ULUSLARARASI ÖRGÜTLENME VE KÜRESEL YÖNETİŞİM

Heywood notes that a great power is “deemed to rank amongst the most powerful in a hierarchical state-system” and identifies four criteria for being a member of this so-called “great power club”:

• “Great powers are in the first rank of military prowess, having the capacity to maintain their own security and, potentially, to influence other powers.

• They are economically powerful states; although (as Japan shows) this is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for great power status.

• They have global, and not merely regional, spheres of interests.

• They adopt a ‘forward’ foreign policy and have actual, and not merely potential, impact on international affairs”

Joseph Nye has classified power as “soft power,” “hard power,” and “smart power.” Hard power is the use of coercion and payment; soft power is the ability to obtain preferred outcomes through attraction; smart power is the combination of the tools of both hard power and soft power.

Joseph Nye has classified power as “soft power,” “hard power,” and “smart power.” Hard power is the use of coercion and payment; soft power is the ability to obtain preferred outcomes through attraction; smart power is the combination of the tools of both hard power and soft power.

Can we mention various types of power in international politics? Joseph Nye, for example, has classified power as “soft power,” “hard power,” and “smart power.” Hard power is the use of coercion and payment; soft power is the ability to obtain preferred outcomes through attraction; smart power is the combination of the tools of both hard power and soft power (2009: 160). Accordingly, for Joseph Nye, there are three ways for an actor to affect the behavior of others to get what it wants: coercion, payment, and attraction.

According to Hedley Bull, great powers “manage their relations with one another in the interest of international order” through: “(i) preserving the general balance of power, (ii) seeking to avoid or control crises in their relations with one another, and (iii) seeking to limit or contain wars among one another. They exploit their preponderance in relation to the rest of international society by (iv) unilaterally exploiting their local preponderance, (v) agreeing to respect one another’s spheres of influence, and (vi) joint action, as is implied by the idea of a great power concert or condominium” (Bull, 2012: 200).

According to most scholars, a system with a clearly preponderant state (a hegemon) would be both politically and economically stable. Because such a hegemonic state, also with an interest in cooperating with other actors, can solve collective action problems through providing public goods and facilitating international cooperation (Kindleberger, 1981: 243-244; Krasner, 1976: 321; Gilpin, 1987: 74-75). This theory, in fact, is known as the hegemonic stability theory (HST). It establishes a theoretical link between hegemony and systemic stability and attracts a great deal of attention from IR scholars.

The members of the V-20 group in Paris Climate Agreement negotiations: “Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Barbados, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominican Republic, Ethiopia, Fiji, The Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Kenya, Kiribati, Lebanon, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Niger, Palau, Palestine, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Senegal, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tanzania, Timor-Leste, Tunisia, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Viet Nam and Yemen”

A middle-range state in the international system may be defined as “one that is neither great nor small in terms of its power, capacity, and influence; and exhibits the capability to create cohesion and obstruction toward global order and governance” (Karim, 2018: 3). The middle-range states have an important role especially within international organizations. Although such states do not individually have a leadership role in international organizations, they are able to follow an effective policy when they act collectively. In addition, the middle-range states have some individual roles in the international system in foreign-policy issues such as coalition-builder, mediator, public diplomacy promoter, perception manager, and bridge-builder.

The Commission on Global Governance has also given a specific definition of governance. Accordingly, “governance is the sum of many ways individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common affairs. It is a continuing process through which conflicting or diverse interests may be accommodated and co-operative action may be taken. It includes formal institutions and regimes empowered to enforce compliance, as well as informal arrangements that people and institutions either have agreed to or perceive to be in their interest”

The role and effectiveness of the middle-range powers in global governance can be evaluated by looking at the policies of the BRICS countries, namely Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. Kolesnichenko, Razanov, and Debin, in their joint article titled “The Role of BRICS in Global Politics,” focus on the effectiveness of the BRICS countries in global governance.

Anarchy means the lack of an overarching authority above states in the international system.

Hard power is the use of coercion and payment; soft power is the ability to obtain
preferred outcomes through attraction; smart power is the combination of the tools of both hard
power and soft power (2009: 160). Accordingly, for Joseph Nye, there are three ways for an actor to
affect the behavior of others to get what it wants: coercion, payment, and attraction.

Heywood notes that a great power is “deemed to rank amongst the most powerful in a hierarchical state-system” and
identifies four criteria for being a member of this so-called “great power club”:
• “Great powers are in thefirstrank ofmilitary prowess, having the capacity to maintain
their own security and, potentially, to influence other powers.
• They are economically powerful states; although (as Japan shows) this is a necessary
but not a sufficient condition for great power status.
• They have global, and not merely regional, spheres of interests.
• They adopt a ‘forward’ foreign policy and have actual, and not merely potential, impact on international affairs”

According to Hedley Bull, great powers “manage their relations with one another in the interest of international order” through:
“(i) preserving the general balance of power, (ii) seeking to avoid or control crises in their relations with one another, and (iii)
seeking to limit or contain wars among one another. They exploit their preponderance in relation to the rest of international
society by (iv) unilaterally exploiting their local preponderance, (v) agreeing to respect one another’s spheres of influence, and (vi) joint action, as is implied by the idea of a great power concert or condominium”.

Triple Entente (Great Britain, France, and Russia)

Upon the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the United States emerged as the only superpower. Therefore, the postCold War international system is referred to as a unipolar system.

The anarchical international system refers to an
international order without a centralized political
authority that is capable of imposing international
rules and restraining the use of force by states (Waltz,
1979; Wendt, 1992). As such, wars occur in the
system “because there is nothing to prevent them”
(Waltz, 1959: 232). The anarchical international
system is, in fact, a self-help system that consists
of states who seek to maximize their relative
power and secure their sovereignty through either
increasing their own material capabilities (internal
balancing) or aligning with other states (external
balancing). In the absence of a central authority and
of collective security, each state is responsible for
its own survival in the system. According to Waltz,
under anarchy, states need to ensure that there does
not exist a single state (a hegemon), which would
dominate the international system and determine
the rules of the system. In such an anarchical
system, t is difficult to achieve cooperation among
states and severe power differentials among them
may lead to a major war.

A, B, D is about small powers. E is about great powers.

B is about anarchy.

Global governance takes place through interacting rules, norms, international law, international regimes, ad hoc arrangements, global conferences and structures such as intergovernmental and non- governmental organizations. Each of these means is a critical factor in managing global issues (Karns and Mingst, 2004: 4). Apart from these means or pieces of global governance, there are interacting and linked actors in global governance toward sustaining international order and managing trans- national issues in the international system. Among others, states, intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental organizations, experts, and multinational corporations should be singled out in this process of global governance.