This article uses bare URLs for citations. Please consider adding full citations so that the article remains verifiable. Several templates and the Reflinks tool are available to assist in formatting. (Reflinks documentation) (November 2011)

The chamber of the United Nations Security Council

Power in International Relations is defined in several different ways. Political scientists, historians, and practitioners of international relations (diplomats) have used the following concepts of political power:

• Power as a goal of states or leaders;
• Power as a measure of influence or control over outcomes, events, actors and issues;
• Power as reflecting victory in conflict and the attainment of security; and,
• Power as control over resources and capabilities.

Modern discourse generally speaks in terms of state power, indicating both economic and military power. Those states that have significant amounts of power within the international system are referred to as middle powers, regional powers, great powers, superpowers, or hyperpowers/hegemons, although there is no commonly accepted standard for what defines a powerful state.

Entities other than states can also acquire and wield power in international relations. Such entities can include multilateral international organizations, military alliance organizations (e.g. NATO), multinational corporations, non-governmental organizations, or other institutions such as the Roman Catholic Church, Wal-Mart,^[1] or the Hanseatic League.

Power as a goal[link]

Primary usage of "power" as a goal in international relations belongs to political theorists, such as Niccolò Machiavelli and Hans Morgenthau. Especially among Classical Realist thinkers, power is an inherent goal of mankind and of states. Economic growth, military growth, cultural spread etc. can all be considered as working towards the ultimate goal of international power.

Power as influence[link]

NATO accounts for over 70% of global military expenditure,^[2] with the United States alone accounting for 43% of global military expenditure.^[3]

Political scientists principally use "power" in terms of an actor's ability to exercise influence over other actors within the international system. This influence can be coercive, attractive, cooperative, or competitive. Mechanisms of influence can include the threat or use of force, economic interaction or pressure, diplomacy, and cultural exchange.

Spheres, blocs, and alliances[link]

Under certain circumstances, states can organize a sphere of influence or a bloc within which they exercise predominant influence. Historical examples include the spheres of influence recognized under the Concert of Europe, or the recognition of spheres during the Cold War following the Yalta Conference. The Warsaw Pact, the "Free World", and the Non-Aligned Movement were the blocs that arose out of the Cold War contest. Military alliances like NATO and the Warsaw Pact are another forum through which influence is exercised. However, "realist" theory often attempts to stay away from the creation of powerful blocs/spheres that can create a hegemon within the region. British foreign policy, for example, has always sided against the hegemonic forces on the continent, i.e. Nazi Germany, Napoleonic France or Habsburg Austria.

Power as security[link]

Power is also used when describing states or actors that have achieved military victories or security for their state in the international system. This general usage is most commonly found among the writings of historians or popular writers. For instance, a state that has achieved a string of combat victories in a military campaign against other states can be described as powerful. An actor that has succeeded in protecting its security, sovereignty, or strategic interests from repeated or significant challenge can also be described as powerful.

Power as capability[link]

American author Charles W. Freeman, Jr. described power as the following:

Power is the capacity to direct the decisions and actions of others. Power derives from strength and will. Strength comes from the transformation of resources into capabilities. Will infuses objectives with resolve. Strategy marshals capabilities and brings them to bear with precision. Statecraft seeks through strategy to magnify the mass, relevance, impact, and irresistibility of power. It guides the ways the state deploys and applies its power abroad. These ways embrace the arts of war, espionage, and diplomacy. The practitioners of these three arts are the paladins of statecraft.^[4]

Power is also used to describe the resources and capabilities of a state. This definition is quantitative and is most often used by geopoliticians and the military. Capabilities are thought of in tangible terms—they are measurable, weighable, quantifiable assets. Thomas Hobbes spoke of power as "present means to obtain some future apparent good." Hard power can be treated as a potential and is not often enforced on the international stage.

Chinese strategists have such a concept of national power that can be measured quantitatively using an index known as comprehensive national power.

Hard versus soft power[link]

Some political scientists distinguish between two types of power: Hard and Soft. The former is coercive while the latter is attractive.

