Key Concepts in International Relations^[1]

By Rom, Mark, Hidaka, Masaki, & Bzostek Walker, Rachel

Reused from Chapter 14 of Rom, Mark, Hidaka, Masaki, & Bzostek Walker, Rachel. (2022). Introduction to Political Science. OpenStax. https://openstax.org/details/books/introduction-political-science under CC-BY 4.0 license which can be accessed for free at https://openstax.org

1.1 What Is Power, and How Do We Measure It?

Learning Outcomes

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Define power as it applies to international relations.
• Describe the different types of power political actors may possess.

Simply defined, in international relations, power is the ability of a state to prompt its preferred outcome in a given situation. States aim to protect their sovereignty—their authority to govern themselves—and guard against attacks from other countries. Growing and projecting their strength is the means through which they achieve this goal.

The way a state sees its place within the larger system based on the worldview its policy makers adhere to serves as the foundation for the state’s power. The theories discussed in this chapter will help illuminate the role power plays in international interactions. They describe the different methods states use to exert their power and how the application of the levers of state power can lead to an increase in a state’s ability to chart its own course and to induce other states to support its attainment of its preferred outcomes. At the same time, the theories describe how other states characterize the state’s actions and determine their responses to those actions. A state’s power includes its military, political, economic, and soft power. The more states attend to and invest in the development of each of these elements of the power they wield, the greater their potential to have an impact on the international stage.

Military Power

States that function with a general sense of self-preservation and a broad mistrust of other members of the international community see the military as the most important means for the projection of their power. The application of military power can be active, in the form of an outright attack or an invasion, or it can be passive, as when a state illustrates its ability to prevail in a military confrontation without actually engaging in one.

Traditionally, states have launched military offensives against selected targets to secure state power. A more passive way states can exert their power is through deterrence, the buildup of military might to such a level that an adversary state or states reconsider the use of their own military against the primary state. If state A thinks it has a military advantage over state B, state A may be motivated to attack state B, especially if an important resource or other key objective is at stake. Should state B begin to expand its military power, state A might be motivated to reconsider its course of action.

North Korea is an example of a modern state that leans on deterrence through military means. North Korean leader Kim Jong Un chooses to divert a substantial portion¹ of the country’s relatively meager GDP toward the military to throw off any plans that any other country might have of attacking it. He does this even at the expense of much-needed domestic spending on things like food and social services.

Figure 1.2 As this propaganda poster photographed in Pyongyang in 2011 shows, in North Korea the military is the first priority. (credit: “Propaganda” by Michael Day/Flickr, CC BY 2.0)

A state can also obtain military protection by entering into a security pact, an agreement among multiple states to support each other in case of a military attack, such as NATO or the Warsaw Pact. (For more on NATO, see the discussion of collective security in 1.5: The Realist Worldview and Chapter 15: International Law and International Organizations.)

Economic Power

A state can have both internal economic power, with a strong domestic economy marked by increasing gross domestic product (GDP) and/or a currency that allows the state to purchase goods and services at a relatively low cost, and external economic power, with leverage in international economic relationships. Externally, a state can project its economic power to the rest of the world in its international trade relationships and its participation in international economic organizations, such as the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank.

States can also increase their economic power relative to other states by controlling more of the basic factors of production. There are four basic factors of production, that is, four levels of economic development: primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary. The primary level of economic development focuses on agriculture, the secondary focuses on manufacturing, the tertiary focuses on the service industry, and the quaternary focuses on research and development. When one state controls more of the basic factors of production and can create a particular good or service in a more cost-effective manner than a second state, the first state is said to have a comparative advantage in the production of that good or service. Comparative advantage allows a country to strategically invest in the factors of production—land, labor, capital, and entrepreneurship—within its borders in order to develop goods or services that make it a preferred resource for consumers versus other countries.

Consider one classic example of comparative advantage. If England needs the same amount of resources to create five yards of cloth as it does for the country to produce one barrel of wine, and with the same resources Portugal can create five barrels of wine but only one yard of cloth, then we can say that Portugal has a comparative advantage over England in making wine and England has a comparative advantage over Portugal in making cloth. Therefore, it would be better for England to focus on cloth production and for Portugal to focus on wine production, with each country trading for the goods it needs that the other country can produce more efficiently.

