INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY 2024-2025
CHAPTER 1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION & BUILDING BLOCKS
We analyze INT politics by breaking them down in analytical building blocks
(from individual to state level). Other remarks: why international relations theory?
- We make claims about the ontology (not epistemology) of INT politics.
- Theory’s can contribute in a (1) analytical, (2) explanatory and (3) normative way.
1. Levels of analysis - Each theory focuses on specific elements: they are like different lenses and each
= We use different spheres in social reality has there biases
(From the individual to the entire world —> Relevance of theories can therefore vary across time and space.
history) to understand causes for INT - Theory’s offer insight to understand; but to understand ≠ to approve/ justify!
phenomena. (ex. To understand Putin’s reason for war ≠ justifying it)
Example: analyzing Trumps foreign policy This course offers a general introduction (so consult literature for sophisticated elaborations,
- Many refer to his personality (individual level) so you can use IR in bachelor and master dissertations.
as a ‘transactional and populistic businessman’
But: We could invoke other levels of analysis as well:
- The election of Trump is a consequence of a broader right-wing and protectionist current
in the US. Another Republican candidate could also have won. So, beyond individuality, the relations between
- This current would’ve also influenced that candidates foreign policy in a same way. societal currents and political parties also matter.
But: any US president is keen to maintain the country’s power position
- Whatever the ideologies of congress and the administration, the US will respond to threats = level of the domestic politics
and opportunity’s that arise from the international structure.
So we can distinguish different LEVELS OF ANALYSIS (every IR theory will adopt a position concerning which levels of hold the
most explanatory value - they are ontological phenomena and epistemological tools!).
Kenneth Waltz identified ‘three images’ or 3 levels of analysis:
1. HUMAN NATURE AND INDIVIDUALS 2. THE STATE 3. THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM
image, but they are quite different categories; so its not advisable to adopt the images
HUMAN NATURE (in general) = Some say all states want to survive and are STRUCTURAL REALISM/ NEOREALISM
This is a source of criticism on Watlz images: these 2 are both included in the first
= War and other INT actions have often been power greedy = third image is Waltz’ favorite. He thinks the
reduced to the nature of humankind. INT system is anarchical (no supraN
There is a wide diversity of states: government) in which states have to rely on
- ex: (state)persons are bad by nature (cf - Democratic S blame authoritarian S for self-help for their survival.
classical realism - pessimistic) ww1 & 2. —> conduct a defense policy, preserve
- ex: (s)p are peaceful by bird: if some - Communist S blame capitalist S to be sovereignty, don’t let break-away
religions go easily, securing terr. integrity, …
people make mistakes (slavery, inherently aggressive/ expansionist
(no matter who is in charge, they tends to
ww1/2, Holocaust, …), future and vice versa. take care of these priorities).
generations can learn from the
mistakes and caused trauma’s. But: democratic peace theory GEOGRAPHY
to summarize the levels of analysis debat
(cf Liberalism - more optimistic) = democratic states almost never fight = Others find that the GEO situation of
wars among each other, they are countries influences their foreign policy.
But: explanatory value is limited. inherently more peaceful (= the - Ex. Russia’s obsession with icee free
+ does difference between men and monadic claim) seas & invasions from the west
women matter for explaining IR? (Napoleon, Hitler, NAVO expansion?).
—> no robust statistical correlation States vary also in their history and culture,
(see infra) which form their foreign policy’s WORLD SYSTEM ANALYSIS (I. Wallerstein)
—> States have developed a strategic = W analyses the rise and fall of hegemonic
THE INDIVIDUAL (more variety) culture that remains stable over powers in the context of the capitalist
They can make a difference in IR when the time (but can shift through societal, world-system.
institutional setting gives them room to make party, external developments)
a substantial difference ! However, mediated by domestic SECOND IMAGE REVERSED (Gourevitch)
- ex. Hitler, Gorbachev, Stalin, … institutions = how developments in the INT system shape
- See also literature: Ian Kershaw. the nature of states (with a focus on how
they adapt their society/ economy in to
But: most of individuals are constrained by external pressures).
the domestic institutional setting and - Ex. Meji restauration Japan
international confines.
TWO-LEVEL GAMES (Putnam)
= P identified Level I (multilateral forums
where states negotiate) and Level II (domestic
area were actors decide the national position
P is interested in the interaction between the levels: they are going to defend at level I).
