administrationconducts foreign policy. Professor Barnett first splits the world in twodistinct areas. The first contains “The Functioning Core” which aredeveloped or those in the process of development that is entrenched inthe capitalist system and remains committed to globalization. In thecamp is the “Non-Integrating Gap” which contains poor, repressive andunstable governments that have not been allowed in the globalizationclub. Professor Barnet then goes on to state that the main security threatfor Core states is not one another as realists would presume, but thethreat presented by unstable regimes that emphatically voice theirdisenchantment with the world order and in turn produce terrorists whoare further incensed over the gap between the two camps.
REALISM & INSTITUTIONSRealism asserts that international institutions serve theinterests of the most powerful member states, notinternational interests. The expansion of NATO is a goodexample as this action satisfies the interests of memberstates. Realists do not recognize institutions as possessingthe power to impact state behavior. These institutions areinstead a reflection of the distribution of the power in theworld, constructed to satisfy the self-interest of the mostpowerful members.
CLASSICAL REALISMClassical realists like Hans Morgenthau and ReinholdNiebuhr believed that states acted like human beings asboth sought dominance over their respective competitors.This in turn caused competition to morph into war.Morgenthau stressed the virtues of classical realist with hisdeclaration that the bipolar system of rivalry was adangerous predicament that would lead to catastrophicdestruction. He instead called for multipolarity as a way toconstruct a balance of power system that would maintaininternational stability.
REALISM / MULTILATERALISM POST 1940’SUS foreign policy was based upon two strategies since the1940s. The first was realist in its construction as it wasbased on containment, deterrence, and maintaining a globalbalance of power. The second strategy was forged over thecourse of World War II as the US constructed a new systemof relations based on institutionalized political relations withother integrated market democracies, along with continuedgrowth of new markets. Ikenberry gives an example of theliberal grand strategy purported by the government byquoting Richard Hass, policy-planning director at the StateDepartment: “…the principal aim of American foreign policyis to integrate other countries and organizations intoarrangements that will sustain a world consistent with USinterests and values”.
REALIST FORCE CONCEPTIONE. H. Carr argues that there exist two opposite poles of utopianfeelings of right and realist conceptions of force. He stresses thatthere exists a need for a combination of both utopia and reality sothat society can come to a favorable compromise between powerand morality. Politics and law is viewed as a ‘meeting place’ forethics and power where both can come together in order tofacilitate continued progress towards a utopian society. Classicalrealists like Thomas Hobbes, Reinhold Niebuhr and HansMorgenthau argued that egoism and power politics stemmed fromhuman nature. Structural realists or neorealists moved away fromhuman nature and instead stressed anarchy. Kenneth Walt statedthat anarchy allows conflict to brew as “wars occur because thereis nothing to prevent them”. He goes on to infer that it is theactions of predator states whose behavior is fostered from humannature or its domestic politics that forces other states to respondin kind if they are to survive.
NEO-REALISMClassical realism focuses on human nature, whereasneorealism has taken this assumption and applied it theexisting anarchic realm of “self-interested, competitive,mutually suspicious and antagonistic states.” Neo-realismsees the international political system as one unit withinterconnecting linkages existing between structural andunits. In contrast to old realism’s contention that humannature is the drive for self-interest, neo-realists looks at theentire system to understand how single actors, or states,base their actions. States are seen as individual units thatpursue their self-interests with the most important one beingtheir survival.
REALIST & MUTUAL DETERRENCE THEORYBoth the US and the Soviets have acted irrationally at the sametime, threatening to use nuclear weapons, while at the same timeassuming that the other side would remain rational and notprovoke the situation. This actually happened during the Berlincrises, including other successive events, yet there has neverbeen a nuclear strike launched between the two superpowers.Deterrence has worked because neither side really knew what theother side was thinking. A problem with deterrence is that themore times bluffs are made it may lead to a time when someoneis going to make the call. At this point there are only threealternatives: resort to nuclear war, retreat, resort to conventionalwar. Realists argue that the struggle for power remains constantin the international system. The only variable is the makeup of thebalance of power.
REALISM EXPLANATION FOR END OF COLD WARRealists have a simple explanation to the end of the Cold War.They argue that Soviet power declined and that it could no longerface the expense of continuing to challenge the United States.Kenneth Waltz has emphasized that nuclear weapons effectivelyinsured that all out war would never erupt between the US and theSoviets as each side possessed secure second-strike capability(and some would argue a third and fourth). Realists may arguethat the Soviet Union was able to disband, because its securitycould still be maintained with nuclear weapons and that it was notnecessary to maintain an empire solely for the purpose of havinga buffer zone around Russia itself. Neorealists later took to thestage with their argument that states were concerned primarily insecurity and not further increasing their power, or conquering newlands.
