Understanding International Relations, Third Edition

Conclusion: managing insecurity
And yet the international system is not as anarchic in the usual, pejorative
sense of the term, as these ruminations would imply. Much of the time there
is a degree of order in the world and insecurity, while ever present, is kept
at manageable levels. How? There are two institutions of international rela-
tions which, according to the state-centric tradition, preserve a degree of
order and security in the international system. The first, predictably, is the
balance of power – the idea that although force is the defining characteristic
of the international system, some patterns of force may induce a degree
of stability. The second institution for managing insecurity is, counter-
intuitively, the institution of interstate war. Whereas from a common-sense
point of view war is a disaster and represents the breakdown of order, in
the traditional state-centric view of the world, war, while still disastrous,
nonetheless plays an important role in the actual preservation of the system.
94
Understanding International Relations

---

Quite plausibly, nowadays, neither of these institutions can work in the way
the tradition wants them to, and this may be one more reason for abandon-
ing the state-centric view of the world. However, before we can legitimately
reach this conclusion, we must carry the argument through to the end, the
task of the next chapter.
Power and Security
95
Further reading
For this chapter the readings in Part 1 of Richard Little and Michael Smith,
Perspectives in World Politics: A Reader (1991) are particularly valuable.
On diplomacy in general, see G. R. Berridge, Diplomacy: Theory and
Practice (2002) and Adam Watson, Diplomacy: The Dialogue of States (1982);
also Keith Hamilton and R. T. B. Langhorne, The Practice of Diplomacy
(1995). For a wider notion of how states act, see Steve Smith and Michael
Clarke (eds), Foreign Policy Implementation (1985) and, for postmodern
accounts of diplomacy, see James Der Derian, On Diplomacy: A Genealogy of
Western Estrangement (1987), Costas Constantinou, ‘Diplomatic Representation
or Who Framed the Ambassadors?’ (1994) and Constantinou, On the Way to
Diplomacy (1996).
David Baldwin, Economic Statecraft (1985) is a seminal study on the exercise
of power/influence. On ‘coercive diplomacy’, see A. L. George, The Limits of
Coercive Diplomacy (1971); Gordon C. Craig and A. L. George (eds), Force and
Statecraft (1983); and Robert Art and Kenneth Waltz (eds), The Use of Force:
Military Power and International Politics (1993). The journal International
Security is a major source of high quality material on the exercise of power – see,
for example, the debate between Robert A. Pape, ‘Why Economic Sanctions Do
Not Work’ (1997) and ‘Why Economic Sanctions Still Do Not Work’ (1998), and
David A. Baldwin, ‘Correspondence Evaluating Economic Sanctions’ (1998) and
‘The Sanctions Debate and the Logic of Choice’ (1999/2000).
Most textbooks have extended discussions on power: particularly interesting
are Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and
Peace (1948); and Raymond Aron, Peace and War: A Theory of International
Relations (1967). George Liska, The Ways of Power: Patterns and Meanings in
World Politics (1990), Robert Cox, Production, Power and World Order: Social
Forces in the Making of History (1987) and David A. Baldwin, Paradoxes of
Power (1989) are very different but stimulating discussions of different kinds of
power. Geopolitics are currently becoming fashionable again – a good survey
is Daniel Deudeny, ‘Geopolitics as Theory: Historical Security Materialism’
(2000). For Gramscian notions of hegemonic power see Chapter 9.
Moving away from the international context, the standard work on commu-
nity power is Robert Dahl, Who Governs? (1961). Classic critiques are in Paul
Bachrach and Morton S. Baratz, Power and Poverty (1970); and Steven Lukes,

---

96
Understanding International Relations
Power: A Radical View (1974/2004). For a brief, but powerful, critique of
Lukes, see Brian Barry, ‘The Obscurities of Power’ (1975 in Baratz, 1989).
Robert Jervis, Perception and Misperception in World Politics (1976), is the
classic account of the ‘security dilemma’ and the ‘spiral of insecurity’. Ken
Booth (ed.) New Thinking about Strategy and International Security (1991a)
contains a number of articles critical of the notion. Michael E. Brown et al.,
New Global Dangers: Changing Dimensions of International Security (2004a),
looks at critical security dilemmas facing states in the twenty-first century,
including non-military threats. Further readings on new approaches to security
are listed after Chapter 9; David Baldwin, ‘The Concept of Security’ (1997), is
a useful survey that bridges old and new.

---