China provides a contemporary example of a state that uses its place in the international economic system to extend its power. The Chinese government has taken care to ensure its position as the preeminent global resource for manufacturing.² With a large, educated labor force and a government that has a tight control over businesses and their functions, China has the ability to turn out large amounts of goods at a relatively low cost to consumers.³ In manufacturing, it has a comparative advantage over other states.

Internally, a state can use the levers of monetary policy to alter the value of its currency to encourage domestic consumer spending and make its exports relatively more attractive. By creating economic linkages between states through trade, countries are able to expand the reach of their goods and their money, increasing their country’s economic strength relative to other countries.

A state can use its economic power to build a relative economic advantage, creating an environment in which other states seek to join the state in mutually beneficial trade relationships. As a state creates more economic relationships with other states, it solidifies its position as an economic power and is able to use access to other states’ factors of production or comparative advantage to further cement its own place in the larger system.

Political Power

States can try to manipulate the political institutions of other countries to enlarge their sphere of influence and to pressure other states to implement their preferred policy outcomes. A state can use both overt and subversive means to influence another state or a non-state actor in order to gain more power for itself. For example, a state can influence the outcome of an election, supporting the candidacy of a leader who is friendly to the state’s preferences. In 1911 and 1912, the United States did not hide its efforts to influence elections in Nicaragua.⁴ In 1953 the United States played a role in the coup in Iran that removed that country’s prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, who, in nationalizing the Iranian oil industry, had threatened Britain’s longstanding control over oil in the region. After the ouster of Mossadegh, the last Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, with whom the United States believed it had a beneficial relationship, returned to power.⁵ Some states have denied prominent accusations of interfering in other country’s elections, as Russia has in response to accusations that it interfered in the 2016 election in the United States.⁶ When states have a sense of power, within the system or within a region, they will do what they can to create an environment that safeguards and even expands that power.

The next section discusses in greater depth how and why it is important to a state that other states recognize its state sovereignty. Using its power of recognition, a state can welcome into the international system and its institutions another state that it believes will support its desired goals, thereby increasing the likelihood that the norms of the international system will align with its preferences. By the same token, a state can withhold its recognition of another state in order to maintain better relations with other members of the international community. In the case of Taiwan, the United States walks a fine line in terms of recognition and interstate relations.⁷ China views Taiwan as an extension of China and expects all other countries to treat Taiwan as such.⁸ This puts the United States in a tricky position; the United States, for economic, military, and diplomatic reasons, seeks to maintain a positive relationship with China, but its broader goal is to support countries as they attempt to democratize. Taiwan, in recent years, has taken many steps to assert its autonomy in relation to China and to implement a more democratic system. China sees these moves as a direct threat to its own position of power and does everything it can to maintain firm control over the Taiwanese governmental system in Taiwan. China views any US actions that may be supportive of Taiwanese independence or even of its increased autonomy from China in a negative light. The United States must tread carefully, supporting a state that is trying to move toward democracy without angering a key economic and diplomatic ally.

Above all else, states must act to protect their sovereignty. In all things, states find themselves most reliant on their own strength and abilities. In an environment in which there is no central governing body to set and enforce rules, countries must strategize to protect themselves at all costs.

Soft Power

Whereas hard power involves coercion, soft power involves more friendly interactions that seek to win over a state or states rather than force them to comply with the wishes of one or more other states. Diplomacy, in either a bilateral (engagement between two countries) or multilateral (engagement between more than two countries) setting, allows states to create mutually beneficial agreements to protect themselves and the international system at large. The idea that all recognized countries find themselves on equal relational footing and should be treated as such in any sort of engagement, a concept referred to as reciprocity, is the foundational element of any diplomatic relationship.

An example of a reciprocal arrangement would be that of states exchanging ambassadors. When a diplomatic relationship exists, the leaders of states pay official visits to one another and are entertained in a manner that shows deference to their status and prestige in the international system. Allowing for state visits is one way that a state might use the guise of entertainment as a means of persuading a state to take steps that meet its preferences. The principle of reciprocity allows for states to enter into any negotiation on a level playing field; it intones a mutual level of respect between the states.