Hard power refers to coercive tactics: the threat or use of armed forces, economic pressure or sanctions, assassination and subterfuge, or other forms of intimidation. Hard power is generally associated to the stronger of nations, as the ability to change the domestic affairs of other nations through military threats. Realists and neorealists, such as John Mearsheimer, are advocates of the use of such power for the balancing of the international system.

Joseph Nye is the leading proponent and theorist of soft power. Instruments of soft power include debates on cultural values, dialogues on ideology, the attempt to influence through good example, and the appeal to commonly accepted human values. Means of exercising soft power include diplomacy, dissemination of information, analysis, propaganda, and cultural programming to achieve political ends.

Categories of power[link]

Map reflecting the categories of power in international relations.

  countries most often considered to be Superpower

  countries most often considered to be Great power

  countries most often considered to be Regional power

  countries most often considered to be Middle power

^[5]

In the modern geopolitical landscape, a number of terms are used to describe various types of powers, which include the following:

• Superpower: In 1944, Fox^{[clarification needed]} defined superpower as "great power plus great mobility of power" and identified 3 states, the British Empire, the Soviet Union and the United States.^[6] The United States is currently considered a superpower with China, India and the European Union being potential superpowers.
• Great power: In historical mentions, the term great power refers to any nations that have strong political, cultural and economic influence over nations around it and across the world. China, France, Germany,^{[7][8][9][10][11]} Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States are often considered to be current great powers.
• Regional power: Used to describe a nation that exercises influence and power within a region. Being a regional power is not mutually exclusive with any of the other categories of power. Many countries are often described as regional powers, among those are Brazil, India, Canada, Spain, Australia, Mexico, South Korea and Turkey.
• Middle power: A subjective description of second-tier influential states that could not be described as great powers, such as Netherlands, Indonesia, South Africa and Israel.

Other types of power[link]

The term energy superpower describes a country that has immense influence or even direct control over much of the world's energy supplies. Saudi Arabia and Russia, possibly Canada and Australia are generally acknowledged as the world's current energy superpowers, given their abilities to globally influence or even directly control prices to certain countries.

The term cultural/entertainment superpower describes a country in which has immense influence or even direct control over much of the world's entertainment or has an immense large cultural influence on much of the world. Although this is debated on who meets such criteria, many agree that the United Kingdom,^[12] United States, France, India and Japan^[13][14] are generally acknowledged as the entertainment and cultural superpowers, given their abilities to distribute their entertainment and cultural innovations worldwide.

Modern Age European powers[link]

From the 15th century to the early 18th century the five major powers in Europe were England, France, Portugal, Spain and the Ottoman Empire. During the 17th and 18th centuries the Habsburg monarchy was added to the group, whilst Portugal, Spain and the Ottomans progressively lost their power and influence. In 1707 Great Britain (created by the unification of the kingdoms of England and Scotland) replaced England, and progressively became more powerful during the 18th century, becoming embroiled with other European powers, particularly France, for control of territory outside of Europe, such as North America and India. In the second half of the 18th century Russia and Prussia gained major status.

During Early Modern European Age a group of other states including Sweden, the Netherlands, the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, the Papal States, Denmark–Norway, the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and Bavaria were recognised as having important impact on the European balance of power.

From the late 18th century and during all the 19th century, there was an informal convention recognising Five Great Powers in Europe: France, Great Britain, Russia, Austria (later Austro-Hungary) and the Kingdom of Prussia (later the German Empire). From the late 19th century Italy was added to this group. Eventually two extra non-European powers, Japan and the United States, were able to gain the same great power status from the start of 20th century.

See also[link]

• Balance of power in international relations
• Lateral Pressure Theory
• National power
• Peace through strength
• Power transition theory

Notes[link]

References[link]

• ”International Organisation as Coordination in N-person Games”, in Political Studies (Lane & Maeland), Vol(54)(1).
• What is power? by Niall Ferguson. www.hoover.org.
• Weak States in the International System by Michael I. Handel. books.google.com.

