This study focuses on use of foreign-policy power by Georgia on USA, EU member states and Russia during 2004-2012. In this period, Georgia wanted to enter into alliance with USA and EU states and gain access to Euro-Atlantic organizations, European Union and NATO. At the same time, Georgia wanted to reduce Russian influence on Georgian soil. After a few months of the new Georgian regime it was clear that the relation with its big neighbor will be difficult, mainly because of the two separatist republics on Georgian-Russian border, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The aim of this study is to determine categories of power that Georgia used to achieve its goals. The study uses concepts of small state and power in international relations. Besides, it uses Nye's concept of soft and hard power. For influencing Western states Georgia chose the combination of soft and hard power. Soft power of Georgia has been mainly based on presentation of attractive values - pro-Western thinking a democracy - which should have attracted Western support. To a lower extent, foreign policy and culture were also used as sources of soft power. Georgia's hard power consisted of security importance and economic and political value of the country. In case of Russia, Georgia used only tools of hard power which included harsh rhetoric...

With the aim to embark on the theoretical debate on soft and hard power, this study uses the territorial dispute between the ROK and Japan over the Dokdo/Takeshima Islands to illustrate how the common scholarly understanding of the two power concepts are incorrect and misleading. While soft power and hard power are commonly recognized as two antithetical types of power within the theoretical debate, I argue that they are in fact linked and cannot be divided into separate forms of power. Using a Foucauldian approach to discourse analysis, the thesis replaces the concepts of soft power and hard power with the concepts of representational force and physical force to showcase how representational force can enable and legitimize the use of physical force. The thesis is able to identify how the governments of the ROK and Japan exercise representational force and legitimize the use of physical force against each other, despite them being in a trilateral security cooperation with the U.S. Consequently, the study illustrates how the concepts of soft and hard power should be better understood within the theoretical debate.

In the context of Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka, this paper provides a comparative analysis of China's neocolonialism and smart power strategies through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The study analyzes the economic, political, and social consequences of China's growing presence in these nations and offers a deeper comprehension of their position in the region by drawing on a wide range of theoretical frameworks and empirical evidence. The research starts out by examining the idea of neocolonialism and how it relates to China's involvement in the area. It explores into a critical analysis of China's debt-trap diplomacy, which raised concerns regarding the BRI projects' long-term economic viability and political influence. The paper also looks into how China uses smart power as a strategic tool to expand its influence in the region, emphasizing on smart power programs, economic development, and cultural diplomacy.