The cultural identity of a state is still another way that a state can expand its sphere of influence. Globalization has allowed for the spread of goods that are clearly identifiable as part of the culture of a specific country. As cultural identifiers spread throughout the world on the back of global commerce, so do the values that typify the originating country’s political and social systems. For example, the global spread of clearly identified American brands such as Levi’s, McDonalds, and Coca-Cola serves to spread American values of choice and product competition.⁹ In addition to increasing the amount of revenue American companies see from the sale of their products, the spread of American brands spreads American ideals.¹⁰

Figure 1.3 This McDonald’s in New Delhi, India, is an example of the reach of America’s soft power. (credit: “New Delhi McDonald’s” by Ryan/Flickr, CC BY 2.0)

Reciprocal diplomatic relationships that involve entertaining foreign officials and the spreading of cultural values to exert dominance are examples of the exercise of soft power—that is, using attraction and persuasion rather than coercion to achieve goals.

1.2 Understanding the Different Types of Actors in the International System

Learning Outcomes

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Describe the major actors in the contemporary international system.
• Discuss the four characteristics of a state.
• Differentiate a state and a nation.
• Discuss the relationship between international organizations and powerful states.
• Identify the capabilities of a nongovernmental organization.

A variety of different actors, each with its own characteristics, preferences, and methods of working, populate the international system. These actors are distinct in what they want, what motivates them, how much and what kinds of power they can wield, and how they interact with each other. Achieving the goals of the international system requires the concerted effort of all of these members.

States

The term state is used interchangeably with the word country. All states have four characteristics:¹¹

• Land with boundaries
• A government or a system of rule
• A population that willingly gives its allegiance to that government
• Recognition as an equal partner among states

This last piece is perhaps the most important and can be the hardest to achieve. Recognition as a state within the international system of states is an essential norm—a generally accepted rule, institution, or behavior—that forms the foundation of international relations. Recognition ensures that a state has a seat at the table; it confers both legitimacy and equality in the eyes of the international community.

Changes in political power in a state, such as the election of new heads of government or a change in the majority party in the legislative branch, do not usually affect state recognition, but in cases where there are complete changes to leadership or institutions in a government, concerns arise about whether recognition will continue. With the recent changes to governmental leadership in Afghanistan, for example, the reinstalled Taliban regime will need to take steps to make sure that they are seen as the legitimate source of power in the territory. This recognition is important to the ability of the Taliban to negotiate with other members of the international community for the things the country needs. The international community, for its part, can use the promise of recognition to extract concessions from the Taliban. To be recognized as a member of the international community means being held to the same standards of behavior to which other countries are held.

States are a vital part of the international system and serve as leaders in charting the path of the system as a whole. Of all the different parts of the international system, recognition might not seem adequate to give a state all the rights and privileges that come with statehood, but it is a necessary element of membership in the international system.

Figure 1.4 Taliban fighters ride a captured Humvee after the fall of Kabul. (credit: “Taliban Humvee in Kabul, August 2021 (cropped)” by Voice of America News/Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain)

There is a subtle difference between the term state and the idea of a nation. A nation is an identity gleaned from a common culture or ethnicity; a state is an institutional infrastructure that allows a society to function. In terms of an ethnic identity, a nation can span states, or a state can be a nation-state, as is the case in Japan, where the government of the state takes extra care to protect the shared national identity of the people who make up the state.¹² There is a broader conversation¹³ around what a nation, a state, and a nation-state are and how to think about these distinctions in the modern world. Some scholars argue that the concept of the nation-state is no longer viable because of the state boundary lines created by the colonial powers. As European countries expanded their reach and control to areas far from their shores, they entered areas populated by people for whom the idea of the state, in the European sense, was incompatible with their historical identity, as seen in Iraq, Sudan, and Nigeria. The placement of arbitrarily drawn borders, to the economic benefit of the European colonial powers and with a clear disregard for the traditional geographic locations of the people, form the basis for the current conversation about whether the idea of a nation-state has a place in the modern international system. ¹⁴

Nations can also be considered stateless. In some cases, the historical home of a nation is absorbed into a recognized state, leaving the people of the nation with the choice to either accept the citizenship of the recognized state or remain stateless. Stateless nations find themselves at an intense disadvantage because they typically have limited involvement in international organizations, which prevents them from having a seat at the table on par with other states and nations of the world. Nations such as the Kurds, Bretons, Catalans, and Basques are limited in their ability to govern their people with any sense of autonomy and have been consistently sidelined and subjected to violence for their wish to have their unique national identity be celebrated and validated.

