Power (international relations)

For other types of power, see Power.

Further information: Superpower, Great power, Middle power, and Small power

In international relations, power is defined in several different ways.^[1] Material definitions of state power emphasize economic and military power.^[2][3][4] Other definitions of power emphasize the ability to structure and constitute the nature of social relations between actors.^[1][4] Power is an attribute of particular actors in their interactions, as well as a social process that constitutes the social identities and capacities of actors.^[1]

International relations scholars use the term polarity to describe the distribution of power in the international system.^[2] Unipolarity refers to an international system characterized by one hegemon (e.g. the United States in the post-Cold War period), bipolarity to an order with two great powers or blocs of states (e.g. the Cold War), and multipolarity refers to the presence of three or more great powers.^[2] Those states that have significant amounts of power within the international system are referred to as small powers, middle powers, regional powers, great powers, superpowers, or hegemons, although there is no commonly accepted standard for what defines a powerful state.^{[citation needed]}

Entities other than states can have power in international relations. Such entities can include multilateral international organizations, military alliance organizations like NATO, multinational corporations like Walmart,^[5] non-governmental organizations such as the Roman Catholic Church, or other institutions such as the Hanseatic League and technology companies like Facebook and Google.^{[citation needed]}

Concepts of political power

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 reject definitions of power that conflate power as any and all effects because doing so makes power synonymous with causality.^[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.^[1]

Political scientists, historians, and practitioners of international relations (diplomats) have used the following concepts of political power: ^{[citation needed]}

• Power as a goal of states or leaders;
• Power as a measure of influence or control over outcomes, events, actors and issues;
• Power as victory in conflict and the attainment of security;
• Power as control over resources and capabilities;
• Power as status, which some states or actors possess and others do not.

Power as a goal

The view that hegemony is a goal in international relations has long been discussed by political theorists. Philosophers such as Thucydides, Niccolo Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes and Hans Morgenthau are thought to have provided a realistic portrait of this political aim.^[6] Especially among Classical Realist thinkers, political dominance is the aim of nation states.^[7] The German military thinker Carl von Clausewitz^[8] is considered to be the quintessential projection of European growth across the continent. In more modern times, Claus Moser has elucidated theories centre of distribution of power in Europe after the Holocaust, and the power of universal learning as its counterpoint.^[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.^[11]

Power as influence

NATO accounts for over 70% of global military expenditure,^[12] with the United States alone accounting for 43% of global military expenditure.^[13]

Political scientists principally use "power" in terms of an actor's ability to exercise influence over other actors within the international system.^{[citation needed]} This influence can be coercive, attractive, cooperative, or competitive. Mechanisms of influence can include the threat or use of force, economic interaction or pressure, diplomacy, and cultural exchange.^{[citation needed]}

Under certain circumstances, states can organize a sphere of influence or a bloc within which they exercise predominant influence. Historical examples include the spheres of influence recognized under the Concert of Europe, or the recognition of spheres during the Cold War following the Yalta Conference. The Eastern Bloc, the Western Bloc, and the Non-Aligned Movement were the blocs that arose out of the Cold War contest. Military alliances like NATO and the Warsaw Pact are another forum through which influence is exercised. 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. British foreign policy, for example, dominated Europe through the Congress of Vienna after the defeat of France. They continued the balancing act with the Congress of Berlin in 1878, to appease Russia and Germany from attacking Turkey. Britain has sided against the aggressors on the European continent—i.e. the German Empire, Nazi Germany, Napoleonic France or the Austrian Empire, known during the Great War as the Central Powers and, in World War II as the Axis Powers.^[14][15]

International orders have both a material and social component.^[16] Martha Finnemore argues that unipolarity does not just entail a material superiority by the unipole, but also a social structure whereby the unipole maintains its status through legitimation, and institutionalization. In trying to obtain legitimacy from the other actors in the international system, the unipole necessarily gives those actors a degree of power. The unipole also obtains legitimacy and wards off challenges to its power through the creation of institutions, but these institutions also entail a diffusion of power away from the unipole.^[17] David Lake has argued along similar lines that legitimacy and authority are key components of international order.^[18][19]

Susan Strange made a key contribution to International Political Economy on the issue of power, which she considered essential to the character and dynamics of the global economy.^[20] Strange was skeptical of static indicators of power, arguing that it was structural power that mattered.^[21] In particular, interactions between states and markets mattered.^[22] 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.^[23] She distinguished between relational power (the power to compel A to get B to do something B does not want to do) and structural power (the power to shape and determine the structure of the global political economy).^[20] 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.^[24]

