Editing International relations (section)

===Systemic level concepts===
International relations are often viewed in terms of ''levels of analysis''. The ''systemic level'' concepts are those broad concepts that define and shape an international milieu, characterized by [[Anarchy in international relations|anarchy]]. Focusing on the systemic level of international relations is often, but not always, the preferred method for neo-realists and other structuralist IR analysts.

====Sovereignty====
{{Main|Westphalian sovereignty}}

Preceding the concepts of interdependence and dependence, international relations relies on the idea of sovereignty. Described in [[Jean Bodin]]'s ''Six Books of the Commonwealth'' in 1576, the three pivotal points derived from the book describe sovereignty as being a state, that the sovereign power(s) have absolute power over their territories, and that such a power is only limited by the sovereign's "own obligations towards other sovereigns and individuals".{{sfnp|Mimiko|2012|page=13}} Such a foundation of sovereignty is indicated by a sovereign's obligation to other sovereigns, interdependence and dependence to take place. While throughout world history there have been instances of groups lacking or losing sovereignty, such as African nations prior to decolonization or the occupation of Iraq during the [[Iraq War]], there is still a need for sovereignty in terms of assessing international relations.

====Power====
{{Main|Power (international relations)}}

The concept of power in international relations can be described as the degree of resources, capabilities, and influence in international affairs. It is often divided up into the concepts of [[hard power]] and [[soft power]], hard power relating primarily to coercive power, such as the use of force, and soft power commonly covering [[economics]], [[diplomacy]], and [[Culture|cultural]] influence. However, there is no clear dividing line between the two forms of power.

====National interest====
Perhaps the most significant concept behind that of power and sovereignty, [[national interest]] is a state's action in relation to other states where it seeks to gain advantage or benefits to itself. National interest, whether aspirational or operational, is divided by core/vital and peripheral/non-vital interests. Core or vital interests constitute the things which a country is willing to defend or expand with conflict such as territory, ideology (religious, political, economic), or its citizens. Peripheral or non-vital are interests which a state is willing to compromise. For example, in Germany's annexation of the [[Sudetenland]] in 1938 (a part of Czechoslovakia) under the [[Munich Agreement]], Czechoslovakia was willing to relinquish territory which was considered ethnically German in order to preserve its own integrity and sovereignty.{{sfnp|Mimiko|2012|pages=17–20}}

====Non-state actors====
In the 21st century, the status-quo of the international system is no longer monopolized by states alone. Rather, it is the presence of non-state actors, who autonomously act to implement unpredictable behaviour to the international system. Whether it is [[transnational corporations]], [[liberation movements]], [[non-governmental agencies]], or [[international organizations]], these entities have the potential to significantly influence the outcome of any international transaction. Additionally, this also includes the individual person as while the individual is what constitutes the states collective entity, the individual does have the potential to also create unpredicted behaviours. [[Al-Qaeda]], as an example of a non-state actor, has significantly influenced the way states (and non-state actors) conduct international affairs.{{sfnp|Mimiko|2012|pages=14–15}}

====Power blocs====
The existence of power blocs in international relations is a significant factor related to [[Polarity (international relations)|polarity]]. During the [[Cold War]], the alignment of several nations to one side or another based on ideological differences or national interests has become an endemic feature of international relations. Unlike prior, shorter-term blocs, the [[Western Bloc| Western]] and [[Eastern Bloc]]s sought to spread their national ideological differences to other nations. Leaders like US President [[Harry S. Truman]] under the [[Truman Doctrine]] believed it was necessary to spread democracy whereas the [[Warsaw Pact]] under Soviet policy sought to spread [[communism]]. After the Cold War, and the dissolution of the ideologically homogeneous Eastern Bloc still gave rise to others such as the [[South-South Cooperation]] movement.{{sfnp|Mimiko|2012|pages= 15–16}}

====Polarity====
{{Main|Polarity (international relations)}}
[[File:World empires and colonies around World War I.png|thumb|Empires of the world in 1910]]
Polarity in international relations refers to the arrangement of power within the international system. The concept arose from bipolarity during the [[Cold War]], with the international system dominated by the conflict between two [[superpower]]s, and has been applied retrospectively by theorists. However, the term bipolar was notably used by Stalin who said he saw the international system as a bipolar one with two opposing power bases and ideologies. Consequently, the international system prior to 1945 can be described as multipolar, with power being shared among [[great power]]s.

The [[Dissolution of the Soviet Union|collapse of the Soviet Union]] in 1991 had led to unipolarity, with the United States as a sole superpower, although many refuse to acknowledge the fact. [[China]]'s continued rapid economic growth—it became the world's second-largest economy in 2010—respectable international position, and the power the Chinese government exerts over its people (consisting of the second largest population in the world), resulted in debate over whether China is now a superpower or a possible candidate in the future. However, China's strategic force unable of projecting power beyond its region and its nuclear arsenal of 250 warheads (compared to 7,315+ of the United States<ref>{{Cite web |title=Federation of American Scientists :: Status of World Nuclear Forces |url=https://programs.fas.org/ssp/nukes/nuclearweapons/nukestatus.html |access-date=2023-11-20 |website=programs.fas.org}}</ref>) mean that the unipolarity will persist in the policy-relevant future.

Several theories of international relations draw upon the idea of [[polarity (power)|polarity]]. The [[Balance of power in international relations|balance of power]] was a concept prevalent in Europe prior to the [[World War I|First World War]], the thought being that by balancing power blocs it would create stability and prevent war. Theories of the balance of power gained prominence again during the [[Cold War]], being a central mechanism of [[Kenneth Waltz]]'s [[Neorealism (international relations)|neorealism]]. Here, the concepts of balancing (rising in power to counter another) and [[Bandwagoning|bandwagoning]] (siding with another) are developed.