Intergovernmental Organizations

Institutions made up of multiple state actors who work within a specific set of rules to enact solutions to problems common among multiple states are known as intergovernmental organizations. Intergovernmental organizations¹⁵ are the best way to understand the reach and impact of a state’s power to structure the environment in which it functions. States with more hard power—that is, with larger economies or militaries—are able to leverage their position among other states to put in place institutional norms that more closely align with their preferences; in short, intergovernmental institutions are a great way for powerful states to become even more powerful. Under the best of circumstances, as in the case of the United Nations, intergovernmental organizations can create a unified sense of pressure to prompt a state to make positive changes or to band states together to support a state that is under attack. In the worst case, international organizations can strong-arm weaker states to agree to the preferences of one state to the detriment of other states or of the system at large.

Figure 1.5 The Board of Governors of the International Monetary Fund (credit: “The Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund, Washington, D.C. (April 19, 1999)” by International Monetary Fund, Public Domain)

For example, the major world economies have partnered to form the International Monetary Fund (IMF), an intergovernmental organization known as a lender of last resort,¹⁶where a country turns only after it has exhausted all of its options for funding,¹⁷ that can be counted on to support countries in the direst of economic circumstances. The member states that make up the Board of Governors of the IMF base their offer of support on the role that the struggling country plays in the larger economic system. Other members of the international community have criticized IMF loan decisions for attaching terms to IMF loans that limit the ability of borrower countries to move toward economic stability. As with most intergovernmental organizations, the IMF has been characterized as an extension of the policy preferences of its governing members. This means that the decisions the IMF makes are sometimes seen as a tool powerful states use to set the rules of international borrowing to support countries they consider allies and to punish countries that they see as opposition.

Nongovernmental Organizations

Non-state actors focused on solving problems or filling policy gaps states can’t or won’t handle themselves are known as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Traditionally speaking, a nongovernmental organization is a nonaligned, third-party group that does not have the same motivations that a state might have. Nongovernmental organizations are part of a system that works to benefit people rather than states. NGOs can propose solutions to a state or fill a need that a state might have, usually without being seen as attempting to attack the sovereignty of that state. For example, most states accept medical aid from NGOs like the Red Cross or the Red Crescent.

1.3 Sovereignty and Anarchy

Learning Outcomes

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Explain why sovereignty is an essential element of states in the international system.
• Define anarchy in the context of the international system.
• Explain the relationship between sovereignty and anarchy.

Statehood is of vital importance to a nation because it confers sovereignty. Sovereignty is the ability of a state to run its institutions without fear of interference from other states or entities. Sovereignty allows states to enforce their own laws, for better or for worse, allowing a state to exert its power within its own borders and in situations where the state must work to protect its interests.

While states’ claims to sovereignty allow them to protect their cultural identity, beliefs, norms, and institutions, they can also prevent other states from stepping in to protect the innocent when a state acts in a manner that is counter to the basic norms of human rights and human dignity enshrined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.¹⁸ The actions a state takes to intervene on behalf of people subjected to violence at the hands of their own government could be seen as acts of aggression. In this case, the state that is perpetrating the violence would be within their rights to take action against the intervening state. In cases of crimes against humanity, such as the genocide in the Balkans¹⁹ and the civil war in Rwanda,²⁰ both in the 1990s, sovereignty allows a state to function as it sees fit, even when it means some citizens of that country will die. States have used the cover of sovereignty to prevent nongovernmental organizations from providing aid. For example, the Assad regime in Syria has diverted humanitarian aid intended for civilians caught in the middle of the violence in that country’s ongoing civil war, using the aid to fund its own atrocities.²¹ At times, states have used the cover of sovereignty to block NGOs from gathering information on atrocities happening within the country or to decline to participate in negotiations when other states tried to broker peace.

A system made up of actors focused on protecting their own interests naturally results in anarchy,²² where there is no overarching governing authority. In the case of the international system, anarchy refers to a lack of a general sense of order in the international system. Anarchy in the international system is directly linked to this lack of enforcement mechanisms as well as a lack of a broad global government. Sovereignty is the most important part of a state’s identity. The willingness of states to make sure that their sovereignty is protected for as long as possible ensures that the system will remain anarchic.