Power as capability

American author Charles W. Freeman, Jr. described power as the following:

Power is the capacity to direct the decisions and actions of others. Power derives from strength and will. Strength comes from the transformation of resources into capabilities. Will infuses objectives with resolve. Strategy marshals capabilities and brings them to bear with precision. Statecraft seeks through strategy to magnify the mass, relevance, impact, and irresistibility of power. It guides the ways the state deploys and applies its power abroad. These ways embrace the arts of war, espionage, and diplomacy. The practitioners of these three arts are the paladins of statecraft.^[25]

Power is also used to describe the resources and capabilities of a state. This definition is quantitative and is most often^{[dubious – discuss]} used by geopoliticians and the military. Capabilities are thought of in tangible terms—they are measurable, weighable, quantifiable assets. A good example for this kind of measurement is the Composite Indicator on Aggregate Power, which involves 54 indicators and covers the capabilities of 44 states in Asia-Pacific from 1992 to 2012.^[26] Hard power can be treated as a potential and is not often enforced on the international stage.

Chinese strategists have such a concept of national power that can be measured quantitatively using an index known as Comprehensive National Power.

Michael Beckley argues that gross domestic product and military spending are imprecise indicators of power. He argues that better measurements of power should take into account "net" indicators of powers: "[Gross] indicators systematically exaggerate the wealth and military capabilities of poor, populous countries, because they tally countries' resources without deducting the costs countries pay to police, protect, and serve their people. 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."^[27]

Power as status

Definitions

Much effort in academic and popular writing is devoted to deciding which countries have the status of "power", and how this can be measured. If a country has "power" (as influence) in military, diplomatic, cultural, and economic spheres, it might be called a "power" (as status). There are several and inclusion of a state in one category or another is fraught with difficulty and controversy. In his famous 1987 work, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, British-American historian Paul Kennedy charts the relative status of the various powers from AD 1500 to 2000. He does not begin the book with a theoretical definition of "great power"; however he lists them, separately, for many different eras. Moreover, he uses different working definitions of great power for different eras. For example

"France was not strong enough to oppose Germany in a one-to-one struggle... If the mark of a Great Power is country which is willing to take on any other, then France (like Austria-Hungary) had slipped to a lower position. 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."^[28]

Neorealist scholars frequently define power as entailing military capabilities and economic strength.^[2][3][29] Classical realists recognized that the ability to influence depended on psychological relationships that touched on ethical principles, legitimacy and justice,^[29] as well as emotions, leaders' skill and power over opinion.^[30][29][31]

Categories of power

In the modern geopolitical landscape, a number of terms are used to describe various types of powers, which include the following:

• Hegemony: a state that has the power to shape the international system and "control the external behavior of all other states."^[32] Hegemony can be regional or global.^[33] Unlike unipolarity, which is a power preponderance within an anarchic international system of nominally equal states, hegemony assumes a hierarchy where the most powerful can control other states.^[32]
• Unipole: a state that enjoys a preponderance of power and faces no competitor states.^[32][34] According to William Wohlforth, "a unipolar system is one in which a counterbalance is impossible. When a counterbalance becomes possible, the system is not unipolar."^[34] A unipolar state is not the same as an empire or a hegemon that can control the behavior of all other states.^[32][35][36]
• Superpower: In 1944, William T. R. Fox defined superpower as "great power plus great mobility of power" and identified three states, the British Empire, the Soviet Union and the United States.^[37] With the decolonisation of the British Empire following World War II, and then the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States has remained to be the sole superpower.^[38] China is now considered an emerging global superpower by many scholars.^[39][40][41]
• Great power: In historical mentions, the term great power refers to the states that have strong political, cultural and economical influence over nations around them and across the world.^[42][43][44]
• Middle power: A subjective description of influential second-tier states that could not quite be described as great or small powers. A middle power has sufficient strength and authority to stand on its own without the need of help from others (particularly in the realm of security) and takes diplomatic leads in regional and global affairs.^[45] Clearly not all middle powers are of equal status; some are members of forums such as the G20 and play important roles in the United Nations and other international organisations such as the WTO.^[46]
• Small power: The International System is for the most part made up by small powers. They are instruments of the other powers and may at times be dominated; but they cannot be ignored.^[47]