External links[link]

Powermetrics Information Network

Part of a series on
Politics
Primary topics Index of politics articles Politics by country Politics by subdivision Political economy Political history Political history of the world Political philosophy
Political systems Anarchist Capitalist City-state Communist Democracy Federacy Feudalism Mixed economy Dictatorship Directorial Meritocracy Monarchy Parliamentary Presidential Semi-presidential Theocracy
Academic disciplines Political science Political scientists International relations (theory) Comparative politics
Public administration Bureaucracy Street-level bureaucracy Adhocracy
Policy Public policy (Legal doctrine) Public interest Foreign policy
Organs of government Separation of powers Legislature Executive Judiciary Electoral branch
Other topics Sovereignty Theories of political behavior Biology and political orientation
Subseries Elections Electoral systems Voting Federalism Form of government Ideology Political campaigning Political parties
Politics portal
v t e

'International Relations' (I.R.) (occasionally referred to as international studies, (I.S.) although the two terms are not perfectly synonymous) is the study of relationships between countries, including the roles of states, inter-governmental organizations (IGOs), international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and multinational corporations (MNCs). It is both an academic and public policy field, and can be either positive or normative as it both seeks to analyze as well as formulate the foreign policy of particular states. It is often considered a branch of political science (especially after 1988 UNESCO nomenclature), but an important sector of academia prefer to treat it as an interdisciplinary field of study. Aspects of international relations have been studied for thousands of years, since the time of Thucydides, but IR became a separate and definable discipline in the early 20th century.^[1]

Apart from political science, IR draws upon such diverse fields as economics, history, international law, philosophy, geography, social work, sociology, anthropology, criminology, psychology, gender studies, and cultural studies / culturology. It involves a diverse range of issues including but not limited to: globalization, state sovereignty, international security, ecological sustainability, nuclear proliferation, nationalism, economic development, global finance, terrorism, organized crime, human security, foreign interventionism and human rights.

History[link]

The history of international relations can be traced thousands of years ago; Barry Buzan and Richard Little, for example, consider the interaction of ancient Sumerian city-states, starting in 3,500 BC, as the first fully-fledged international system.^[2]

The official portraits of King Władysław IV dressed according to French, Spanish and Polish fashion reflects the complex politics of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth during the Thirty Years' War

The history of international relations based on sovereign states is often traced back to the Peace of Westphalia of 1648, a stepping stone in the development of the modern state system. Prior to this, the European medieval organization of political authority was based on a vaguely hierarchical religious order. Contrary to popular belief, Westphalia still embodied layered systems of sovereignty, especially within the Holy Roman Empire.^[3] More than the Peace of Westphalia, the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713 is thought to reflect an emerging norm that sovereigns had no internal equals within a defined territory and no external superiors as the ultimate authority within the territory's sovereign borders. A simple way to view this is that sovereignty says, "I'm not allowed to tell you what to do and you are not allowed to tell me what to do."^{[citation needed]}

The centuries of roughly 1500 to 1789 saw the rise of the independent, sovereign states, the institutionalization of diplomacy and armies. The French Revolution added to this the new idea that not princes or an oligarchy, but the citizenry of a state, defined as the nation, should be defined as sovereign. Such a state in which the nation is sovereign would thence be termed a nation-state (as opposed to a monarchy, or a religious state). The term republic increasingly became its synonym. An alternative model of the nation-state was developed in reaction to the French republican concept by the Germans and others, who instead of giving the citizenry sovereignty, kept the princes and nobility, but defined nation-statehood in ethnic-linguistic terms, establishing the rarely if ever fulfilled ideal that all people speaking one language should belong to one state only. The same claim to sovereignty was made for both forms of nation-state. (It is worth noting that in Europe today, few states conform to either definition of nation-state: many continue to have royal sovereigns, and hardly any are ethnically homogeneous.)