- Countries with less domestic power have
smaller win-sets, and are therefore a
Here they make a win
thougher negotiator at Level I (and vice versa). An INT agreement is only
set (= possible deals that possible when there is
—> This is why the US has a strong position. overlap between counties’
would receive approval
In multiL agreements, Congres is quite win-sets.
stubborn and critical. at home).
,OTHER LEVELS OF ANALYSIS: DIPLOMATIC AND INSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES
These can also be a level of analysis of its own
THE WORLD SOCIETY = We can for ex ask ourselves if the quality of
Post WWII Liberal schools drew attention to importance diplomacy matter for decision making.
of transnational interaction and economic interdependence: - Ex. Global climate negotiations are organized in a
- In this context J. Burton proposed the cobweb-model VN/ COP format, would a different setting lead
- Keohane & Nye elaborated with ‘complex interdependence’. to different outcomes?
= a state-centric model isnt enough because trade, migration, …
transcend national borders. THE DISCURSIVE STRUCTURE
- J. Scholte uses the concept polycentrism = the political debate is characterized
= power is spread over governments, but also non-state actors such by competing discourses (sets of ideas).
as IO’s, banks and supraN institutions (EU, EMF, …).
- Also the term new medievalism emerged Together these form a discursive structure in which
= states have to share authority with other non state-actors some can become more powerful/ dominant (or even
(<-> medieval ages with cities) hegemonic) than others (= a hierarchy of ideas).
THE TOTALITY AND HISTORY OF THE (SOCIAL) REALITY Discourses can empower/ disempower actors (an
= Global history considers the social reality (including its past and future) as actor whose interests is in line with a dominant
one ontological reality. discourse is more powerful.
—> The structural interconnections hold explanatory value on their own. (ex: Western countries say the Russia-Ukraine war is about
- ex: the decolonization in the 1950s helped to make history more defending democracy, which justifies helping Ukraine).
equal and inclusive. —> That’s why its a level of analysis.
- In 1990 J. Bentley founded the journal of world history, making
analysis, not from the viewpoint of national states, but from the
global community. However: there is disagreement over whether there is
<-> In 2003 the journal of global history was founded, with a a meaningful difference between these two.
broader focus on globalization.
- Richard Denmark brings Wallerstein’s World system analysis - The postcolonial tradition has a holistic perspective
(see waltz third image) more in line with the global history and think that imperialism and colonialism have
approach. shaped the world order until this day.
2. Actors (What INT politics are made of)
= entities that (1) are clearly defined and (2) can take decisions (with autonomy)
DIFFERENT ACTORS:
1) The state 4) Individuals/ FP elites
= Is a unitary actor, consisting of the national bodies which = individual decision-makers can also have the autonomy to
determine foreign policy. make a difference in INT politics.
2) Transnational government networks 5) Global public policy networks
= networks of N governments, organized within multilateral = informal networks of government actors, multinational
institutions (ex. Environmental ministries). companies and NGO’s that collaborate on a cause of global
—> Together they form a consensus on societal problems governance (ex vaccines, renewable energy).
(eg climate change). - Works with a memorandum of understanding, not a
—> The growing importance of these networks (1) treaty.
illustrates the modernization of the world society and - Are flexible and add expertise to governmental actors.
(2) contributes to the erosion of the Westphalian - But can be used to evade responsibility and their
state model (where int contact occur through composition holds a bias in terms of agenda &
diplomats). priorities, influenced by the main funders.
—> But: this evolution is also associated with a democratic
deficit as they are quite technical and not transparent. 6) NGO’s
(ex. The 2008 fin crisis illustrates what can go wrong = NGO’s often posses a moral power/ expertise that allow
when these networks form a flawed consensus). them to make a difference in INT politics.
3) IGO’s 7) Epistemic communities
= INT organizations, set up by governments. = transnational networks of experts in a given field such as
- Formal with treaty (ex. UN, WTO, IMF), or informal international panel on climate change.
without one (G20, BRICS). - But: same issues with democratic transparency occur.
—> we accept them as actors because they have their
own dynamic that transcend the interaction between 8) Classes
states = In Marxist literature, classes are key actors.
—> Even the secretariats of IGO’s can be seen as actors. —> Goes beyond just capital and labor.
(ex. Secretary-General of the UN has a degree of - Protectionists (defend the N market) vs
moral authority). internationalists (more competitive)
- Productive vs financial capital, …
There is a link between the level of analysis and the actors: the acceptance of a certain level of analysis as the ontological most
relevant, often implies assumptions on the relevance of certain actors.