Other categories

• Emerging power: A transitional category in which a state or union of states is viewed as on a trajectory of increasing global influence.^[48][49]
• Regional power: This term is used to describe a nation that exercises influence and power within a region. Being a regional power is not mutually exclusive with any of the other categories of power. The majority of them exert a strategic degree of influence as minor or secondary regional powers. A primary regional power (like Australia) has an often important role in international affairs outside of its region too.^[50]
• Cultural superpower: Refers to a country whose culture, arts or entertainment have worldwide appeal, significant international popularity or large influence on much of the world. Among the countries described as such are China,^[51][52] , France, ^[53][54] Greece,^[55][56] India,^[57][58][59] Italy,^[60][61][62] Jamaica,^{[63][58][64][65]} Japan,^{[66][67][68][69][70]} South Korea,^[71][58][72] Spain,^{[73][74][additional citation(s) needed]} the United Kingdom^[75] and the United States,^[76] although it is sometimes debated on which criteria this is determined. Unlike traditional forms of national power, the term cultural superpower is in reference to a nation's soft power capabilities.
• Energy superpower: Describes a country that supplies large amounts of energy resources (crude oil, natural gas, coal, uranium, etc.) to a significant number of other states, and therefore has the potential to influence world markets to gain a political or economic advantage. Saudi Arabia and Russia are generally acknowledged as the world's current energy superpowers, given their abilities to globally influence or even directly control prices to certain countries. Australia and Canada are potential energy superpowers due to their large natural resources.^[77][78]

Hard, soft and smart power

Main articles: Hard power, Soft power, and Smart power

Some political scientists distinguish between two types of power: Hard and Soft.^[79] The former is coercive (example: military invasion) while the latter is attractive (example: broadcast media or cultural invasion).^[80]

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. Hard power is generally associated to the stronger of nations, as the ability to change the domestic affairs of other nations through military threats. Realists and neorealists, such as John Mearsheimer, are advocates of the use of such power for the balancing of the international system.^{[citation needed]}

Joseph Nye is the leading proponent and theorist of soft power.^[81][82] Instruments of soft power include debates on cultural values, dialogues on ideology, the attempt to influence through good example, and the appeal to commonly accepted human values. Means of exercising soft power include diplomacy, dissemination of information, analysis, propaganda, and cultural programming to achieve political ends.^{[citation needed]}

Others have synthesized soft and hard power, including through the field of smart power. This is often a call to use a holistic spectrum of statecraft tools, ranging from soft to hard.^{[citation needed]}

See also

• Global policeman
• International relations (1814–1919)
• Peace through strength
• Power Politics (Wight book)
• Power transition theory
• Right of conquest
• Responsibility to protect