The particular European system supposing the sovereign equality of states was exported to the Americas, Africa, and Asia via colonialism and the "standards of civilization". The contemporary international system was finally established through decolonization during the Cold War. However, this is somewhat over-simplified. While the nation-state system is considered "modern", many states have not incorporated the system and are termed "pre-modern".

Further, a handful of states have moved beyond insistence on full sovereignty, and can be considered "post-modern". The ability of contemporary IR discourse to explain the relations of these different types of states is disputed. "Levels of analysis" is a way of looking at the international system, which includes the individual level, the domestic state as a unit, the international level of transnational and intergovernmental affairs, and the global level.

What is explicitly recognized as International Relations theory was not developed until after World War I, and is dealt with in more detail below. IR theory, however, has a long tradition of drawing on the work of other social sciences. The use of capitalizations of the "I" and "R" in International Relations aims to distinguish the academic discipline of International Relations from the phenomena of international relations. Many cite Sun Tzu's The Art of War (6th century BC), Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War (5th century BC), Chanakya's Arthashastra (4th century BC), as the inspiration for realist theory, with Hobbes' Leviathan and Machiavelli's The Prince providing further elaboration.

Similarly, liberalism draws upon the work of Kant and Rousseau, with the work of the former often being cited as the first elaboration of democratic peace theory. Though contemporary human rights is considerably different than the type of rights envisioned under natural law, Francisco de Vitoria, Hugo Grotius and John Locke offered the first accounts of universal entitlement to certain rights on the basis of common humanity. In the twentieth century, in addition to contemporary theories of liberal internationalism, Marxism has been a foundation of international relations.

Study of IR[link]

Flags of the member states of the United Nations

Initially, international relations as a distinct field of study was almost entirely British-centered. IR only emerged as a formal academic ‘discipline’ in 1918 with the founding of the first ‘chair’ (professorship) in IR - the Woodrow Wilson Chair at Aberystwyth, University of Wales (now Aberystwyth University^[4]), from an endowment given by David Davies, became the first academic position dedicated to IR. This was rapidly followed by establishment of IR at US universities and Geneva, Switzerland. In the early 1920s, the London School of Economics' department of International Relations was founded at the behest of Nobel Peace Prize winner Philip Noel-Baker, and was the first institute to offer a wide range of degrees in the field. Furthermore, the International History department at LSE, developed as primarily focused on the history of IR in the early modern, colonial and Cold War periods..

The first university entirely dedicated to the study of IR was the Graduate Institute of International Studies (now the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies), which was founded in 1927 to form diplomats associated to the League of Nations, established in Geneva some years before. The Graduate Institute of International Studies offered one of the first Ph.D. degrees in international relations. Georgetown University's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service is the oldest international relations faculty in the United States, founded in 1919. The Committee on International Relations at the University of Chicago was the first to offer a graduate degree, in 1928.

Theory[link]

Epistemology and IR theory[link]

IR theories can be roughly divided into one of two epistemological camps: "positivist" and "post-positivist". Positivist theories aim to replicate the methods of the natural sciences by analysing the impact of material forces. They typically focus on features of international relations such as state interactions, size of military forces, balance of powers etc. Post-positivist epistemology rejects the idea that the social world can be studied in an objective and value-free way. It rejects the central ideas of neo-realism/liberalism, such as rational choice theory, on the grounds that the scientific method cannot be applied to the social world and that a 'science' of IR is impossible.

A key difference between the two positions is that while positivist theories, such as neo-realism, offer causal explanations (such as why and how power is exercised), post-positivist theories focus instead on constitutive questions, for instance what is meant by 'power'; what makes it up, how it is experienced and how it is reproduced. Often, post-positivist theories explicitly promote a normative approach to IR, by considering ethics. This is something which has often been ignored under 'traditional' IR as positivist theories make a distinction between 'facts' and normative judgments, or 'values'.

During the late 1980s and the 1990s, debate between positivists and post-positivists became the dominant debate and has been described as constituting the Third "Great Debate" (Lapid 1989).