POWER THEORY (1)To exert power one must first possess adequate reserves to drawupon. This is defined simply as “capacity of power”. Achieving higherpositions is dependent on various factors that may include: education;wealth; profession; charisma and other talents either developed orengrained from birth. This “capacity of power” is not determinedaccording to a single resource, ability or possession. It is instead acombination of different variables that serve to make up the individual.This is just like a battery consisting of energy resources drawn uponwhen it comes time to draw power in order to achieve a set objective.Just like a battery powering a flashlight so does one’s individual“capacity of power” serve to assist one in achieving a set goal or inthis case influencing or affecting political behavior to maintain, expandor protect one’s standing in order to survive in society.
POWER THEORY (2)Our example of “capacity of power” is applicable toindividual capacity of power and all associations up tothe nation state as all combined units consist ofindividuals pursuing their set of priorities or self-interestthat is in turn based on survival. Drawing upon thesereserves allows one to pursue agendas of self-interest.Power is the ultimate pursuit, as the ultimate goal ofhumanity is survival. Individual participants in pursuit ofthese goals join together in common pursuits under theumbrella of common interest. These resulting “spheresof interest” in turn join under broader umbrellas thatalso offer another distinct set of common goals that inturn competes with respective peers.
POWER THEORY (3)Power equals resources (capacity of power) times compliancesquared, divided by force. Every accounting of power theory istaken into consideration in the construction of this formula. Wehave explored the contention that the pursuit of self-interestencourages man to engage in political behavior. This serves asthe foundation for rational choice theory, which in turn has led usto power theory. One may argue that the pursuit of powermaintains the never ending cycle of political: conflict; compromise;alliances; and wars.
POWER THEORY (4)Many have countered this argument with a direct assault on thestatement that “there is no morality in politics”. These critics areboth right and wrong. It is true that morality has no directcorrelation with political science if the pursuit of self-interests andpower resources maintains utmost priority. On the other handthey may be correct if one party sells their pursuit as a moralcause in order to achieve their agenda. For example, one mayargue that good may come from conflict even if it leads to thedestruction of a nation-state and the slaughtering of thousands ormillions of people if the seed of democracy is planted andnurtured to maturity.
TRANSPARENCY (1)America has grown from the days of a colony to major power,superpower, and hegemon, to its present empire status. Americanpower is felt throughout the international community. Playingpoker requires one to adopt what is commonly known as a “pokerface”. Players will hide their true emotions, even faking their trueintentions to catch other players off guard. Some have even takento wearing sunglasses. The exact opposite tactic that the UnitedStates has adopted is “Transparency”. This involves disclosing allroutes the nation-state will undertake with regards to all forms ofpublic policy pertaining to its political, economic and militarystrategies.
TRANSPARENCY (2)Alexander Hamilton initiated thispolicy as the chief financialphilosopher of the United Stateseven if he did not coin the term.Hamilton is regarded as the chiefarchitect of our economic policy,which in turn was developed in orderto win the confidence of domesticUS business and financial elites aswell as gaining the confidence ofinternational business.
TRANSPARENCY EXAMPLE #1America possesses the mosttechnologically advancedmilitary hardware. This videodemonstrates one of the firstdeployable force fields for lightarmored vehicles (LAVs).“Trophy” was built in partnershipwith General DynamicsCorporation & Rafael. Welcometo the 21st Century!
TRANSPARENCY EXAMPLE #2America is not the only nation thatutilizes Transparency. This videoshows the Israeli Defense Forcedemonstrating a new type of gunthat can shoot around corners. Abrief interview with the inventor ofthis amazing weapon follows thedemonstration.
TRANSPARENCY EXAMPLE #3Some forms of transparency areboth political and military in nature.The military sponsored thedevelopment of the MassiveOrdinance Aerial Burst (MOAB). It iscommonly referred to as “TheMother Of All Bombs”. It is thelargest conventional bomb in ourarsenal. There is a psychologicalcomponent to this bomb. Amushroom cloud forms followingsuccessful detonation. It lookssomewhat like a nuclear devicebeing detonated.
TRANSPARENCY EXAMPLE #4Javelin is a fire-and-forget missilewith lock-on before launch andautomatic self-guidance. The systemtakes a top-attack flight profileagainst armored vehicles (attackingthe top armor which is generallythinner) but can also take a direct-attack mode for use againstbuildings or fortifications. This missilealso has the ability to engagehelicopters. Javelin is supplied byRaytheon/Lockheed MartinsJAVELIN Joint Venture.
