Smart power. In international relations, the term smart power refers to the combination of hard power and soft power strategies. It is defined by the Center for Strategic and International Studies as "an approach that underscores the necessity of a strong military, but also invests heavily in alliances, partnerships, and institutions of all levels to expand American influence and establish legitimacy of American action.
"[1] Joseph Nye, former Assistant Secretary of Defense under the Clinton Administration and author of several books on smart power strategy, suggests that the most effective strategies in foreign policy today require a mix of hard and soft power resources. Employing only hard power or only soft power in a given situation will usually prove inadequate.[2] Nye utilizes the example of terrorism, arguing that combatting terrorism demands smart power strategy. According to Chester A. Origin[edit] History of smart power in the United States[edit] 2004: Joseph S. Rule of law[edit] U.S. Polarity in international relations.
Polarity in international relations is any of the various ways in which power is distributed within the international system. It describes the nature of the international system at any given period of time. One generally distinguishes four types of systems: unipolarity, bipolarity, tripolarity, and multipolarity for four or more centers of power. The type of system is completely dependent on the distribution of power and influence of states in a region or globally. NATO and countries with which it is supposed to be at peace account for over 70% of global military expenditure,[2] with the United States alone accounting for 43% of global military expenditure[3] in 2009 and more than the next 17 combined in 2010[4] with NATO then taking about half of the global $1.6 trillion.[5] Unipolarity in international politics is a distribution of power in which one state exercises most of the cultural, economic, and military influence.
Nuno P. Unipolarity is an interstate system and not an empire. Superpower. A superpower is a state with a dominant position in international relations and is characterised by its unparalleled ability to exert influence or project power on a global scale. This is done through the means of both military and economic strength, as well as diplomatic and soft power influence. Traditionally superpowers are preeminent among the great powers (i.e as the USA is today). The term first applied to the British Empire, the United States of America and the Soviet Union.
However, following World War II and the Suez Crisis in 1956, the British Empire's status as a superpower was greatly diminished; for the duration of the Cold War the United States and the Soviet Union came to be generally regarded as the two remaining superpowers, dominating world affairs. Since the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, only the United States of America appears to fulfill the criteria of being a world superpower.[1][2] Terminology and Background The Cold War See also. Energy superpower. An energy superpower is a nation 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. It is used to describe Russia, and has been used with other countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Canada, Venezuela, Australia, and Iran.[1][2][3][4][5] Energy superpower status might be exercised, for example, by significantly influencing the price on global markets, or by withholding supplies.[6] The status of "energy superpower" should not be confused with that of "superpower".
Energy superpowers[edit] Russian natural gas as a % of domestic consumption. Russia's reserves of natural gas have helped give it the title of energy superpower.[7][8] However, this status has been called into question by some. The "energy superpower" concept is an illusion with no basis in reality. Threats to energy superpowers[edit] See also[edit] Democratic deficit. A democratic deficit (or democracy deficit) occurs when ostensibly democratic organizations or institutions (particularly governments) fall short of fulfilling the principles of democracy in their practices or operation where representative and linked parliamentary integrity becomes widely discussed.[1] The phrase democratic deficit is cited as first being used by the Young European Federalists in their Manifesto in 1977,[2] which was drafted by Richard Corbett.
The phrase was also used by David Marquand in 1979, referring to the then European Economic Community, the forerunner of the European Union.[3] United Nations[edit] Many authors[who?] Have argued that the United Nations suffers from a democratic deficit, because it lacks a body of directly elected representatives. European Union[edit] The European Union (EU) is a unique organisation – not a federation, yet not just an international organisation. The Lisbon Treaty was intended to reduce the democratic deficit in the European Union.