- ex. Neoliberalism considers states as the only relevant actors.
- see all examples p 12 Building Blocks.
,3. Interests (what actors want)
There are 3 sorts of interests:
1) Material interests 2) Immaterial interests 3) Red lines
= states pursue security against = ethical values, psychological = a scenario that an actor wont accept
physical threats and economic welfare. satisfaction with regard to social status, and will try to counter in any way.
honor or prestige.
= organizations seek bureaucratic —> When others respect these, it can —> these illustrate the varying
maximization (attract resources so they empower states (& vice versa intensity to pursue & defend its
can stay relevant). —> revenge). interests.
—> these are human-made: so seldom
Actors often combine these two. absolute, can shift and are
ex. When a state is confronted with the question of humanitarian subject to interpretation.
intervention.
= Ethical values can motivate an intervention, but material values like
the risk for the troops can matter.
How are interest formed?
Different IR theories have different ideas on how interest are formed: The forming of interests is also a multi-
layered process: one interest can be
1. Neorealism: considers states as units whose interests are derived from the derived from the other.
competitive structure of the anarchical INT system.
2. Classical realist find that it is in states inherent nature to build-up (<-> give up Ex. US:
power) by prioritizing the preservation of status, 1 - US wants security
territorial integrity, security, institutional power within multilateral organizations, … 2 - They need a strong economy
3. Liberals look at the different interests of domestic actors. State policies then 3 - US want to secure oil supply
reflect the power balance between those respective interests. 4 - Us wants control over Persian gulf
4. Constructivism : interests are socially constructed (Some governments might
think that a progressive climate policy makes them less competitive, while others
think global warming will damage their economy in the long (even mid-) term.
3. Power (what actors can) By understanding different forms of power exertion, we can
make more sense of the sources:
= to accomplish interests, actors need power.
“In general terms, power is the production, in and
through social relations, of effects that shape the
- Power is an essentially contested concept; capacities of actors to determine their circumstances
we make a distinction between… and fate.” (Barnett & Duvall 2005)
1) Power-as-resources approach = to have power means
to possess power resources (military and economic capabilities) —> this def assumes that power is inherently relational
2) Relational power approach = focuses on actual power exertion and occurs between actors.
in a relationship between actors (the form of power exertion
depends on the power resources an actor has). We can also see this in their taxonomy of power:
1. Direct/ indirect power: 1. Compulsory P = power exertion is interactive and direct. A
A has a direct effect on B/ compels B to do something that B otherwise wouldn’t have done.
a factor stands between
(eg UN-mandated US operation to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait)
A and B
(also incl. Deterrence: eg preventing Russia from using nuclear weapons)
2. P works through:
The interaction between actors/ 2. Institutional P = power exertion is interactive, but diffuse cuz it’s
The constitutions mediated through an institution. Statues/ rules in institutions can give
some actors more power than others.
4.1. Soft Power (variant of productive power) (eg Veto power of the permanent members in the UN safety Counsil)
= occurs when one actor gets other actors to want what
it wants 3. Structural P = power exertion is direct, but constitutive: the
—> always implies one actor influencing the structural relationship determine the nature of the actors.
other’s hearts and minds, reshaping the other’s (eg structural power relationship between colonizers & colonized)
beliefs and even interest definitions.
4. Productive/ discursive P = power exertion is indirect (language
—> Actors who posses soft power have control over mediates between actors) and constitutional (it gives actors more or
the discursive structure and can shape world views less power).
of others to their own advantage. —> you connect an actor, through language, with existing powerful
discourses to empower/ disempower them.
Hard power = Compels the other to (not) do certain things, (eg labeling a state as ‘rogue state’, ‘member of the axis of evil’, ‘dictator’,
without any change of hearts & minds. ‘populist’ <-> ‘democracy’, ‘freedom fighters’,
(!! So distinction has nothing to do with economic vs military means !! ) —> when you get a positive label, you can get more done from other
actors, such as military support & protection).
Sources of power:
—> actors can even empower themselves by linguistically
1. Material resources (military capabilities, GDP/ population, connecting their interests to established empowering
geography, market power, …). discourses. (eg Ukraine connects themselves to discourses such as
fighting for sovereignty, Western/ EU values/ identity).
2. Immaterial sources (institutional set-up (eg less checks and balances), quality of diplomacy or intelligence services , willingness
to use resources (ethical constraints, public opinion)), privileged positions in international institutions, an actors position in the
discursive structure, …
For this material resources like propaganda/ obtaining influence through economic aid could also help.
