International Politics: Power without Authority

1. International Politics: Power without Authority

2. Characteristics of International Politics

3. International Politics versus Domestic Politics • All other forms of politics take place within framework of ultimate (sovereign) authority

4. Actors: states only • Interests and behaviour determined by those wielding executive power in states • 193 members of the United Nations + some independent countries such as the Vatican City and Kosovo, not members of the U.N. • States enter state system through recognition • All sovereign states equal under international law

5. Power politics • Because no supreme authority, international politics characterized to greater extent than domestic by raw power struggle • Hence power is primary objective of foreign policy • “Power" = capacity of a state to influence or control the behavior of other states for the purpose of promoting its own vital interests" • Power capacity includes skill and techniques in the use of consent and constraint, as well as ability to persuade, threaten, or coerce • Not all international relations are power politics.

6. Factors determining power potential of state • Size: presents both difficulties and advantages • Location: • proximity to great power • remoteness and inaccessibility • climate, shape, topography • intangible factors: • loyalty to nation • productive attitudes and capabilities • role of leadership

7. Causes of International Disputes • Prestige and ambition • not only personal greed of leaders • domestic pressures and other countries expect a government to guard its prestige • Acquisition of territory: • building empires • actual colonial expansion seems to be on decline in recent years • Displacement: stirring up international dispute to divert attention away from pressing domestic problems leaders unable or unwilling to solve • Dogmatic attachment to set of beliefs • Gradual escalation of mistrust and suspicion

8. Conflict and accommodation through diplomacy • Diplomacy = principle means by which international power struggle is carried on • War. according to von Clausewitz = "the continuation of diplomacy by other means" • Diplomacy in international system = substitute for institutions of administration and adjudication in the domestic system

9. Diplomatic strategy: three basic strategic plans: isolation, neutrality, and aggression • Isolation: e.g. U.S. until 20th century; Japan and China in 19th Century • Neutrality: e.g. Switzerland and Sweden • Aggression: Germany, Italy, Japan • What about U.S. today? • What about Russia? • What about members of European Union?

10. Tactics of diplomacy • Intervention: e.g. U.S. in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan; Russia in Ukraine and other former Soviet republics • Appeasement or compromise • Underground activity: secret movements, espionage sabotage treachery, subversion and guerilla warfare • Subversion: infiltration of political processes of a state to paralyze its opposition and undermine the loyalty of its citizens (5th columns) • Guerilla warfare: small-scale military operations within enemy territory • Propaganda and ideological warfare • Threats and promises

11. Diplomacy (summary) • Represents accumulative political and economic pressures upon each side formalized in the exchange of demands and concessions between negotiators • Inability of diplomacy to resolve conflicts of aims may lead to war • In addition to resolution of conflict, diplomatic negotiations may be used for embarrassment and/or delay

12. Crucial Factors in Diplomacy:power, policy and personnel

13. Power: role in diplomacy constant and conditioning • Seldom introduced into negotiations directly—usually remains concealed, but sufficiently revealed to strengthen the hand of the nation whose alternative to negotiations is economic or military warfare • Diplomacy may be substitute for power: the weaker a nation, the more it must rely on diplomacy as means of accomplishing ends. Russia? • Associating with strong partners, threatening to shift allegiance between opponents, carefully avoiding situations endangering their positions, small countries may achieve interests for longer periods than might be thought possible in terms of their industrial or military power • In final analysis, diplomacy without power quite limited

14. Policy • Where no policy, diplomacy doomed to failure; where ill-conceived policy, success improbable • Negotiators without directives may concede vital interests for sake of agreement or refuse possible concessions for sake of intransigence • Diplomat must also have precise understanding of the limits within which he may bargain to achieve those ends • Diplomat who assumes responsibility of formulating policy and negotiating for its attainment may be repudiated in a democracy or exterminated in some authoritarian countries

15. Personnel • Diplomacy may be conducted by heads of state, foreign secretaries overseas staffs of ambassadors, and career experts, special representatives or military leaders • All employed, often indiscriminately, in contemporary diplomacy—each has different consequences

16. Personnel: Heads of state • Best able to commit their countries, but may lack experience and burden of executive responsibilities may detract from preparation and concentration • Risk of personalization of policy increases with status of negotiator--removal of individual places such agreements in jeopardy (e.g. Stalin-Roosevelt) • Pressure on heads of state to produce results: necessity of coming home with "peace in our time" or "victory for our side"

17. Personnel: Foreign Ministers • Foreign secretaries combine high degree of political responsibility with intimate knowledge of over-all foreign policy • Also advantage of frequent contacts hence knowledge of their counterparts • As with heads of state, failure of negotiations can be political burden for minister and heavy load on him/her