Positivist Theories[link]

Realism[link]

Realism focuses on state security and power above all else. Early realists such as E.H. Carr and Hans Morgenthau argued that states are self-interested, power-seeking rational actors, who seek to maximize their security and chances of survival. Cooperation between states is a way to maximize each individual state's security (as opposed to more idealistic reasons). Similarly, any act of war must be based on self-interest, rather than on idealism. Many realists saw World War II as the vindication of their theory.

It should be noted that classical writers such as Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes and Theodore Roosevelt, are often cited as "founding fathers" of realism by contemporary self-described realists.^{[citation needed]} However, while their work may support realist doctrine, it is not likely that they would have classified themselves as realists (in this sense of the term). Realists are often split up into two groups: Classical or Human Nature Realists (as described here) and Structural or Neorealists (below).

Political realism believes that politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature. To improve society, it is first necessary to understand the laws by which society lives. The operation of these laws being impervious to our preferences, persons will challenge them only at the risk of failure. Realism, believing as it does in the objectivity of the laws of politics, must also believe in the possibility of developing a rational theory that reflects, however imperfectly and one-sidedly, these objective laws. It believes also, then, in the possibility of distinguishing in politics between truth and opinion-between what is true objectively and rationally, supported by evidence and illuminated by reason, and what is only a subjective judgment, divorced from the facts as they are and informed by prejudice and wishful thinking.

The placement of Realism under positivism is far from unproblematic however. E.H. Carr's 'What is History' was a deliberate critique of positivism, and Hans Morgenthau's aim in 'Scientific Man vs Power Politics' - as the title implies - was to demolish any conception that international politics/power politics can be studied scientifically.

Liberalism/idealism/Liberal Internationalism[link]

Liberal international relations theory arose after World War I in response to the inability of states to control and limit war in their international relations. Early adherents include Woodrow Wilson and Norman Angell, who argued vigorously that states mutually gained from cooperation and that war was so destructive as to be essentially futile.

Liberalism was not recognized as a coherent theory as such until it was collectively and derisively termed idealism by E. H. Carr. A new version of "idealism" that focused on human rights as the basis of the legitimacy of international law was advanced by Hans Köchler.

Neoliberalism[link]

Neoliberalism seeks to update liberalism by accepting the neorealist presumption that states are the key actors in international relations, but still maintains that non-state actors (NSAs) and intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) matter. Proponents such as Maria Chattha argue that states will cooperate irrespective of relative gains, and are thus concerned with absolute gains. This also means that nations are, in essence, free to make their own choices as to how they will go about conducting policy without any international organizations blocking a nation's right to sovereignty.

Neoliberalism also contains an economic theory that is based on the use of open and free markets with little, if any, government intervention to prevent monopolies and other conglomerates from forming. The growing interdependence throughout and after the Cold War through international institutions led to neo-liberalism being defined as institutionalism, this new part of the theory being fronted by Robert Keohane and also Joseph Nye.

Regime Theory[link]

Regime theory is derived from the liberal tradition that argues that international institutions or regimes affect the behavior of states (or other international actors). It assumes that cooperation is possible in the anarchic system of states, indeed, regimes are by definition, instances of international cooperation.

While realism predicts that conflict should be the norm in international relations, regime theorists say that there is cooperation despite anarchy. Often they cite cooperation in trade, human rights and collective security among other issues. These instances of cooperation are regimes. The most commonly cited definition of regimes comes from Stephen Krasner. Krasner defines regimes as "institutions possessing norms, decision rules, and procedures which facilitate a convergence of expectations."^{[cite this quote]}

Not all approaches to regime theory, however are liberal or neoliberal; some realist scholars like Joseph Greico have developed hybrid theories which take a realist based approach to this fundamentally liberal theory. (Realists do not say cooperation never happens, just that it is not the norm; it is a difference of degree).