References

1. Barnett, Michael; Duvall, Raymond (2005). "Power in International Politics". International Organization. 59 (1): 39–75. doi:10.1017/S0020818305050010. ISSN 1531-5088. S2CID 3613655.
2. Waltz, Kenneth Neal (1979). Theory of International Politics. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-554852-2.
3. Mearsheimer, John J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. Norton. ISBN 978-0-393-02025-0.
4. Hopf, Ted (1998). "The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory". International Security. 23 (1): 171–200. doi:10.2307/2539267. ISSN 0162-2889. JSTOR 2539267.
5. Useem, Jerry (2003-03-03). "One Nation Under Wal-Mart: How Retailing's Superpower—and our Biggest, Most Admired Company—Is Changing the Rules for Corporate America". CNN. Retrieved 2010-05-22.
6. Forde, S. (1992). Varieties of realism: Thucydides and Machiavelli. The Journal of Politics, 54(2), 372-393.
7. Hobson, J. M. (2000). The state and international relations. Cambridge University Press.
8. Bauer, Richard H. "Hans Delbrück (1848–1929)." Bernadotte E. Schmitt. Some Historians of Modern Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942.
9. ANGELA LAMBERT (27 July 1992). "INTERVIEW / Sir Claus Moser: 73.5 per cent English: 'What is dangerous". The Independent.
10. Anonymous (16 June 2016). "About the EU – European Union website, the official EU website – European Commission" (PDF). Retrieved 27 November 2016.
11. Anonymous (16 June 2016). "About the EU – European Union website, the official EU website – European Commission" (PDF). Retrieved 27 November 2016.
12. "The SIPRI Military Expenditure Database". Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Archived from the original on March 28, 2010. Retrieved 2010-08-22.
13. "The 15 countries with the highest military expenditure in 2009". Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Retrieved 2010-08-22.
14. A.J.P.Taylor, "Origins of the First World War"
15. Ensor, Sir Robert (1962) 2nd ed. "Britain 1870–1914" The Oxford History of England.
16. Barnett, Michael (2021). "International Progress, International Order, and the Liberal International Order". The Chinese Journal of International Politics. 14 (1): 1–22. doi:10.1093/cjip/poaa019. ISSN 1750-8916. PMC 7989545.
17. Martha Finnemore (2009). "Legitimacy, Hypocrisy, and the Social Structure of Unipolarity: Why Being a Unipole Isn't All It's Cracked Up to Be". World Politics. 61 (1): 58–85. doi:10.1353/wp.0.0027. ISSN 1086-3338.
18. Lake, David A. (2018). "International Legitimacy Lost? Rule and Resistance When America Is First". Perspectives on Politics. 16 (1): 6–21. doi:10.1017/S1537592717003085. ISSN 1537-5927. S2CID 148632667.
19. Lake, David A. (2013), Finnemore, Martha; Goldstein, Judith (eds.), "Authority, Coercion, and Power in International Relations", Back to Basics, Oxford University Press, pp. 55–77, doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199970087.003.0004, ISBN 978-0-19-997008-7
20. Cohen, Benjamin J. (2008). International Political Economy: An Intellectual History. Princeton University Press. pp. 45–51. ISBN 978-0-691-13569-4.
21. Norrlof, Carla (2010). America's Global Advantage: US Hegemony and International Cooperation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 18. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511676406. ISBN 978-0-521-76543-5.
22. Katzenstein, Peter J.; Keohane, Robert O.; Krasner, Stephen D. (1998). "International Organization and the Study of World Politics". International Organization. 52 (4): 645–685. doi:10.1017/S002081830003558X. ISSN 0020-8183. S2CID 34947557.
23. Cohen, Benjamin J. (2008). International Political Economy: An Intellectual History. Princeton University Press. p. 76. ISBN 978-0-691-13569-4.
24. Farrell, Henry; Newman, Abraham L. (2019-07-01). "Weaponized Interdependence: How Global Economic Networks Shape State Coercion". International Security. 44 (1): 42–79. doi:10.1162/isec_a_00351. ISSN 0162-2889. S2CID 198952367.
25. Marcella, Gabriel (July 2004). "Chapter 17: National Security and the Interagency Process". In Bartholomees, Jr., J. Boone (ed.). U.S. Army War College Guide to National Security Policy and Strategy. United States Army War College. pp. 239–260. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 3, 2004.
26. Fels, Enrico (2017). Shifting Power in Asia-Pacific? The Rise of China, Sino-US Competition and Regional Middle Power Allegiance. Springer. pp. 225–340. ISBN 978-3-319-45689-8. Retrieved 2016-11-25.
27. Beckley, Michael (2018). "The Power of Nations: Measuring What Matters". International Security. 43 (2): 7–44. doi:10.1162/isec_a_00328. ISSN 0162-2889. S2CID 57560003.
28. Kennedy, Paul (1989) [1987]. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000. London: Fontana. p. 290. ISBN 0006860524.
