This is #3 in my series of posts about International Relations. See my posts for March 21 and March 28 to read the first two essays in this series. Today’s topics are state actors, national sovereignty, and national interests.
Concept of Sovereignty
I introduced this concept last week, but I want to talk about it a bit more today. First, I’m going to define it more completely by analyzing its key components.
Sovereignty refers to the supreme authority and independence of a state within its territorial boundaries. It emerged alongside the modern state system, gaining prominence after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which ended the Thirty Years’ War in Europe. Broadly, sovereignty designates a state’s right to govern itself without external interference.
The internal dimension of sovereignty implies that a state possesses the ultimate decision-making power within its borders. States exercise authority over their citizens, institutions, and legal systems. This internal dimension includes matters of governance, law, and administration. In the United States, this internal dimension is captured in Article VI, of the Constitution, often called the Supremacy Clause.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Texas Governor Abbott needs to review his understanding of this part of the Constitution. Just sayin’.
The external dimension of sovereignty establishes the doctrine of nonintervention, by which sovereign states are entitled to noninterference by other states in their internal affairs. States respect each other’s sovereignty by refraining from military aggression or meddling in domestic politics. The principle of nonintervention contributes to stability and peaceful coexistence.
Americans need to remember that the word “states” in the previous paragraph refers to countries, not the subdivisions of the United States.
Sovereignty has a component of mutuality, demanding mutual recognition among states. Recognition signifies acceptance of a state’s legitimacy and status as an equal member of the international community. Diplomatic relations, embassies, and membership in international organizations reflect this recognition.
Sovereignty is regularly challenged across the globe. Tension between sovereignty and human rights arises when states violate the rights of their citizens and other countries consider stepping in. The collapse of some states and the emergence of others challenge traditional notions of sovereignty. You are all probably old enough to remember when President Carter recognized the People’s Republic of China (Communist China) as the legitimate government of China, thereby withdrawing recognition from the Republic of China (Taiwan) in 1979. In addition, globalization – including transnational issues like climate change and terrorism) — challenges state sovereignty.
National Power and Security
Maybe the best way to think about these concepts is to define National Power as offense and Security as defense.
National Power refers to a state’s capacity to influence and achieve its goals in the international arena. Power can be defined in a number of ways:
Military Power: The strength of a state’s armed forces, including its technology, size, and readiness. The components of military power are a state’s armed forces and technology, but also include the state’s strategic positioning – its bases, alliances, and global military presence.
Economic Power: A state’s economic resources, trade capabilities, industrial capacity, and financial stability. The components of a state’s economic power include its productive capacity – its GDP and trade – but also the strength of its technological, manufacturing, and resource extraction industries. Capping all of this is a stable financial system that provides access to capital, investment, and economic stability.
Diplomatic Power: The ability to negotiate and build alliances, conduct diplomacy, and shape international norms. This type of power is carried out through formal alliances and treaties as well as through multilateral diplomacy in the context of international organizations. In addition, this can also involve what’s called “soft” power – influence through persuasion and culture.
Technological Power: Innovation, scientific advancements, and technological prowess. This includes its research and development capabilities, its cyber capabilities – cybersecurity, digital infrastructure, and information warfare – and its ability to explore and exploit space. Space allows a state to perform more effectively along all of the other dimensions of power.
Cultural Power: Influence through art, media, language, and cultural exports. This encompasses the ability of a state to shape global narratives, influence public opinion, and export cultural products. This is done most visibly through media and entertainment, but global educational institutions and tourism play a role as well.
These forms of power work best when they work synergistically. Economic strength fuels military modernization and technological research, while cultural influence enhances diplomatic relations and the soft exercise of power.
Security, on the other hand, refers to a state’s protection from external threats, ensuring its survival and well-being. Security comes in a number of forms.