IDEALISM / LIBERALISM (1)Various liberal theories sought to challenge realism. One variant ofliberalism asserted that increased economic interdependence woulddiscourage war for engaging in conflict would insight more costs thanbenefits. Warfare was seen as a threat to each side’s prosperity, especiallyif both actors were deeply invested in each other’s prosperity. WoodrowWilson expounded another variant of liberalism that proposed that thespread of democracy is the key to world peace under the banner thatdemocracies do not fight one another and that they are more peaceful thanauthoritarian states. Another variant of liberalism argued that internationalinstitutions like the International Monetary Fund and the InternationalEnergy Agency would serve to restrict states from acting selfishly byconvincing participants that long-term gains should not be sacrificed forshort-term gains. Realists saw individuals as leading actors in internationalaffairs. Liberals in comparison saw states as the central players ininternational affairs and that cooperation was possible, especially as itcame to issues of defense.
IDEALISM / LIBERALISM (2)PREVENTING WARFARE: Political leaders need tounderstand that although realism has served internationalrelations theory well that it does not explain everything.Keeping other theoretical paradigms in mind helps to fill inthe gaps so to speak of realism. If we look at idealist forexample, it serves to identify those instruments available tostates so that they can achieve shared interests. Itdemonstrates that capitalism has served as a highlyefficient as well as profitable system that has made statesinterdependent on one another. Capitalism has also servedto prevent warfare among major powers for doing so wouldpresent catastrophic returns instead of ever broadeningprofits that capitalism provides.
IDEALISM / LIBERALISM (3)Realism actually coincides with idealism in one respect.The United States serves as the enforcer so to say of theinternational economic order. American provisions ofmilitary and economic security serves to protect againstmass eruptions of regional rivalries, in turn reinforcing the“liberal peace” that followed 1945 to present. Stephen Waltargues that as long as the United States remains dedicatedto playing the “enforcer” and continues to provide securityand stability in most regions of the world that theinternational system will remain stable for the most part.
NEO-LIBERAL INSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTNeo-liberalism institutionalism accurately proclaimed thatNATO, the European Union and other institutions would notdisappear following the end of the Cold War as realists hadincorrectly assumed. Lisa Martin, Beth Simmons and HelenMilner note that institutionalist research even drew on USpolitics in order to better understand why theseorganizations like NATO continued to exist. One argumentis that member states saw it to be in their best interests toremain committed to institutions which preserved levelplaying fields as well as serving as guarantees to theirsecurity. Institutionalist thinking has even launchedresearch programs within IPE over the past 15 years thatmade students aware of relationships existing betweeninterests, power, and institutions
LIBERAL CHALLENGE TO REALISM (1)Pluralism insured that groups could not single handedlyinfluence public policy. Rather, cross-cutting cleavageswould form, as groups would compromise with others tobuild coalitions that would succeed in affecting change. Onecan argue that this rebuts Marxism’s contention that majorcapitalism can succeed in directing public policy.International regimes was seen by liberals as a good way tochallenge realism. These regimes are based on long-standing traditions of international law. Regimes are a toolfor actors to pursue their interests. Peter J. Katzenstein,Robery O. Keohane and Stephen D. Krasner suggest thatrealism remain vulnerable due to the apparent problematicnature of its core assumption.
LIBERAL CHALLENGE TO REALISM (2)Peter J. Katzenstein, Robery O. Keohane and Stephen D.Krasner identify four: (1) states are the key actors in theinternational system; (2) states are all similar in constructionas they all act on behalf of their self-interest; (3) analysiscan always conclude that states will act according to theirself-interest; and (4) the anarchical international systempresents a never ending risk of war and coercion wheneverthere a conflict exists between self-interested states. Theylist three major liberal challenges to realism’s assertion thatstates could be regarded as fused rational actors:neofunctionalism, bureaucratic politics, and transnationalrelations and linkage politics, with all three adhering to howpluralism affects state policies.
LIBERALISM PROMOTES DEMOCRACY? (1)Francis Fukuyama asserts that liberal democracy waspreferred for its competition represented worse alternatives.This also led to the acceptance of liberalism as the bestchoice available at the time, thus delaying a needed debateregarding whether a better regime is possible. Postmodernistassumptions about the legitimacy of liberal democracy arepessimistic. Postmodernists would not be able to bring forthany adequate arguments regarding better alternatives toliberal democracy, as they are unwilling to acknowledge itsoverall success. To validate the future success of liberaldemocracy does require a debate about potential successors.This is fundamental for the scientific method encourages aconstant strive for perfection.