Post-positivist/reflectivist theories[link]

International society theory (the English school)[link]

International society theory, also called the English School, focuses on the shared norms and values of states and how they regulate international relations. Examples of such norms include diplomacy, order, and international law. Unlike neo-realism, it is not necessarily positivist. Theorists have focused particularly on humanitarian intervention, and are subdivided between solidarists, who tend to advocate it more, and pluralists, who place greater value in order and sovereignty. Nicholas Wheeler is a prominent solidarist, while Hedley Bull and Robert H. Jackson are perhaps the best known pluralists.

Social Constructivism[link]

Social Constructivism encompasses a broad range of theories that aim to address questions of ontology, such as the Structure and agency debate, as well as questions of epistemology, such as the "material/ideational" debate that concerns the relative role of material forces versus ideas. Constructivism is not a theory of IR in the manner of neo-realism, but is instead a social theory which is used to better explain the actions taken by states and other major actors as well as the identities that guide these states and actors.

Constructivism in IR can be divided into what Hopf (1998) calls 'conventional' and 'critical' constructivism. Common to all varieties of constructivism is an interest in the role that ideational forces play. The most famous constructivist scholar, Alexander Wendt noted in a 1992 article in International Organization (later followed up by a book, Social Theory of International Politics (1999)), that "anarchy is what states make of it". By this he means that the anarchical structure that neo-realists claim governs state interaction is in fact a phenomenon that is socially constructed and reproduced by states.

For example, if the system is dominated by states that see anarchy as a life or death situation (what Wendt terms a "Hobbesian" anarchy) then the system will be characterised by warfare. If on the other hand anarchy is seen as restricted (a "Lockean" anarchy) then a more peaceful system will exist. Anarchy in this view is constituted by state interaction, rather than accepted as a natural and immutable feature of international life as viewed by neo-realist IR scholars.

Critical Theory[link]

Critical international relations theory is the application of 'critical theory' to international relations. Proponents such as Andrew Linklater, Robert W. Cox and Ken Booth focus on the need for human emancipation from States. Hence, it is "critical" of mainstream IR theories that tend to be state-centric.

Marxism[link]

Marxist and Neo-Marxist theories of IR reject the realist/liberal view of state conflict or cooperation; instead focusing on the economic and material aspects. It makes the assumption that the economy trumps other concerns; allowing for the elevation of class as the focus of study. Marxists view the international system as an integrated capitalist system in pursuit of capital accumulation. Thus, the period of colonialism brought in sources for raw materials and captive markets for exports, while decolonialization brought new opportunities in the form of dependence.

Linked in with Marxist theories is dependency theory which argues that developed countries, in their pursuit of power, penetrate developing states through political advisors, missionaries, experts, and MNCs to integrate them into the capitalist system in order to appropriate natural resources and foster dependence.

Marxist theories receive scant attention in the United States where no significant socialist party ever existed. It is more common in parts of Europe and is one of the most important theoretic contributions of Latin American academia, for example through Liberation theology.

Leadership Theories[link]

Interest Group perspective[link]

Interest Group theory posits that the driving force behind state behavior is sub-state interest groups. Examples of interest groups include political lobbyists, the military, and the corporate sector. Group theory argues that although these interest groups are constitutive of the state, they are also causal forces in the exercise of state power.

Strategic Perspective[link]

Strategic Perspective is a theoretical approach that views individuals as choosing their actions by taking into account the anticipated actions and responses of others with the intention of maximizing their own welfare.

Inherent bad faith model in international relations and political psychology[link]

The "inherent bad faith model" of information processing is a theory in political psychology that was first put forth by Ole Holsti to explain the relationship between John Foster Dulles’ beliefs and his model of information processing.^[5] It is the most widely studied model of one's opponent.^[6] A state is presumed to be implacably hostile, and contra-indicators of this are ignored. They are dismissed as propaganda ploys or signs of weakness. Examples are John Foster Dulles’ position regarding the Soviet Union, or Israel’s initial position on the Palestinian Liberation Organization.^[7]

Poststructuralist theories[link]

Poststructuralist theories of IR developed in the 1980s from postmodernist studies in political science. Post-structuralism explores the deconstruction of concepts traditionally not problematic in IR, such as 'power' and 'agency' and examines how the construction of these concepts shapes international relations. The examination of 'narratives' plays an important part in poststructuralist analysis, for example feminist poststructuralist work has examined the role that 'women' play in global society and how they are constructed in war as 'innocent' and 'civilians'.