While each state has the right to govern itself, there is still a need for a means through which different states can gather—some ordered structure in the system that allows states to work through common issues. Intergovernmental organizations, such as the United Nations, provide the forums through which states can attempt to exert pressure on one another to cause one or more states to change a behavior, to provide options other than violence for conflict resolution, or to adhere to already established norms that provide some semblance of order in the otherwise anarchic system. However, there are no true enforcement bodies that have the authority and the capability to impose comprehensive consequences on a state that violates an international agreement or takes actions that fly in the face of generally accepted norms. Intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations provide useful avenues for states to solve problems that impact them at a systemic level, but it is still impossible to say with 100 percent confidence that a state can be made to behave in a certain way.

Foreign aid and sanctions are options available to members of the international community to help move a state into alignment with generally accepted expectations for behavior. Like all types of international actions, the ability of these options to be effective requires the participation of as many members of the international community as possible and the willingness of those states and organizations to close any loopholes so that the target state feels the consequences in a meaningful way. There is no mechanism to force a state to behave a certain way. Foreign aid and sanctions, along with treaties and the actions of international organizations, provide options international actors can use to help order the environment in which a state makes its choices about how it relates to other countries.

States can work cooperatively through institutions to enact strategies aimed at coercing a state to change its behavior; however, there is no surefire way to guarantee a state will do so or that it will continue to uphold that change. For example, the United States led a series of negotiations beginning in 2015 to work to curb Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, more commonly referred to as the Iran Nuclear Deal, was an agreement signed between Iran and the UK, France, Germany, Russia, and China, under the leadership of the United States. Negotiated by the Obama administration, the agreement allowed Iran to re-engage in trade, particularly of their oil, to take some of the pressure off their own economy, and in return, Iran would work to dismantle the nuclear facilities that presented security concerns to the world. Because of the domestic political situation in the United States, the US never recognized the Iran Nuclear Deal as a ratified treaty, opting instead to enter into an “executive agreement.”²³ The terms of the treaty would have been binding, but without a formal treaty, the enforcement mechanisms included in the agreement did not ever become reality. When President Obama left office in 2016, the newly elected President Donald Trump began to pull back from the agreement. Trump chose to work separately from the parties to the agreement, reinstating sanctions on Iran, including penalties for entities that continued to trade with Iran. When one key party to an agreement pulls back, other members of the negotiating body are effectively unable to uphold their side of the agreement, and that agreement is weakened.²⁴

Figure 1.6 In July 2015, representatives of China, France, Germany, the EU, Iran, the UK, and the United States posed for a photo during the meetings in Vienna that resulted in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action known as the Iran Nuclear Deal. (credit: “Iran Talks” by Bundesministeriums für europäische und internationale Angelegenheiten/Flickr, CC BY 2.0)

It may seem counterintuitive to think about anarchy and order going hand in hand when talking about the international system, but the modern system relies on the assumption that states within the system want to maintain control over everything within their own borders and work for their own benefit while at the same time being unwilling to submit to an established order in the environment around them. The tension created in the fight between order and anarchy that exists in all states, no matter how powerful they are, is what underscores and motivates international relations.

1.4 Using Levels of Analysis to Understand Conflict

Learning Outcomes

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Define the different levels of analysis and show how they can be used to explain interstate conflict.
• Describe the relationship between levels of analysis and state policy.
• Identify the two purposes levels of analysis serve.
• Identify the hallmarks of each level of analysis.

For 13 days in October 1962, the world watched with bated breath as a shipment of Soviet warheads on their way to Cuba pushed the United States and the Soviet Union to the brink of nuclear war. In response to the United States’ decision to install nuclear weapons in Turkey, a country on the Soviet Union’s southwestern border, the Soviet Union began moving multiple nuclear warheads from Russia to the island of Cuba, approximately 100 miles south of Florida at the southeastern edge of the Gulf of Mexico. The fear that this act inspired in Americans led to nuclear attack drills and the constant presence of the threat of war in the lives of everyone in the United States. How would the United States, then led by President John F. Kennedy, respond to this apparent act of aggression? This 13-day standoff has become known as the Cuban Missile Crisis.²⁵