18. Professional diplomats: • Negotiations rest most easily with conventional channels of diplomatic activity--professional overseas staff of ambassadors and career experts • Combination best suited for negotiations: experience, delegated responsibility, knowledge of local conditions relative anonymity, and freedom from other duties

19. Distribution of Power in International State System: Given ABSENCE of sovereign authority in international state system, what protects small nations from the large and preserves stability? alliances multipolar, and bipolar systems

20. Alliances • Unable to achieve ends unilaterally, augmentation of power by alliances • Continuum of purpose, degree to which interests of allies compatible • Alliance concluded between elites with totally different ends, but sharing a similar view of means (one partner aims at extending his territory at the expense of a thirds party; the other partner seeks to protect himself from possible attack by a third party--ends of self-extension and self-preservation demand the pooling of power by the partners • Agreement between elites agreeing on both ends and means • Most represent limited compatibility of interests--certain amount of collaboration and varying with respect to extend and duration of operation

21. Wartime alliances • Contractual obligations assumed in war differ radically in certain respects from those assumed in peace--frequently evolve into alliances of self-extension regardless of original intent of signatories • Originate with initiative of a sorely pressed nation in need of additional power to win the conflict--precludes careful sounding of interests and the definition of ends other than that of defeating common enemy • If help sought from party not otherwise faced with becoming involved in the conflict, generally purchased with spoils

22. Polarity of international systems • Multipolar: chief actors, whose forces are not too unequal, are relatively numerous • Bipolar: two actors dominate their rivals to such an extent that both become center of coalition--secondary actors obliged to situate themselves in relation to these two "blocs", joining one another, unless they have opportunity to abstain • Intermediate models possible, depending on the number of chief actors and the degree of equality or inequality of forces among the chief actors • Current world system?

23. Theory of collective security • Mutual responsibility and pooling of resources to maintain status quo • Requires all nations to join in one universal alliance rather than one or two balancing alliances

24. International Law: Potential and Limitations

25. Is there such a thing as international law? • If states recognize neither arbitrator nor tribunal nor laws superior to their will, and consequently, owe their existence and their security only to themselves or their allies, is not the very idea of international law absurd? • Is there such a thing as international law? If so, where does it come from, and why and to what extent do states obey it

26. Why states observe international law • Certain rules called “international law,” generally observed by states because it is in their interests to observe them • States generally observe international law because they can expect in return the obedience of other states to other international laws • Demands of international law are, on the whole, so light that the national interest can usually be promoted without serious violation

27. Main problem with international law is extremely limited scope • Includes such areas as recognition of states and governments, rules of maritime and aerial navigation, status and immunities of state officials and diplomats, responsibilities of states for actions of their citizens, formation and observance of treaties, methods for the pacific settlement of international disputes, rules related to the conduct of war and to questions of neutrality and military occupation

28. Why such limited scope? • Law-making process weakened by extreme decentralization--no authority to set rules for all • Unlike domestic law, states cannot be bound unless they accept and they interpret treaties and international law in terms of their national interest • States may renounce agreement by accusing other violation or by invoking controversial principle of "rebus sic standibus"--implies that a treaty lapses when circumstances change radically after signing (not considered legitimate but still used) • Subjects of international law also its makers and enforcers--claim final authority as interpreters of rules and assessors of legality of own actions

29. Where does international law come from? • Treaties binding only on signataries • Customary rules which have developed through general acceptance • General principles from world's major legal systems • Judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations

30. International Organization

31. Record to date disappointing • Study of international organization deals with how an organization based on concept of state sovereignty, in world of conflicting ideologies, racial differences, and rich and poor nations can help keep peace • Despite grandiose expectations of UN, as well as its predecessor, League of Nations, international organization has hardly provided key to lasting world peace

32. So, of what use is it? • UN brings almost all countries of the world together, where they are at least in contact with each other; sometimes, it provides a forum for letting off steam or a contact point for the resolution of misunderstandings • Sometimes, even if not always, some form of international cooperation and action does result from the UN--perhaps this will develop further

33. Specialized UN organizations • Accomplish much useful work, for example, World Trade Organization (WTO), Universal Postal Union, Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), World Health Organization (WHO)? International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) UNESCO, Internatioal Labor Organization (ILO) and regional organizations e.g. NATO, OSCE, European Union, Organization of American States (OAS), etc. http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/int.html

34. Foreign Policy: How is the international behavior of states determined?

35. Domestic and foreign inputs • Some inputs into the foreign-policy-making processes of states are domestic, other inputs come from the international system • Foreign policy makers cannot, as much as they would often like to, separate foreign policy from domestic policy and politics • Study of foreign policy thus involves studying the domestic policy processes of states