CHAPTER 1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION & BUILDING BLOCKS
We analyze INT politics by breaking them down in analytical building blocks
(from individual to state level). Other remarks: why international relations theory?
- We make claims about the ontology (not epistemology) of INT politics.
- Theory’s can contribute in a (1) analytical, (2) explanatory and (3) normative way.
1. Levels of analysis - Each theory focuses on specific elements: they are like different lenses and each
= We use different spheres in social reality has there biases
(From the individual to the entire world —> Relevance of theories can therefore vary across time and space.
history) to understand causes for INT - Theory’s offer insight to understand; but to understand ≠ to approve/ justify!
phenomena. (ex. To understand Putin’s reason for war ≠ justifying it)
Example: analyzing Trumps foreign policy This course offers a general introduction (so consult literature for sophisticated elaborations,
- Many refer to his personality (individual level) so you can use IR in bachelor and master dissertations.
as a ‘transactional and populistic businessman’
But: We could invoke other levels of analysis as well:
- The election of Trump is a consequence of a broader right-wing and protectionist current
in the US. Another Republican candidate could also have won. So, beyond individuality, the relations between
- This current would’ve also influenced that candidates foreign policy in a same way. societal currents and political parties also matter.
But: any US president is keen to maintain the country’s power position
- Whatever the ideologies of congress and the administration, the US will respond to threats = level of the domestic politics
and opportunity’s that arise from the international structure.
So we can distinguish different LEVELS OF ANALYSIS (every IR theory will adopt a position concerning which levels of hold the
most explanatory value - they are ontological phenomena and epistemological tools!).
Kenneth Waltz identified ‘three images’ or 3 levels of analysis:
1. HUMAN NATURE AND INDIVIDUALS 2. THE STATE 3. THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM
image, but they are quite different categories; so its not advisable to adopt the images
HUMAN NATURE (in general) = Some say all states want to survive and are STRUCTURAL REALISM/ NEOREALISM
This is a source of criticism on Watlz images: these 2 are both included in the first
= War and other INT actions have often been power greedy = third image is Waltz’ favorite. He thinks the
reduced to the nature of humankind. INT system is anarchical (no supraN
There is a wide diversity of states: government) in which states have to rely on
- ex: (state)persons are bad by nature (cf - Democratic S blame authoritarian S for self-help for their survival.
classical realism - pessimistic) ww1 & 2. —> conduct a defense policy, preserve
- ex: (s)p are peaceful by bird: if some - Communist S blame capitalist S to be sovereignty, don’t let break-away
religions go easily, securing terr. integrity, …
people make mistakes (slavery, inherently aggressive/ expansionist
(no matter who is in charge, they tends to
ww1/2, Holocaust, …), future and vice versa. take care of these priorities).
generations can learn from the
mistakes and caused trauma’s. But: democratic peace theory GEOGRAPHY
to summarize the levels of analysis debat
(cf Liberalism - more optimistic) = democratic states almost never fight = Others find that the GEO situation of
wars among each other, they are countries influences their foreign policy.
But: explanatory value is limited. inherently more peaceful (= the - Ex. Russia’s obsession with icee free
+ does difference between men and monadic claim) seas & invasions from the west
women matter for explaining IR? (Napoleon, Hitler, NAVO expansion?).
—> no robust statistical correlation States vary also in their history and culture,
(see infra) which form their foreign policy’s WORLD SYSTEM ANALYSIS (I. Wallerstein)
—> States have developed a strategic = W analyses the rise and fall of hegemonic
THE INDIVIDUAL (more variety) culture that remains stable over powers in the context of the capitalist
They can make a difference in IR when the time (but can shift through societal, world-system.
institutional setting gives them room to make party, external developments)
a substantial difference ! However, mediated by domestic SECOND IMAGE REVERSED (Gourevitch)
- ex. Hitler, Gorbachev, Stalin, … institutions = how developments in the INT system shape
- See also literature: Ian Kershaw. the nature of states (with a focus on how
they adapt their society/ economy in to
But: most of individuals are constrained by external pressures).
the domestic institutional setting and - Ex. Meji restauration Japan
international confines.
TWO-LEVEL GAMES (Putnam)
= P identified Level I (multilateral forums
where states negotiate) and Level II (domestic
area were actors decide the national position
P is interested in the interaction between the levels: they are going to defend at level I).