Territorial security – safeguarding borders and preventing invasion
Military security – maintain a strong defense capability
Economic security – ensuring stable trade, resources, and economic prosperity
Political security – protecting the state’s political institutions and stability
Environmental security – addressing climate change, resource scarcity, and environmental risks
Human security – protecting citizens from violence, poverty, and health crises.
Overall, the exercise of national power is the mechanism for enhancing security. This requires establishing priorities and making strategic choices, because there are not enough resources to achieve security at the highest level across all of the dimensions of national security.
Foreign Policy Decision-Making
Foreign policy decision-making refers to the process by which states formulate, implement, and execute their strategies and actions in the international arena. It involves identifying and analyzing individual decision-makers, cognitive processes, and external factors. Understanding this process is crucial for analyzing state behavior and achieving national objectives.
Broadly, foreign policy decision-making focuses on the attributes of decision-makers – the incentives, constraints, and cognitive processes faced by decision-makers. It requires analysts to understand how the perceptions and beliefs that decision-makers hold about threats, opportunities, and national interests influence policy choices.
Cognitive biases (e.g., confirmation bias, groupthink) impact decision outcomes. For example, confirmation bias is the tendency to seek, interpret, and remember information that confirms preexisting beliefs or hypotheses. This may lead them to dismiss contrary evidence. We saw this during the Iraq War, when policymakers interpreted intelligence data to confirm the presence of weapons of mass destruction while ignoring dissenting analyses.
Overconfidence may lead decision-makers to overestimate their own abilities or the accuracy of their judgments. Overconfidence is sometimes exacerbated by the Dunning-Kruger effect — the idea that those with the least expertise in a domain are the most overconfident. We all remember #P01135809 suggesting that we attack COVID by injecting bleach into our bodies, right?
Misleading historical analogies occur when decision-makers incorrectly draw parallels between current situations and historical events. These misleading analogies can oversimplify complex issues and lead decision-makers to conclude that superficial similarities among events mean that similar solutions will produce similar results.
I remember teaching about two examples of this kind of historical thinking. The “Munich Syndrome” was the lesson that you can’t appease a villain. This lesson was “learned” after British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain agreed to allow Hitler to retain the Sudentenland, claiming to have achieved “peace in our time.” Needless to say, this didn’t last long. This experience led the United States (and other countries) to jump into later conflicts even if there may have been ways out of them. The “Vietnam Syndrome,” alternatively, supposedly taught the lesson that a global power can’t necessarily defeat a weaker country that pursues a strategy of unconventional and guerilla warfare. This led post-Vietnam leaders — at least for a while — to shy away from situations in which action may have been warranted in order to avoid “another Vietnam.”
Groupthink occurs when cohesive groups prioritize consensus over critical thinking. Avoiding dissenting views to maintain harmony can lead to flawed decisions, as seen in the Bay of Pigs invasion.
It is also important to understand other factors influencing decision-makers. These include international factors, like the geopolitical context, alliances, and global power dynamics. Domestic political factors also play a role – public opinion, interest groups, and upcoming elections. In addition, interpersonal dynamics come into play – how do the decision-makers get along among themselves and with foreign leaders?
It's also important to understand that states follow specific rules or procedures when making foreign policy choices. They operate within existing institutional structures that have bureaucratic ways of dealing with issues – both within the institutions and externally dealing with other institutions. Sometimes the most straightforward solution to a problem challenges these institutional norms and processes. That doesn’t mean it can’t be done – it just means that the decision-making process is going to involve convincing decision-makers to violate their own policies or procedures.
An assessment of any international event – for example, the war in Ukraine or the Hamas-Israel War in Gaza – requires an understanding of all of what I’ve presented here. The policy experts who spring up on social media after every international crisis or foreign policy action probably don’t know all of this. This is why every state government employs thousands of people who bring specific expertise about all of this to the table. Knowledge and expertise do in fact matter.
I love this stuff. Great piece. You know, when you and I take over the world, it'll be great. We can probably do at least as well as those men have done.