Cosmopolitan Power In International Relations

How can nations optimize their power in the modern world system? Realist theory has underscored the importance of hard power as the ultimate path to national strength. In this vision, nations require the muscle and strategies to compel compliance and achieve their full power potential. But in fact, changes in world politics have increasingly encouraged national leaders to complement traditional power resources with more enlightened strategies oriented around the use of soft power resources. The resources to compel compliance have to be increasingly integrated with the resources to cultivate compliance. Only through this integration of hard and soft power can nations truly achieve their greatest strength in modern world politics, and this realization carries important implications for competing paradigms of international relations. The idea of power optimization can only be delivered through the integration of the three leading paradigms of international relations: Realism, Neoliberalism, and Constructivism.

Globalization has been contested in recent times. Among the critical perspectives is cosmopolitanism. Yet, with the exception of normative theory, international relations as a field has ignored cosmopolitan thinking. This book redresses this gap and develops a dialogue between cosmopolitanism and international relations. The dialogue is structured around three debates between non-universalist theories of international relations and contemporary cosmopolitan thought. The theories chosen are realism, (post-)Marxism and postmodernism. All three criticize liberalism in the international domain, and, therefore, cosmopolitanism as an offshoot of liberalism. In the light of each school's respective critique of universalism, the book suggests both the importance and difficulty of the cosmopolitan perspective in the contemporary world. Beardsworth emphasizes the need for global leadership at nation-state level, re-embedding of the world economy, a cosmopolitan politics of the lesser violence, and cosmopolitan political judgement. He also suggests research agendas to situate further contemporary cosmopolitanism in international relations theory. This book will appeal to all students of political theory and international relations, especially those who are seeking more articulation of the main issues between cosmopolitanism and its critics in international relations.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, the concept of power has not always been central to international relations theory. During the 1920s and 30s, power was often ignored or vilified by international relations scholars—especially in America. Power and International Relations explores how this changed in later decades by tracing how power emerged as an important social science concept in American scholarship after World War I. Combining intellectual history and conceptual analysis, David Baldwin examines power's increased presence in the study of international relations and looks at how the three dominant approaches of realism, neoliberalism, and constructivism treat power. The clarity and precision of thinking about power increased greatly during the last half of the twentieth century, due to efforts by political scientists, psychologists, sociologists, economists, philosophers, mathematicians, and geographers who contributed to "social power literature." Baldwin brings the insights of this literature to bear on the three principal theoretical traditions in international relations theory. He discusses controversial issues in power analysis, and shows the relevance of older works frequently underappreciated today. Focusing on the social power perspective in international relations, this book sheds light on how power has been considered during the last half century and how it should be approached in future research.

The rise of large and rapidly growing nations is having a significant impact on the global order, as their expanding influence reshapes the structure of power in the international system. These emerging powers are increasingly asserting themselves as major actors on the global scene. Leading this cadre of emerging powers are five nations referred to as the BRICS – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. This book takes inventory of both the individual and collective soft power of this rising bloc of nations. Having embraced the potential of this newly emphasized type of power as a means of generating international influence, these nations have dedicated substantial effort and resources to implementing a soft power offensive. This book was originally published as a special issue of the Journal of Political Power.

Asia in International Relations decolonizes conventional understandings and representations of Asia in International Relations (IR). This book opens by including all those geographical and cultural linkages that constitute Asia today but are generally ignored by mainstream IR. Covering the Indian subcontinent, Turkey, the Mediterranean, Iran, the Arab world, Ethiopia, and Central-Northeast-Southeast Asia, the volume draws on rich literatures to develop our understanding of power relations in the world’s largest continent. Contributors "de-colonize", "de-imperialize", and "de-Cold War" the region to articulate an alternative narrative about Asia, world politics, and IR. This approach reframes old problems in new ways with the possibility of transforming them, rather than recycling the same old approaches with the same old "intractable" outcomes.

Joseph Nye coined the term "soft power" in the late 1980s. It is now used frequently—and often incorrectly—by political leaders, editorial writers, and academics around the world. So what is soft power? Soft power lies in the ability to attract and persuade. Whereas hard power—the ability to coerce—grows out of a country's military or economic might, soft power arises from the attractiveness of a country's culture, political ideals, and policies. Hard power remains crucial in a world of states trying to guard their independence and of non-state groups willing to turn to violence. It forms the core of the Bush administration's new national security strategy. But according to Nye, the neo-conservatives who advise the president are making a major miscalculation: They focus too heavily on using America's military power to force other nations to do our will, and they pay too little heed to our soft power. It is soft power that will help prevent terrorists from recruiting supporters from among the moderate majority. And it is soft power that will help us deal with critical global issues that require multilateral cooperation among states. That is why it is so essential that America better understands and applies our soft power. This book is our guide.

This exciting new book offers a fundamental reappraisal of political realism - one of the dominant schools of international relations theory - and of the place of morality within it. Conventional opinion has always held that realism is an amoral or even immoral approach to international politics. Recent revisionist readings have sought to move beyond this simplistic view, taking account of the concern with morality evidenced in realist work. However, unable to reconcile this theme with the realist concern for power politics, they have tended to treat it as either incoherent or inconsequential. Alastair Murray argues that the entire debate about the theory has been misframed and that by using the insights to be gained from the study of historical texts, the different strands of realist thought can be related to one another, and understood to represent equally essential parts of the theory. In a challenging and detailed analysis, Murray reconstructs the theory of realism as a coherent and unified tradition of political ethics, highlighting its cosmopolitan moral discourse and demonstrating how, once reconstructed as a coherent tradition of thought, realism can contribute to contemporary debates in normative international theory.

In one, international relations is a Hobbesian state of nature in which moral judgments are entirely inappropriate, and in the other, states are analogous to persons in domestic society in having rights of autonomy that insulate them from external moral assessment and political interference.