[[Robert Gilpin]]'s [[hegemonic stability theory]] also draws upon the idea of polarity, specifically the state of unipolarity. [[Hegemony]] is the preponderance of power at one pole in the international system, and the theory argues this is a stable configuration because of mutual gains by both the dominant power and others in the international system. This is contrary to many neorealist arguments, particularly made by Waltz, stating that the end of the Cold War and the state of unipolarity is an unstable configuration that will inevitably change.

The case of Gilpin proved to be correct and Waltz's article titled "The Stability of a Bipolar World"<ref>Daedalus, 93/3: (1964), 881–909.</ref> was followed in 1999 by [[William Wohlforth]]'s article titled "The Stability of a Unipolar World".<ref>International Security, 24/1: (1999), 5–41.</ref>

Waltz's thesis can be expressed in [[power transition theory]], which states that it is likely that a [[great power]] would challenge a hegemon after a certain period, resulting in a major war. It suggests that while hegemony can control the occurrence of wars, it also results in the creation of one. Its main proponent, [[A. F. K. Organski]], argued this based on the occurrence of previous wars during British, Portuguese, and Dutch hegemony.

====Interdependence====
Many advocate that the current international system is characterized by growing interdependence; the mutual responsibility and dependency on others. Advocates of this point to growing [[globalization]], particularly with international economic interaction. The role of international institutions, and widespread acceptance of a number of operating principles in the international system, reinforces ideas that relations are characterized by interdependence.

====Dependency====
[[File:ISAF soldier looking for enemy positions in Kunar Province of Afghanistan.jpg|thumb|[[NATO]] [[International Security Assistance Force]] in [[Afghanistan]]]]
[[Dependency theory]] is a theory most commonly associated with [[Marxism]], stating that a set of core states exploit a set of weaker periphery states for their prosperity. Various versions of the theory suggest that this is either an inevitability (standard dependency theory), or use the theory to highlight the necessity for change (Neo-Marxist).

====Systemic tools of international relations====
* [[Diplomacy]] is the practice of communication and negotiation between representatives of states. To some extent, all other tools of international relations can be considered the failure of diplomacy. Keeping in mind, the use of other tools are part of the communication and negotiation inherent within diplomacy. Sanctions, force, and adjusting trade regulations, while not typically considered part of diplomacy, are actually valuable tools in the interest of leverage and placement in negotiations.
* [[International sanctions|Sanctions]] are usually a first resort after the failure of diplomacy, and are one of the main tools used to enforce treaties. They can take the form of diplomatic or economic sanctions and involve the cutting of ties and imposition of barriers to communication or trade.
* [[War]], the use of force, is often thought of as the ultimate tool of international relations. A popular definition is that given by [[Carl von Clausewitz]], with war being "the continuation of politics by other means". There is a growing study into "new wars" involving actors other than states. The study of war in international relations is covered by the disciplines of "[[war studies]]" and "[[strategic studies]]".
* The mobilization of international shame can also be thought of as a tool of international relations. This is attempting to alter states' actions through '[[name and shame|naming and shaming]]' at the international level. This is mostly done by the large human rights NGOs such as [[Amnesty International]] (for instance when it called Guantanamo Bay a "Gulag"),<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/POL10/014/2005/en|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090529085859/http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/POL10/014/2005/en|url-status=live|archive-date=May 29, 2009|title=Error – Amnesty International|website=www.amnesty.org}}</ref> or [[Human Rights Watch]]. A prominent use of was the [[UN Commission on Human Rights]] 1235 procedure, which publicly exposes state's human rights violations. The current [[United Nations Human Rights Council|UN Human Rights Council]] has yet to use this mechanism.
* The allotment of economic and/or diplomatic benefits such as the [[European Union]]'s [[Enlargement of the European Union|enlargement policy]]; candidate countries are only allowed to join if they meet the [[Copenhagen criteria]].
* The mutual exchange of ideas, information, art, music, and language among nations through [[cultural diplomacy]] has also been recognized by governments as an important tool in the development of international relations.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=xAgkDwAAQBAJ&q=cultural+diplomacy ''Music, Art and Diplomacy East-West cultural Interactions and the Cold War''] Editors: Siom Mukkonen & Pekka Suutari. Ashgate Books, 2016 See Introduction & Chapter 1 – Introduction to the Logic of East-West Artistic Interactions -Cultural Diplomacy on books.google.com.</ref><ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=JqE2DwAAQBAJ&q=cultural+diplomacy ''The History of United States Cultural Diplomacy – 1770 to the Present''] Michael L. Krenn. Bloomsbury Academic, New York 2017 {{ISBN|978-1-4725-0860-7}} p. 1-8 Introduction.</ref><ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=DR79AAAAQBAJ&q=cultural+diplomacy ''Searching for a Cultural Diplomacy''] Editors: Jessica C. E. Gienow-Hecht & Mark C. Donfried. Berghahn Books , Oxford 2010 {{ISBN|978-1-845-45-746-4}} p. 3-13 Introduction – cultural diplomacy (around the world before and during the cold war) on google.books.</ref><ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=pXJUDwAAQBAJ&q=cultural+diplomacy ''Cultural Diplomacy: Beyond the National Interest?''] Editors: Len Ang, Yudhishthir Raj Isar, Philip Mar. Routledge, UK 2016 Chapter 1 – Cultural Diplomacy- Beyond the National Interest? on google.books.com.</ref>