Examples of post-positivist research include:

• Feminisms ("gendering" war)
• Postcolonialism (challenges the euro-centrism of IR)
• Post-realism (focuses on IR theory as scientific and political rhetoric)

Concepts in international relations[link]

Conjuncture[link]

In decision making in international relations, the concept of Conjuncture (international relations), together with freedom of action and equality are important elements. Decision makers must take into account the set of international conditions in taking initiatives that would create different types of responses.

Systemic level concepts[link]

International relations is often viewed in terms of levels of analysis. The systemic level concepts are those broad concepts that define and shape an international milieu, characterised by Anarchy.

Power[link]

Darkest blue countries most often considered to be superpowers, dark blue countries most often considered to be great powers, pale blue countries most often considered to be middle powers, and palest blue countries also sometimes considered to be middle powers.^[8]

The concept of power in international relations can be described as the degree of resources, capabilities, and influence in international affairs. It is often divided up into the concepts of hard power and soft power, hard power relating primarily to coercive power, such as the use of force, and soft power commonly covering economics, diplomacy and cultural influence. However, there is no clear dividing line between the two forms of power.

Polarity[link]

Polarity in International Relations refers to the arrangement of power within the international system. The concept arose from bipolarity during the Cold War, with the international system dominated by the conflict between two superpowers, and has been applied retrospectively by theorists. However, the term bipolar was notably used by Stalin who said he saw the international system as a bipolar one with two opposing powerbases and ideologies. Consequently, the international system prior to 1945 can be described as multi-polar, with power being shared among Great powers.

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 had led to what some would call unipolarity, with the United States as a sole superpower. However, due to China's continued rapid economic growth (in 2010 it became the world's second largest economy), combined with the respectable international position they hold within political spheres and the power that the Chinese Government exerts over their people (consisting of the largest population in the world), there is debate over whether China is now a superpower or a possible candidate in the future.

Several theories of international relations draw upon the idea of polarity.
The balance of power was a concept prevalent in Europe prior to the First World War, the thought being that by balancing power blocs it would create stability and prevent war. Theories of the balance of power gained prominence again during the Cold War, being a central mechanism of Kenneth Waltz's Neorealism. Here, the concepts of balancing (rising in power to counter another) and bandwagonning (siding with another) are developed.

Hegemonic stability theory (developed by Robert Gilpin) also draws upon the idea of Polarity, specifically the state of unipolarity. Hegemony is the preponderance of power at one pole in the international system, and the theory argues this is a stable configuration because of mutual gains by both the dominant power and others in the international system. This is contrary to many Neorealist arguments, particularly made by Kenneth Waltz, stating that the end of the Cold War and the state of unipolarity is an unstable configuration that will inevitably change.

This can be expressed in Power transition theory, which states that it is likely that a great power would challenge a hegemon after a certain period, resulting in a major war. It suggests that while hegemony can control the occurrence of wars, it also results in the creation of one. Its main proponent, A.F.K. Organski, argued this based on the occurrence of previous wars during British, Portuguese and Dutch hegemony.

Interdependence[link]

Many advocate that the current international system is characterized by growing interdependence; the mutual responsibility and dependency on others. Advocates of this point to growing globalization, particularly with international economic interaction. The role of international institutions, and widespread acceptance of a number of operating principles in the international system, reinforces ideas that relations are characterized by interdependence.

Dependency[link]

NATO International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.

Dependency theory is a theory most commonly associated with Marxism, stating that a set of Core states exploit a set of weaker Periphery states for their prosperity. Various versions of the theory suggest that this is either an inevitability (standard dependency theory), or use the theory to highlight the necessity for change (Neo-Marxist).