War or the threat of war draws the attention of the public at large and, more than any other international event, tends to make people sit up and think critically about the decisions states make. Just as you can seek to better understand political science as a whole by breaking your examination down to the levels of individuals, groups, institutions, and states and international relations, one way to understand international relations and the decisions actors make is to use levels of analysis; that is, you can choose to zoom in on a particular aspect of the interaction. To better understand the motivations of the actors in the larger system, it is useful to break down the analysis. In international relations, you can examine the individual, focusing on the actions that leaders in a country take; the state, focusing on the actions of countries; and the global system, focusing on how states interact with international organizations, nongovernmental actors, and multinational corporations. States create policies, such as the decision to go to war or to solve a problem through negotiation and the creation of a treaty with the assistance of an international organization like the United Nations, that focus on either a specific level or the way that the levels interact with one another. Conflict occurs when the policy decisions of one state create consequences for another state that change the environment, harming the second state or complicating the decisions it must make.

Figure 1.7 We can examine international relations using three levels of analysis: the individual, the state, and the system. (attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY 4.0 license)

These levels of analysis serve two purposes: they provide a foundation for understanding the different problems states face, and they help one think about how a state’s policies can affect the international community. The characteristics and players of each level of analysis give a more holistic way to describe conflict.

Individual Level

The individual level of analysis focuses on the decision makers within a state and how the constraints the state places on them affect their chosen courses of action. The rules associated with their positions limit what leaders can do; for example, the president of the United States has the ability to move troops but cannot formally enter a war with another country without the consent of Congress.²⁶ This limits the possible policy responses US presidents have to choose from should they feel that the United States is being threatened. Decision makers reliably support policies that solve problems in ways that allow them to claim credit for solutions when they are called to account for their actions. Leaders like to be able to tout their accomplishments in re-election campaigns. They tend to prefer policy solutions that help them gain and keep power. In the case of the individual level of analysis, power is defined as an individual’s ability to steer policy to create outcomes that align with that individual’s personal beliefs and preferences.

State Level

The state level of analysis focuses on the actions of states in relation to one another. State-to-state relations occur in the context of intergovernmental organizations and in treaties and alliances. A state’s policy choice menu is defined by where the state sees itself and where the state wants to go in relation to other states. When theories of state behavior are discussed later in the chapter, you’ll see how theory helps explain the policy choices states make.

In the same way that individual political actors must play by certain rules, both the people who live in a state and the international community expect states to uphold norms of behavior and to meet the expectations of the power behind their institutions.

In a democracy like the United States, the state derives its legitimacy from the consent of the people. If a state begins to act in a way that goes against what the people say they want, the people can hold individual actors responsible and vote them out of office. The relationship between voters and elected officials is one way to see the relationship between the individual and state levels of analysis. In democracies, voters and those they elect form a feedback loop in which the preferences of the voters are made tangible through the policies that elected officials work to enact in the laws they make.

Figure 1.8 This World War II–era poster emphasizes the role the individual plays in directing the state. (credit: “Your right to vote is your opportunity to protect, over here the freedoms for which Americans fight over there” by Chester Raymond Miller/Posters: Artist Posters/Library of Congress, Public Domain)

In an autocracy like North Korea, institutions are propped up by the ability of the autocrat to hold the allegiance of the selectors needed to solidify their power. Selectors are the people that a leader in any type of government relies on to legitimize their power and position. In a democracy, selectors are the part of the population who can and do vote. In an autocracy, the selectors are the people who support the leader while at the same time controlling the parts of the country that a leader needs to legitimize their position, such as the military or the lucrative natural resources that the state may control.