29. Lebow, Richard Ned (2016). "2. Classical Realism". Classical Realism. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/hepl/9780198707561.003.0003. ISBN 978-0-19-185076-9. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
30. Carr, E. H. (2001). The Twenty Years' Crisis 1919–1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-333-96377-7.
31. Finnemore, Martha; Goldstein, Judith (2013), Finnemore, Martha; Goldstein, Judith (eds.), "Puzzles about Power", Back to Basics, Oxford University Press, pp. 3–16, doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199970087.003.0001, ISBN 978-0-19-997008-7
32. Monteiro, Nuno P. (2012). "Unrest Assured: Why Unipolarity Is Not Peaceful". International Security. 36 (3): 9–40. doi:10.1162/ISEC_a_00064. ISSN 0162-2889. S2CID 57558611.
33. Mearsheimer, John J. (2001). "Chapter 2". The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 978-0-393-34927-6.
34. Wohlforth, William C. (1999). "The Stability of a Unipolar World". International Security. 24 (1): 5–41. doi:10.1162/016228899560031. ISSN 0162-2889. JSTOR 2539346. S2CID 57568539.
35. Jervis, Robert (2009). "Unipolarity: A Structural Perspective". World Politics. 61 (1): 188–231, p. 190. doi:10.1353/wp.0.0031. unipolarity implies the existence of many juridically equal nation-states, something that an empire denies
36. Nexon, Daniel and Thomas Wright (2007). "What's at Stake in the American Empire Debate". American Political Science Review. 101 (2): 253–271, p. 253. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.136.2578. doi:10.1017/s0003055407070220. S2CID 17910808. in empires, inter-societal divide-and-rule practices replace interstate balance-of-power dynamics
37. Evans, G.; Newnham, J. (1998). Dictionary of International Relations. London: Penguin Books. p. 522. ISBN 9780140513974.
38. Kim Richard Nossal. Lonely Superpower or Unapologetic Hyperpower? Analyzing American Power in the post–Cold War Era. Biennial meeting, South African Political Studies Association, 29 June-2 July 1999. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2007-02-28.
39. Lemahieu, Hervé. "Five big takeaways from the 2019 Asia Power Index". Lowy Institute. Archived from the original on Jun 21, 2020. Retrieved 2020-05-06. China, the emerging superpower, netted the highest gains in overall power in 2019, ranking first in half of the eight Index measures. For the first time, China narrowly edged out the United States in the Index's assessment of economic resources. In absolute terms China's economy grew by more than the total size of Australia's economy in 2018. The world's largest trading nation has also paradoxically seen its GDP become less dependent on exports. This makes China less vulnerable to an escalating trade war than most other Asian economies.
40. "Many Germans believe China will replace US as superpower: survey". DW. July 14, 2020. Retrieved 2020-09-21.
41. Huhua, Cao; Jeremy, Paltiel (2016). Facing China as a New Global Superpower. Singapore: Springer. pp. XI, 279. doi:10.1007/978-981-287-823-6. ISBN 978-981-287-823-6.
42. Ovendale, Ritchie (January 1988). "Reviews of Books: Power in Europe? Great Britain, France, Italy and Germany in a Postwar World, 1945–1950". The English Historical Review. 103 (406). Oxford University Press: 154. doi:10.1093/ehr/CIII.CCCCVI.154. ISSN 0013-8266. JSTOR 571588.
43. Heineman, Ben W. Jr.; Heimann, Fritz (May–June 2006). "The Long War Against Corruption". Foreign Affairs. Council on Foreign Relations. Ben W. Heineman, Jr., and Fritz Heimann speak of Italy as a major country or 'player' along with Germany, France, Japan, and the United Kingdom.
44. Roberson, B. A. (1998). Middle East and Europe: The Power Deficit. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9780415140447. Retrieved 2013-08-11.
45. Fels, Enrico (2017). Shifting Power in Asia-Pacific? The Rise of China, Sino-US Competition and Regional Middle Power Allegiance. Springer. p. 213. ISBN 978-3-319-45689-8. Retrieved 2016-11-25.
46. Rudd K (2006) Making Australia a force for good, Labor eHerald Archived June 27, 2007, at the Wayback Machine
47. Vital, D. (1967) The Inequality of States: A Study of Small Power in International Relations
48. Kennedy, Paul (1987). The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. Random House. ISBN 0679-720197.
49. Renard, Thomas; Biscop, Sven (2013). The European Union and Emerging Powers in the 21st Century: How Europe Can Shape a New Global Order.
50. Schenoni, Luis (2017). "Subsystemic Unipolarities?" in Strategic Analysis, 41(1): 74–86
51. "Scholars and Media on China's Cultural Soft Power". Wilson Center. Retrieved 2020-09-21.
52. "Asia Power Index 2019: China Cultural Influence". power.lowyinstitute.org. Retrieved 2020-09-21.
