Power (international relations)
[citation needed] Michael Barnett and Raymond Duvall define power as "the production, in and through social relations, of effects that shape the capacities of actors to determine their circumstances and fate.
[1] They also reject persuasion as part of the definition of power, as it revolves around actors freely and voluntarily changing their minds once presented with new information.
Philosophers such as Thucydides, Niccolo Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes and Hans Morgenthau are thought to have provided a realistic portrait of this political aim.
[7] The German military thinker Carl von Clausewitz[8] is considered to be the quintessential projection of European growth across the continent.
[9] Jean Monnet[10] was a French left-wing social theorist, stimulating expansive Eurocommunism, who followed on the creator of modern European community, the diplomat and statesman Robert Schuman.
Mechanisms of influence can include the threat or use of force, economic interaction or pressure, diplomacy, and cultural exchange.
However, "realist" theory attempted to maintain the balance of power from the development of meaningful diplomatic relations that can create a hegemony within the region.
[16] David Lake has argued along similar lines that legitimacy and authority are key components of international order.
[21] She pointed to the superiority of the American technology sector, dominance in services, and the position of the U.S. dollar as the top international currency as real indicators of lasting power.
[19] Political scientists Henry Farrell and Abraham L. Newman argue that state power is in part derived from control over important nodes in global networks of informational and financial exchange, which means that states can "weaponize interdependence" by fighting over control of these nodes.
Michael Beckley argues that gross domestic product and military spending are imprecise indicators of power.
A country with a big population might produce vast output and field a large army, but it also may bear massive welfare and security burdens that drain its wealth and bog down its military, leaving it with few resources for power projection abroad.
But that definition seemed too abstract in 1914 to a nation geared up for war, militarily stronger than ever, wealthy, and, above all, endowed with powerful allies.
[2][3][28] Classical realists recognized that the ability to influence depended on psychological relationships that touched on ethical principles, legitimacy and justice,[28] as well as emotions, leaders' skill and power over opinion.
[81] Hard power refers to coercive tactics: the threat or use of armed forces, economic pressure or sanctions, assassination and subterfuge, or other forms of intimidation.
Means of exercising soft power include diplomacy, dissemination of information, analysis, propaganda, and cultural programming to achieve political ends.