L’émergence de la Chine dans le système international post-guerre froide pose un défi pour la position hégémonique des États-Unis et l’ordre mondial libéral. Lorsqu’ils tentent d’expliquer ce défi, les spécialistes tendent à se concentrer uniquement soit sur le hard power chinois (en particulier, sa puissance militaire) soit sur son soft power (l’attrait de sa culture et idéologie). Cette thèse développe un cadre d’analyse alternatif inspiré de la sociologie de Pierre Bourdieu, articulé autour de la notion de pouvoir symbolique. Elle conçoit la politique internationale en termes d’une lutte symbolique (entre, par exemple, une orthodoxie et une hétérodoxie) dont l’issue est déterminée par au moins trois facteurs cruciaux : contexte, capital et lieux communs. Ce cadre est appliqué à l’analyse du nouveau rôle de la Chine dans le monde depuis la fin de la guerre froide, lequel est indiscutablement l’un des développements les plus remarquables des relations internationales des temps modernes. La thèse démontre que la Chine ne défie pas l’hégémonie des États-Unis et l’ordre mondial libéral au sens conventionnel de la puissance matérielle ou de l’idéologie, mais plutôt au niveau symbolique. La thèse soutient que la conjonction des trois facteurs susmentionnés a été nécessaire à l’influence mondiale de la Chine : (1) la crise de légitimation des États-Unis (sur les plan économique, politique et idéologique), couplée à l’extraordinaire ascension de nouvelles puissances dans le système international comme la Chine, ont créé un contexte historique favorable ou « condition de possibilité »; (2) l’énorme capital symbolique accumulé par la Chine, en raison non seulement de son nouveau statut de grande puissance, mais aussi de son approche pragmatique des questions nationales et internationales, en a fait une source d’inspiration convoitée mondialement ; (3) la mobilisation stratégique par la Chine de son capital symbolique, sous la forme d’un ensemble de lieux communs ‘rhétoriques’, a grandement contribué à légitimer sa puissance, en particulier aux yeux des élites dirigeantes dans le monde en développement, dissimulant ainsi le caractère asymétrique et arbitraire de ses relations. Ensemble, ces trois éléments –contexte, capital, lieux communs– expliquent le pouvoir symbolique de la Chine, c’est-à-dire la perception selon laquelle, contrairement aux États-Unis, elle propose des réponses pertinentes et cohérentes aux problèmes d’organisation sociale, économique et politique de ce monde. L’ascension de la Chine remet ainsi en question le « méta-capital » des États-Unis, c’est-à-dire son monopole sur la production du capital économique, social, culturel et symbolique. L’accent mis sur cette dimension symbolique de la lutte pour définir et imposer la « vision légitime du monde social et ses divisions » révèle une rupture avec la pratique conventionnelle de la politique des grandes puissances, au profit d’une transformation pacifique du système international et d’une diplomatie symbolique. Cet accent sur le pouvoir symbolique ouvre des avenues prometteuses pour l’étude du changement et des sources d’autorité sur la scène politique mondiale, traditionnellement définie comme « anarchique ». / China’s rise within the international system in the post-Cold War era challenges the hegemonic position of the United States and the Western liberal order. In trying to explain this challenge, scholars tend to either focus on Chinese hard power (in particular, its military power) or on its soft power (the attractiveness of its culture and ideology). This thesis develops an alternative Bourdieu-inspired framework addressing symbolic power. It conceptualizes international politics in terms of a symbolic struggle (such as that between orthodoxy and heterodoxy) whose outcome is determined by at least three crucial factors: context, capital and commonplaces. The framework is applied to the analysis of China’s new world role, which is arguably one of the most remarkable developments in modern international relations. The thesis shows that China does not challenge U.S. hegemonic position and the Western liberal order in the conventional sense of material power or ideology, but rather at the symbolic level. The thesis argues that the combination of the three above-mentioned factors has been necessary to China’s worldwide influence : (1) the legitimation crisis of the United States (economically, politically and ideologically), paired with the extraordinary rise of new illiberal powers on the world scene such as China, created a favourable historical context or “condition of possibility”; (2) the huge amount of symbolic capital accumulated by China, not only because of its new status as a great power, but also because of the success of its pragmatic approach to national and international issues, made it become a source of inspiration for countries across the world; (3) the strategic mobilization by China of its symbolic capital, in the form of ‘rhetorical’ commonplaces, greatly contributed to legitimize its power, especially in the eyes of ruling elites in the developing world, thereby dissimulating the asymmetric and arbitrary nature of the Chinese power and relations. Together, these three components -context, capital, and commonplaces- explain the emergence of China as a symbolic power, i.e. the perception that, unlike the United States, China now has the authority to speak the truth and to define causes of and remedies for certain problems and crises. China’s rise challenges the Unites States’ ‘meta-capital’, that is, its monopoly on the production of economic, social, cultural, and symbolic capital. The focus on this symbolic dimension as a ‘weapon’ in the struggle to define and impose the “legitimate vision of the social world and its divisions” reveals a rupture in the conventional practice of great powers politics, pointing to a peaceful transformation of the international system and symbolic diplomacy. It shows that a focus on symbolic power opens promising avenues for the study of change and sources of authority in world politics, traditionally defined as “anarchic”.

No description available.

While few would deny America is the most powerful nation on earth, there is considerable debate, and controversy, over how America uses its foreign policy power. This is even truer since the “unipolar moment,” when America gained sole superpower status with the end of the Soviet Union and the Cold War. In the Cold War Reinhold Niebuhr was the main theological voice speaking to American power. In the Unipolar world, the Religious right emerged as the main theological voice, but instead of seeking to curb American power the Religious right embraced Neoconservatism in what I will call “Totemic Conservatism” to support use of America's power in the world and to triumph Manifest destiny in American foreign policy, which is the notion that America is a chosen nation, and this legitimizes its use of power and underpins its moral claims. I critique the Niebuhrian and Religious right legacies, and offer a classical realist strategy for theology to speak to America power and foreign policy, which avoids the neoconservative and religious conservative error of totemism, while avoiding the jettisoning of Niebuhr's theology by political liberals, and, the political ghettoizing of theology by his chief critics. This strategy is based on embracing the understanding of classical realism, but not taking the next step, which both Niebuhr and neoconservativism ultimately do, of moving from a prescriptive to a predictive strategy for American foreign policy. In this thesis, I argue that in the wake of the unipolar moment the embrace of the Religious right of Neoconservatism to triumph Manifest destiny in American foreign policy is a problematic commingling of faith and politics, and what is needed instead is a strategy of speaking to power rooted in classical realism but one which refines Niebuhrian realism to avoid the risk of progressing a Constantinian theology.