53. Shawcross, Edward (2018). France, Mexico and Informal Empire in Latin America, 1820-1867: Equilibrium in the New World. Springer. p. 13. ISBN 9783319704647. France remained a "military, economic, scientific, and cultural superpower"
54. "Why France and Italy can't help clashing". The Economist. 2017-08-10. Retrieved 2020-04-20. France and Italy both consider themselves the cultural superpower of Europe
55. Vourlias, Christopher (3 November 2022). "How a New Generation of Greek Filmmakers Rode Out the Crisis and Found International Success". Variety. Retrieved 15 February 2024.
56. Falcinelli, Patrizia. "Italy and Greece: A common way ahead". E-Kathimerini. Retrieved 15 February 2024.
57. "'DIAF projected India as a cultural superpower'". 11 January 2020.
58. Smith, Noah (27 October 2021). "What makes a cultural superpower?". Noahpinion. Archived from the original on Nov 29, 2023. Retrieved 14 October 2023.
59. Oaten, James (25 February 2020). "Donald Trump arrived in India with much fanfare. Here are the key moments from his first day". ABC News. Retrieved 17 October 2023.
60. "Italy, a cultural superpower". Arab News. 2012-06-02. Archived from the original on December 26, 2014.
61. Midgette, Anne (2023-08-26). "Coming to the U.S.: 'The Year of Italian Culture 2013'". Washington Post. Archived from the original on Mar 22, 2023. "Culture is by far the most important element of Italian foreign policy," Terzi said on Friday, adding, "Italy is a cultural superpower
62. Italy has been described as a cultural superpower by The Australian. Italy has been described as a cultural superpower by the Italian consul general in San Francisco, and by US President Barack Obama.
63. Motune, Vic (25 July 2017). "Countdown to I Love JA Day: Dawn Butler on heritage | The Voice Online". archive.voice-online.co.uk. Retrieved 14 October 2023.
64. "Jamaica". 6 September 2022. Retrieved 17 October 2023.
65. "Portland, Jamaica: A Journey Down the Rio Grande and Beyond". World Travel Magazine. 11 July 2023. Archived from the original on Sep 27, 2023. Retrieved 14 October 2023.
66. "The other superpower". The Guardian. London. 2002-06-01. Retrieved 2009-07-17.
67. "How Japan became a pop culture superpower". The Spectator. 31 January 2015. Retrieved 27 November 2016.
68. Tamaki, Taku (26 April 2017). "Japan has turned its culture into a powerful political tool". The Conversation. Archived from the original on 2021-11-18. Retrieved 2021-12-12.
69. "'Pure Invention': How Japan's pop culture became the 'lingua franca' of the internet". The Japan Times. 2020-07-18. Archived from the original on 2021-12-14. Retrieved 2021-12-12.
70. "How Japan's global image morphed from military empire to eccentric pop-culture superpower". Quartz. 2020-05-27. Archived from the original on 2021-10-21. Retrieved 2021-12-12.
71. Jun-hee, Park (16 November 2022). "[Feature] Making big waves: How K-pop swelled into cultural superpower". The Korea Herald. Retrieved 14 October 2023.
72. "Sunday Feature: South Korea - The Silent Cultural Superpower". BBC. 14 February 2016. Archived from the original on Feb 24, 2024. Retrieved 14 October 2023.
73. "Spain, main reference for world's Hispanic heritage". ABC.es (Madrid). 2014-07-03. http://www.abc.es/cultura/20140703/abci-espana-patrimonio-inmaterial-humanidad-201407011734.html. Retrieved 2016-06-08.
74. "Elcano Global Presence Index – Explora".
75. "The cultural superpower: British cultural projection abroad" (PDF). Journal of the British Politics Society, Norway. 6 (1). Winter 2011. Archived from the original (PDF) on 16 September 2018. Retrieved 24 October 2014.
76. Entertainment Superpower: the economic dominance of American media and entertainment, Alexa O'Brien, 17 February 2005
77. "Report: Canada can be energy superpower". UPI.com. 2012-07-20. Retrieved 2013-04-30.
78. "Australia to become energy superpower?". UPI.com. 2012-05-14. Retrieved 2013-04-30.
79. S. Gray, Colin (2011-04-01). "Hard Power and Soft Power: The Utility of Military Force as an Instrument of Policy in the 21st Century". U.S. Army War College: Page v.
80. Nye, Joseph (2017-02-21). "Soft power: the origins and political progress of a concept". Palgrave Communications. 3 (1): 1–3. doi:10.1057/palcomms.2017.8. ISSN 2055-1045.
81. Pazzanese, Christina (2017-05-09). "'Soft power' expert Joe Nye reflects on decades-long Harvard career". Harvard Gazette. Retrieved 2024-09-23.
82. Freedman, Lawrence (2024-01-17). "Soft Power and Smart Power". Comment is Freed. Retrieved 2024-09-23.

Further reading

• Bennett, Andrew (2013). "The mother of all isms: Causal mechanisms and structured pluralism in International Relations theory." European Journal of International Relations.
• Barnett, Michael; Duvall, Raymond (2005). "Power in International Politics". International Organization 59 (1): 39–75.