Hello, and you are welcome back to join our conversations about the theory of international relations. Last time, the subject under consideration was about the actors in international relations. Today, we're going to look at the methods and how these actors interact between them, and what is the main structuring element which builds up the entire composition of international society and defines the nature of relationships between the main actors. Today, our lecture is about power in international relations. It is going to be about the role of power, about the very concept of power, and most essentially, about how the scholars of international relations understand meaning of power and how power and an understanding makes international relations science different from political science, for example. But to start with, let us ask the question, what is power in international relations? Power is essentially one of the key concepts of an international relations theory, and in many respects, the cornerstone of political science, a science about power and patterns of power application. Usually, international relations scholars use two basic definitions of power. First, power is an actor's, state or non-governmental actor, ability to exercise influence over other actors, state, or non-state, within the international system. Such power is divided into many aspects: military, economic, power over human minds, or otherwise. The other definition of power is a state with a certain potential to influence the international system or the other actors, the other states. There are several types of power depending on the amount of capabilities: superpowers, great powers, middle powers, and else. Why power matters in international relations? Importance of power in international politics as the key aspect and driver of any actor's policy is determined by the structure of the entire international system. This international system is the context of action, international politics, in which every state is acting, is promoting its national interest, and power is an instrument to promote this national interest, and to achieve the state's goals. As the context of action in international politics and the nature of the international environment is the anarchy, meaning the absence of a centralized authority to protect states from one another, each state has to survive on its own. Therefore, states are, by definition, self-help agents, what makes accumulation of power the main aim of any actor, of any state. While these assumptions are based on the Realist view of the international politics, Liberals also share such security considerations. However, the Liberal approach proposes ideal models of peaceful international structure in the future, however, does not deny importance of power today. So, first we should understand, and first we should agree upon is that both main paradigms of international relations theory, Realist and Liberal, agree that power matters. However, the implication of the existence of power for both paradigms is essentially different. However, let us have a closer look at the role of power in domestic and international affairs. There is a drastic difference between the concept of power in international relations and political science, which studying domestic policy, which is called often politology. Actually, the understanding of power and understanding of the function of power and the nature of power is something what makes international relations theory different from the classical political science which is taught in the universities in order to help us to understand how the domestic political structures function, why politics matter, how the political leaders get to the power and how they keep the power, what one needs to do to get elected to the national legislative body. In international relations, power is different. In political science, power, as I have said, means the ability to influence or outright control other people primarily within the social structures, such as state, party, company, and others. In the most common sense, power is an instrument of governance. When you exercise power on the national level or in party, company, you govern directly. You make the laws, and you convince people to obey these laws by definition because they are subjects of a certain legitimate authority which you represent. But in international relations, it is completely different. In international relations, power means influence over formally equal and independent actors in an anarchic environment without any governing superstructures. From our lecture about the Westphalian system and the emergence of the modern state system, we know that, formally, all states are equal, and there is no world government, and moreover, it cannot be a world government. So, in international relations, power is understood as control, not direct governance. In international relations, one state or a couple of state do not make laws which others should obey. In international relations, there is no one single government. Every government is equal. As Kenneth Waltz said, "All states are equal, but their capabilities are different." And the search for meaning of these capabilities is the power of the states. The discussion about the role of power has been present in the international relations theory from the very beginning of our science. The early international relations thinkers considered power as the key driver of international politics already. We all remember great Greek philosopher and historian Thucydides, and according to Thucydides, the most important reason of the Peloponnesian war, about which he wrote his excellent book, was a fundamental shift in distribution of power between the ancient Athens and Sparta. Thucydides wrote, "The real cause I consider to be the one which was formerly most kept out of sight. The growth of the power of Athens, and the alarm which this inspired in Sparta, made war inevitable." So, from the very beginnings of our science, the power was considered as the main driver, and nations had been always taken account all the other nations' power. Therefore, in terms of anarchic environment, power and fear, rather than rules and/or any other factors regulate interaction between the states. This simple but genial conclusion made by an ancient historian two and half thousand years ago became a cornerstone of the international relations science. To understand the nature of international politics, we need to understand the nature of power. Edward Hallett Carr, the British historian and political scientist, actually, was not only the father of the modern international relations science, but also, he was the first who developed a more comprehensive concept of power. Actually, his account of power is a classic one, and all studies have been based on the assumptions made by the Edward Hallett Carr in his great book about the beginnings and the reasons of the Second World War. Following the classical approach, Edward Carr assumed priority of power relations in international relations generally. According to him, power regulates all aspects of international politics, including morals and laws, reflecting the current distribution of power, as well as in Niccolo Machiavelli several hundred years ago, Edward Carr assumed that there is no universal morals in international relations, and no universal laws in international relations. Those morals and laws, who are dominant at a certain moment, are belonging to countries which represent the power, which is able to promote and to defend these morals and laws. So, for Edward Hallett Carr, there are no universal morals and laws, and those morals and laws, which are considered dominant at a certain political moment, belong to the countries which have enough power to promote their morals and laws over the other members of international community. But now, let us consider the three major types of power according to the Edward Hallett Carr.
