Power, Sovereignty and International Relations
What Paper 1 and Paper 2 reward
This domain asks you to use concepts-power, sovereignty, legitimacy, interdependence, globalization-as analytical tools, not definitions to recite. Paper 1 rewards precise reading of a source and linking it to concepts; Paper 2 rewards a defended judgment across cases.
Core rules
- Power is the capacity to influence outcomes. Distinguish hard power (coercion, military, sanctions) from soft power (attraction, agenda-setting) and structural power (shaping the rules, e.g., IMF conditionality). Power is relational: it depends on context and the other actor.
- Sovereignty is the legal claim to supreme authority within a territory and formal equality outside it. Internal sovereignty (authority over a population) differs from external sovereignty (non-intervention). It is a status, not a measure of actual control.
- Interdependence means mutual sensitivity and vulnerability. Complex interdependence (Keohane and Nye) stresses multiple channels, absence of hierarchy among issues, and reduced utility of force.
- Legitimacy is the belief that rule is right; legality is not the same. A government can be legal but illegitimate.
Worked example
Question: 'Evaluate the claim that globalization has eroded state sovereignty.' Define sovereignty as legal status and as policy autonomy. Mechanisms of erosion: WTO dispute rulings, EU pooled sovereignty, bond markets punishing deficits. Counter: states created these regimes and can exit-Brexit shows legal sovereignty reclaimed, though market access constrained. Conclude: erosion is uneven and issue-specific; legal sovereignty persists while policy autonomy is bargained away.
Traps
- Treating power as only military capability.
- Calling sovereignty 'absolute' or 'dead'.
- Ignoring non-state actors (MNCs, NGOs, terrorist networks).
- Confusing de jure sovereignty with de facto control.
- Asserting 'globalization erodes sovereignty' without a mechanism or case.