- Countries with less domestic power have
smaller win-sets, and are therefore a
Here they make a win
thougher negotiator at Level I (and vice versa). An INT agreement is only
set (= possible deals that possible when there is
—> This is why the US has a strong position. overlap between counties’
would receive approval
In multiL agreements, Congres is quite win-sets.
stubborn and critical. at home).
,OTHER LEVELS OF ANALYSIS: DIPLOMATIC AND INSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES
These can also be a level of analysis of its own
THE WORLD SOCIETY = We can for ex ask ourselves if the quality of
Post WWII Liberal schools drew attention to importance diplomacy matter for decision making.
of transnational interaction and economic interdependence: - Ex. Global climate negotiations are organized in a
- In this context J. Burton proposed the cobweb-model VN/ COP format, would a different setting lead
- Keohane & Nye elaborated with ‘complex interdependence’. to different outcomes?
= a state-centric model isnt enough because trade, migration, …
transcend national borders. THE DISCURSIVE STRUCTURE
- J. Scholte uses the concept polycentrism = the political debate is characterized
= power is spread over governments, but also non-state actors such by competing discourses (sets of ideas).
as IO’s, banks and supraN institutions (EU, EMF, …).
- Also the term new medievalism emerged Together these form a discursive structure in which
= states have to share authority with other non state-actors some can become more powerful/ dominant (or even
(<-> medieval ages with cities) hegemonic) than others (= a hierarchy of ideas).
THE TOTALITY AND HISTORY OF THE (SOCIAL) REALITY Discourses can empower/ disempower actors (an
= Global history considers the social reality (including its past and future) as actor whose interests is in line with a dominant
one ontological reality. discourse is more powerful.
—> The structural interconnections hold explanatory value on their own. (ex: Western countries say the Russia-Ukraine war is about
- ex: the decolonization in the 1950s helped to make history more defending democracy, which justifies helping Ukraine).
equal and inclusive. —> That’s why its a level of analysis.
- In 1990 J. Bentley founded the journal of world history, making
analysis, not from the viewpoint of national states, but from the
global community. However: there is disagreement over whether there is
<-> In 2003 the journal of global history was founded, with a a meaningful difference between these two.
broader focus on globalization.
- Richard Denmark brings Wallerstein’s World system analysis - The postcolonial tradition has a holistic perspective
(see waltz third image) more in line with the global history and think that imperialism and colonialism have
approach. shaped the world order until this day.
2. Actors (What INT politics are made of)
= entities that (1) are clearly defined and (2) can take decisions (with autonomy)
DIFFERENT ACTORS:
1) The state 4) Individuals/ FP elites
= Is a unitary actor, consisting of the national bodies which = individual decision-makers can also have the autonomy to
determine foreign policy. make a difference in INT politics.
2) Transnational government networks 5) Global public policy networks
= networks of N governments, organized within multilateral = informal networks of government actors, multinational
institutions (ex. Environmental ministries). companies and NGO’s that collaborate on a cause of global
—> Together they form a consensus on societal problems governance (ex vaccines, renewable energy).
(eg climate change). - Works with a memorandum of understanding, not a
—> The growing importance of these networks (1) treaty.
illustrates the modernization of the world society and - Are flexible and add expertise to governmental actors.
(2) contributes to the erosion of the Westphalian - But can be used to evade responsibility and their
state model (where int contact occur through composition holds a bias in terms of agenda &
diplomats). priorities, influenced by the main funders.
—> But: this evolution is also associated with a democratic
deficit as they are quite technical and not transparent. 6) NGO’s
(ex. The 2008 fin crisis illustrates what can go wrong = NGO’s often posses a moral power/ expertise that allow
when these networks form a flawed consensus). them to make a difference in INT politics.
3) IGO’s 7) Epistemic communities
= INT organizations, set up by governments. = transnational networks of experts in a given field such as
- Formal with treaty (ex. UN, WTO, IMF), or informal international panel on climate change.
without one (G20, BRICS). - But: same issues with democratic transparency occur.
—> we accept them as actors because they have their
own dynamic that transcend the interaction between 8) Classes
states = In Marxist literature, classes are key actors.
—> Even the secretariats of IGO’s can be seen as actors. —> Goes beyond just capital and labor.
(ex. Secretary-General of the UN has a degree of - Protectionists (defend the N market) vs
moral authority). internationalists (more competitive)
- Productive vs financial capital, …
There is a link between the level of analysis and the actors: the acceptance of a certain level of analysis as the ontological most
relevant, often implies assumptions on the relevance of certain actors.
- ex. Neoliberalism considers states as the only relevant actors.