Global Level

The global—or systemic—level of analysis considers how cooperation and conflict among states intersects with the environments in individual states to evoke change. The hallmark of this level of analysis is the number of variables that need to be considered when trying to understand the reasoning behind policy shifts and the ripple effect these shifts have on other countries. For example, though India and Pakistan are not permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and therefore, according to the terms of the United Nations Charter,²⁷ are not permitted to possess nuclear weapons,²⁸ both countries have been developing and maintaining nuclear weapons stockpiles as a high-level deterrent against the possibility that the other country will take overtly aggressive actions. These growing stockpiles of nuclear weapons set the stage for a situation not unlike that between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War—one of mutually assured destruction. The usual expectation of the international community would be that states who are not supposed to be in possession of nuclear weapons would be secretive in their development and even more secretive in their use. Instead, India and Pakistan have chosen not to hide their nuclear stockpiles, and both countries are fully aware of the level of conflict they must avoid to ensure they do not provoke the other country to use its arsenal. The international community has reacted to the nuclear buildup in India and Pakistan in a way that is markedly different from the reaction to the nuclear buildup in North Korea.²⁹ Because North Korea projects a general sense of distrust and aggression toward most of the members of the international community and because its tests of its nuclear stockpile are in express contravention to the wishes of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, the countries of the world see North Korea’s actions as a blatant challenge to the international system’s fine line between anarchy and order. While India and Pakistan have made it clear that their nuclear arsenal is a tool of last resort, North Korea does not seem to have that same level of restraint. North Korea has promised to use its weapons whenever it feels threatened but has provided no guidelines regarding what it perceives as a threat.³⁰ Though India, Pakistan, and North Korea are all violating international law to varying degrees, in choosing to place sanctions on North Korea but not on India or Pakistan, the global community is choosing to punish a state that, in what the international community perceives to be an irrational manner, seeks to threaten any and all states.

In a way, the global level of analysis is one of responsiveness rather than one of agency. A state must first take an action, such as testifying before the United Nations Security Council, before an international organization can respond. The anarchic nature of the international system means that intergovernmental organizations are not able to take meaningful preventive action to head off a state’s decision. Due to the anarchic nature of the international system, this level of analysis is the most unpredictable. Its value lies in the way it allows a broad view of any trends in the way events affect different states.

The Link between Policy and the Levels of Analysis

Levels of analysis can be used to understand how institutions make decisions. Think about each level of analysis as a lens through which policy makers view the possible consequences of implementing a particular solution to a problem they face. Governments can also use levels of analysis to view how a particular situation might affect their country; each level of analysis represents a different group of people with different wants and needs. Governments have to work to balance the preferences and needs of each member of each level of analysis when they craft and implement a policy.

The Cuban Missile Crisis is a classic example of how each of the three levels of analysis plays a role in complex potential or realized international conflicts.

At the individual level of analysis, President Kennedy had to consider both his own preferences and how his advisors would want to handle the situation. President Kennedy’s immediate circle of advisors,³¹ known as ExComm, embodied the facets of the individual level of analysis when they provided the president with their assessment of the crisis and offered possible solutions. Military leaders within ExComm strove to balance their own preferences for how the United States should project strength, favoring large shows of force and more aggressive response measures, with their understanding of who the president was and how he perceived the world around him. In order to get the president to support their plan over any other offered solution, they needed to play to the president’s desire to avoid long-term engagement or escalation. It was important to some members of ExComm to persuade the president that a more aggressive response would lead to a more decisive American victory that would send a strong message to Soviet leaders. These members believed that taking a strong stance would dissuade the Soviets from taking further actions against the United States.³²

Figure 1.9 ExComm meets during the Cuban Missile Crisis. (credit: “National Security Council Executive Committee” by White House Photographs/John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, Public Domain)

At the state level, President Kennedy had to consider the actions of the Soviets in terms of the preferences of their state—that is, their government institutions, which could override what Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev might want—in order to understand what message they hoped the movement of missiles to Cuba would send. The United States had to be careful about what escalation of conflict could mean in terms of potential danger to people in the United States and in the Soviet Union. Such escalation could also set a precedent for what other states would choose to do if placed in the same situation.

At the international, systemic level, the United States and the Soviet Union were involved in back-channel unofficial negotiations with then Secretary General of the United Nations, U Thant.³³ International law and norms limit what actions countries are willing to allow states to take, and this is especially true when the potential of nuclear conflict threatens the safety of not only the nations involved in a standoff, but also of the entire world. Secretary General Thant appealed to the United States and the Soviet Union to think as rationally as possible and to provide each other with the space in which to make decisions.

Beyond levels of analysis, political scientists use a variety of frameworks to help make sense of the way states respond to the actions of other states. The chapter now turns to those frameworks.

1. Reused from Chapter 14 of Rom, Mark, Hidaka, Masaki, & Bzostek Walker, Rachel. (2022). Introduction to Political Science. OpenStax. https://openstax.org/details/books/introduction-political-science under CC-BY 4.0 license which can be accessed for free at https://openstax.org ↑