Considering the case of China, and drawing on materials

throughout the course, asses the strengths and

weaknesses of alternative theoretical approaches to
analysing the nature of power in the international system?
Each international relations theory has a different concept of power but the central
definition of power is the the capacities of actors to determine their circumstances
and fate.(Barnett & Duvall, 2005, p39). The three approaches that will be used to
examine the question are realism, neo-liberalism and constructivism. This essay
argues that Chinas power is predominantly economic in the international system and
consequently the realist school does not adequately describe the power of China.
Neo-liberalism and the theory of economic interdependence think that the power of
China can grow more and more but this country is still constrained by western
constructed international institutions. Finally, the constructivist approach is used to
try to explain Chinas growing power as a regional hegemon in Asia, but which fails to
explain the international economic dominance of China.
The realist school is based on the theory that sovereign states are rational egoists
who try to survive in the international anarchical system. For realists, power is how
one state uses its material resources to force another state to do something it
wouldnt do (Barnett & Duvall, 2005, p40). The realist Mearsheimer argues that the
rise of the China will not be peaceful, and will create a sphere of influence comparable
to that which the US commands in the Americas (Mearsheimer, 2005, p1). So the
China will develop as regional hegemon through military aggression, not tolerate US
intervention within its own sphere and this will lead to war between China and the US.
(Mearsheimer, 2005, p1). China has used its material forces to force the US to change
its foreign and defence policy. this is posible to see by realignment of the President
Obama of US foreign and military policy towards the Pacific region in 2011. The China
has trasformed the US from an offensive realist to a defensive realist for its own
security. (Schmidt, 2005, p528). The problem is that the traditional realist think that
the military power is the only power in the international system.
China has been careful not to follow the traditional path to power, (that of war) and is
instead building on its economic power in order to extend its influence over the
international system. (Shambaugh ed., 2005, p347). The multi-lateral agreements with
other Asian countries reflect a state who has experience of diplomacy. The idea of
Mearshimer is wrong. The China is not strong militarily, but this does not make it
weaker. Its power is in its economic strength. In other world the realist argument
cannot fully explain the power of China in the international system.
Neoliberalism argues that states are rational and egoist. They participate in
institutions if there are benefits. The institutions facilitate relations between states
with the exchange information. China is forced to operate within institutions designed
by the Western nations. The power of China is sometimes constrained by its relatively
new status as a great power. The power of China in the international system is its
United Nations Security Council veto. This give the international legal status as the
USA. The veto power represents that the UN do not has a democratic nature. The
neoliberalism theory describes the nature of the power of China in the international
system. Keohane and Nye believe that after the Cold War the realism is inadequate.
The economic interdependence now dictates government action and transnational

relationships (Keohane & Nye, 1977, pp5-6). The global financial crisis exposed the
weak in Western liberal capitalism, allowing China to offer an alternative economic
model. China is the worlds second biggest economy and a major investor in Africa,
Latin America and the Middle East. China has now the opportunity to increase its
international power. China is powerful in the international system for his economic
status. However, both realism and neo-liberalism cannot fully explain the nature of
power in the international system. Instead, the constructivist approach can be used as
an alternative by analysing socio-economic factors and the idealism questions behind
China s power in the international system. Constructivism is a social theory, and
focuses on the idealism behind interactions between different actors in the
international system. The Asian identity is characterised by fragile states, that have
the marks of their colonial past. Their sovereignty and border security is their highest
concern. Furthermore, the states have a rapid socio and economic change.
Furthermore China analysed the benefits to establishing relationships with the Central
Asian republics in order to gain access to Central Asian natural gas and oil by
guaranteeing their borders. The rise of the China has been peaceful without military
aggression. Realism, as a pre-Cold War theory is the weakest theory to describe in
detail the complex nature of China as power in the international system. Despite the
states are rational egoists and use their material resources to force another state to
change its actions is appropriate to explain the roots of China power. The neoliberalism
approach is the most appropriate as it recognizes the complexity of the world
political economy and the dominant economic interdependence in the international
system. But it does not fully explain why China is not a global hegemon. It also does
not explain the participation of China in the Asia institutions from which it does not
benefit directly. Finally, the constructivist approach attempts to analyse Chinas role in
Asia and does explain regional participation from an idealist perspective. However, it
fails to explain economic dominance of China in the global system which is not backed
up by idealist reasons. Therefore There are not one of the theories in the international
regime that can fully explain the nature of power in the international system. The
problem is that the power takes many forms and influence can be seen as military,
economic and ideological throughout the system. Therefore it would be unrealistic to
only use one theory to determine the nature of power in the international system.