- see all examples p 12 Building Blocks.
,3. Interests (what actors want)
There are 3 sorts of interests:
1) Material interests 2) Immaterial interests 3) Red lines
= states pursue security against = ethical values, psychological = a scenario that an actor wont accept
physical threats and economic welfare. satisfaction with regard to social status, and will try to counter in any way.
honor or prestige.
= organizations seek bureaucratic —> When others respect these, it can —> these illustrate the varying
maximization (attract resources so they empower states (& vice versa intensity to pursue & defend its
can stay relevant). —> revenge). interests.
—> these are human-made: so seldom
Actors often combine these two. absolute, can shift and are
ex. When a state is confronted with the question of humanitarian subject to interpretation.
intervention.
= Ethical values can motivate an intervention, but material values like
the risk for the troops can matter.
How are interest formed?
Different IR theories have different ideas on how interest are formed: The forming of interests is also a multi-
layered process: one interest can be
1. Neorealism: considers states as units whose interests are derived from the derived from the other.
competitive structure of the anarchical INT system.
2. Classical realist find that it is in states inherent nature to build-up (<-> give up Ex. US:
power) by prioritizing the preservation of status, 1 - US wants security
territorial integrity, security, institutional power within multilateral organizations, … 2 - They need a strong economy
3. Liberals look at the different interests of domestic actors. State policies then 3 - US want to secure oil supply
reflect the power balance between those respective interests. 4 - Us wants control over Persian gulf
4. Constructivism : interests are socially constructed (Some governments might
think that a progressive climate policy makes them less competitive, while others
think global warming will damage their economy in the long (even mid-) term.
3. Power (what actors can) By understanding different forms of power exertion, we can
make more sense of the sources:
= to accomplish interests, actors need power.
“In general terms, power is the production, in and
through social relations, of effects that shape the
- Power is an essentially contested concept; capacities of actors to determine their circumstances
we make a distinction between… and fate.” (Barnett & Duvall 2005)
1) Power-as-resources approach = to have power means
to possess power resources (military and economic capabilities) —> this def assumes that power is inherently relational
2) Relational power approach = focuses on actual power exertion and occurs between actors.
in a relationship between actors (the form of power exertion
depends on the power resources an actor has). We can also see this in their taxonomy of power:
1. Direct/ indirect power: 1. Compulsory P = power exertion is interactive and direct. A
A has a direct effect on B/ compels B to do something that B otherwise wouldn’t have done.
a factor stands between
(eg UN-mandated US operation to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait)
A and B
(also incl. Deterrence: eg preventing Russia from using nuclear weapons)
2. P works through:
The interaction between actors/ 2. Institutional P = power exertion is interactive, but diffuse cuz it’s
The constitutions mediated through an institution. Statues/ rules in institutions can give
some actors more power than others.
4.1. Soft Power (variant of productive power) (eg Veto power of the permanent members in the UN safety Counsil)
= occurs when one actor gets other actors to want what
it wants 3. Structural P = power exertion is direct, but constitutive: the
—> always implies one actor influencing the structural relationship determine the nature of the actors.
other’s hearts and minds, reshaping the other’s (eg structural power relationship between colonizers & colonized)
beliefs and even interest definitions.
4. Productive/ discursive P = power exertion is indirect (language
—> Actors who posses soft power have control over mediates between actors) and constitutional (it gives actors more or
the discursive structure and can shape world views less power).
of others to their own advantage. —> you connect an actor, through language, with existing powerful
discourses to empower/ disempower them.
Hard power = Compels the other to (not) do certain things, (eg labeling a state as ‘rogue state’, ‘member of the axis of evil’, ‘dictator’,
without any change of hearts & minds. ‘populist’ <-> ‘democracy’, ‘freedom fighters’,
(!! So distinction has nothing to do with economic vs military means !! ) —> when you get a positive label, you can get more done from other
actors, such as military support & protection).
Sources of power:
—> actors can even empower themselves by linguistically
1. Material resources (military capabilities, GDP/ population, connecting their interests to established empowering
geography, market power, …). discourses. (eg Ukraine connects themselves to discourses such as
fighting for sovereignty, Western/ EU values/ identity).
2. Immaterial sources (institutional set-up (eg less checks and balances), quality of diplomacy or intelligence services , willingness
to use resources (ethical constraints, public opinion)), privileged positions in international institutions, an actors position in the
discursive structure, …
For this material resources like propaganda/ obtaining influence through economic aid could also help.