LIBERALISM PROMOTES DEMOCRACY? (2)Individual actors also desire equal recognition among theirrespective peers. This can not be deduced solely fromeconomic motives, but how the struggle for equal recognitionhas influenced economic motivation. This runs contrary tomany economists and rational-choice theorists. Studentsshould not be disheartened with the homogenization of worldpolitics due to globalization or the seemingly democratizationof the world. Students can now compare various themes ofdemocracy worldwide. These areas include elections;electoral systems; parties; party systems; legislatures; etc.
CORE PRINCIPLES (1)• IR revolves around one key problem: – How can a group – such as two or more nations – serve its collective interests when doing so requires its members to forego their individual interests? • Example: Problem of global warning. Solving it can only be achieved by many countries acting together. – Collective goods problem. • The problem of how to provide something that benefits all members of a group regardless of what each member contributes to it.
CORE PRINCIPLES (2)• In general, collective goods are easier to provide in small groups than large ones. – Small group: defection (free riding) is harder to conceal and has a greater impact on the overall collective good, and is easier to punish.• Collective goods problem occurs in all groups and societies – Particularly acute in international affairs. • No central authority such as a world government to enforce on individual nations the necessary measures to provide for the common good.
CORE PRINCIPLES (3)• Three basic principles offer possible solutions for this core problem of getting individuals to cooperate for the common good without a central authority to make them do so. – Dominance – Reciprocity – Identity
DOMINANCE• Solves the collective goods problem by establishing a power hierarchy in which those at the top control those below – Status hierarchy • Symbolic acts of submission and dominance reinforce the hierarchy. • Hegemon• The advantage of the dominance solution – Forces members of a group to contribute to the common good. – Minimizes open conflict within the group.• Disadvantage of the dominance solution – Stability comes at a cost of constant oppression of, and resentment by, the lower-ranking members of the status hierarchy. – Conflicts over position can sometimes harm the group’s stability and well-being.
RECIPROCITY• Solves the collective goods problem by rewarding behavior that contributes to the group and punishing behavior that pursues self-interest at the cost of the group. – Easy to understand and can be “enforced” without any central authority. – Positive and negative reciprocity. – Disadvantage: It can lead to a downward spiral as each side punishes what it believes to be the negative acts of the other. • Generally people overestimate their own good intentions and underestimate those of opponents or rivals.
IDENTITY• Identity principle does not rely on self-interest.• Members of an identity community care about the interests of others in the community enough to sacrifice their own interests to benefit others. – Family, extended family, kinship group roots.• In IR, identity communities play important roles in overcoming difficult collective goods problems. – Nonstate actors also rely on identity politics.
ACTORS AND INFLUENCES• Principal actors in IR are the world’s governments.• IR scholars traditionally study the decisions and acts of those governments, in relation to other governments.• Individual actors: Leaders and citizens, bureaucratic agencies in foreign ministries, multinational corporations, and terrorist groups.
STATE ACTORS (1)• Most important actors in IR are states.• State: A territorial entity controlled by a government and inhabited by a population. – State government exercises sovereignty over its territory. – Recognized as sovereign by other states. – Population forms a civil society; group identity. – Seat of government with a leader – head of government or head of state.
STATE ACTORS (2)• International system – Set of relationships among the world’s states, structured according to certain rules and patterns of interaction. – Modern international system has existed for less than 500 years. – Nation-states. – Major source of conflict: Frequent mismatch between perceived nations and actual borders. – Populations vary dramatically. – Great variation in terms of the size of states’ total annual economic activity. • Gross Domestic Product (GDP). – Great powers. • Most powerful of these states are called superpowers.
STATE ACTORS (4)• Some political entities are not formally recognized as states. – Taiwan, Puerto Rico, Bermuda, Martinique, French Guiana, the Netherlands Antilles, the Falkland Islands, and Guam. – The Vatican.• Including various such territorial entities with states brings the world total to about 200 state or quasi-state actors.• Other would-be states, such as Kurdistan (Iraq), Abkhazia (Georgia), and Somaliland (Somalia) may fully control the territory they claim but are not internationally recognized.
NONSTATE ACTORS (1)• State actors are strongly influenced by a variety of nonstate actors. – Called transnational actors when they operate across international borders.• Intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) – Examples: OPEC, WTO, African Union, UN. – Vary in size from a few states to the whole UN membership.
NONSTATE ACTORS (2)• Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) – Private organizations; no single pattern. – Examples: Amnesty International, Red Cross.• Multinational corporations – Companies that span multiple countries• Substate actors – Exist within one country but either influence that country’s foreign policy or operate internationally, or both. – Example: State of Ohio (entirely a U.S. entity) operates an International Trade Division.