Systematic Approach

System (FP Making of Powers)

Power

-        Central to IR

-        Power/ knowledge relationship

National Attributes & FP

-       Size: Large states may be more active in FP & harder to defeat in war+ Small states constrained in what they can achieve

-       Natural Resources: availability/ scarcity can generate FP behaviours

-        Geography: access to water, land features, borders/ proximity to neighbouring states

-        Political System: distribution of political power, DEM peace thesis

-        Military Capabilities: defence $, hardware, manpower, innovation

-       Econ Capabilities & Interactions: globalisation, import/ export dependencies

International Recognition

-        Membership of UN Security Council

-       Other IGO membership

Great Powers

-       States with large power capabilities & willingness to use when necessary

-       Hegemonic powers

-       E.g: US, China, Russia

Middle Powers

-        Engage with int mediation, peacekeeping consensus building within int orgs

-        Form of self-identification

-        See themselves as protectors of int order -> based on states that are internally stable, peaceful, peaceful, externally cooperative

-        May be vulnerable to changes in GP relations

-        E.g: CAN, AUS, NOR

Small Powers

-        Suffer from internal/ external legitimacy problems

-       May engage in clientelist relationships with GP: Patron-client

-       E.g: JORD, SYR

1.     Holistic Perspective

-        View of how int system influence state behaviour, role of power dynamics, alliances & institutions

-        Explains why states may side with powerful actors

-       E.g: CW, US/USSR FP influenced by bipolar structure

2.     Predictive Power

-        Predict state behaviour based on distribution of power & systemic constraints

-       E.g: rise of China suggests potential conflict with US

3.     Focus on Structural Constraints

-        How states’ actions constrained by global system’s structure

-       E.g: small states like FIN adopt neutral FP due to position in system dominated by GP

4.     Explains Recurring Pattern

-        Recurring phenomena: security dilemma/ cycles of war + peace

-       E.g: Arms race between US + USSR= product of security dilemma

1.     Ignores Domestic Factors

-        Overlooks importance of dom pol, culture, leadership in shaping FP

-       E.g: US decision to invade Iraq can’t be explained fully by systemic factors alone-> dom considerations played critical role

2.     Limited Agency for Individual Actors

-        Downplays role individual leaders & D-M

-        FP is often shaped by personalities, beliefs

-       E.g: Cuban Missile Crisis influenced by JFK & Khrushchev

3.     Deterministic Approach

-        Suggests states have little choice but to act according to systemic pressures

-       E.g: offensive realism posits all states seek power maximisation, SWITZ does not

4.     Inability to Explain Change

-        Can’t explain sudden shifts in int system

-       E.g: can’t explain collapse of USSR & unipolar US system that followed