Systemic tools of international relations[link]

• Diplomacy is the practice of communication and negotiation between representatives of states. To some extent, all other tools of international relations can be considered the failure of diplomacy. Keeping in mind, the use of other tools are part of the communication and negotiation inherent within diplomacy. Sanctions, force, and adjusting trade regulations, while not typically considered part of diplomacy, are actually valuable tools in the interest of leverage and placement in negotiations.
• Sanctions are usually a first resort after the failure of diplomacy, and are one of the main tools used to enforce treaties. They can take the form of diplomatic or economic sanctions and involve the cutting of ties and imposition of barriers to communication or trade.
• War, the use of force, is often thought of as the ultimate tool of international relations. A widely accepted definition is that given by Clausewitz, with war being "the continuation of politics by other means". There is a growing study into 'new wars' involving actors other than states. The study of war in International Relations is covered by the disciplines of 'War Studies' and 'Strategic studies'.
• The mobilization of international shame can also be thought of as a tool of International Relations. This is attempting to alter states' actions through 'naming and shaming' at the international level. This is mostly done by the large human rights NGOs such as Amnesty International (for instance when it called Guantanamo Bay a "Gulag"),^[9] or Human Rights Watch. A prominent use of was the UN Commission on Human Rights 1235 procedure, which publicly exposes state's human rights violations. The current Human Rights Council has yet to use this Mechanism
• The allotment of economic and/or diplomatic benefits. An example of this is the European Union's enlargement policy. Candidate countries are allowed entry into the EU only after the fulfillment of the Copenhagen criteria.

Unit-level concepts in international relations[link]

As a level of analysis the unit level is often referred to as the state level, as it locates its explanation at the level of the state, rather than the international system.

Regime type[link]

It is often considered that a state's form of government can dictate the way that a state interacts with others in the international system.

Democratic Peace Theory is a theory that suggests that the nature of democracy means that democratic countries will not go to war with each other. The justifications for this are that democracies externalise their norms and only go to war for just causes, and that democracy encourages mutual trust and respect.

Communism justifies a world revolution, which similarly would lead to peaceful coexistence, based on a proletarian global society. the power politics is also considered

Revisionism/Status quo[link]

States can be classified by whether they accept the international status quo, or are revisionist, i.e. want change. Revisionist states seek to fundamentally change the rules and practices of international relations, feeling disadvantaged by the status quo. They see the international system as a largely western creation which serves to reinforce current realities. Japan is an example of a state that has gone from being a revisionist state to one that is satisfied with the status quo, because the status quo is now beneficial to it.

Religion[link]

It is often considered^{[by whom?]} that religion can have an effect on the way a state acts within the international system. Religion is visible as an organising principle particularly for Islamic states, whereas secularism sits at the other end of the spectrum, with the separation of state and religion being responsible for the Liberal international relations theory.

Individual or sub-unit level concepts[link]

The level beneath the unit (state) level can be useful both for explaining factors in International Relations that other theories fail to explain, and for moving away from a state-centric view of international relations.

• Psychological factors in International Relations - Evaluating psychological factors in international relations comes from the understanding that a state is not a 'black box' as proposed by Realism, and that there may be other influences on foreign policy decisions. Examining the role of personalities in the decision making process can have some explanatory power, as can the role of misperception between various actors. A prominent application of sub-unit level psychological factors in international relations is the concept of Groupthink, another is the propensity of policymakers to think in terms of analogies.
• Bureaucratic politics - Looks at the role of the bureaucracy in decision making, and sees decisions as a result of bureaucratic in-fighting, and as having been shaped by various constraints.
• Religious, Ethnic, and secessionist groups - Viewing these aspects of the sub-unit level has explanatory power with regards to ethnic conflicts, religious wars, transnational diaspora (diaspora politics) and other actors which do not consider themselves to fit with the defined state boundaries. This is particularly useful in the context of the pre-modern world of weak states.
• Science, Technology and International Relations- How science and technology impact the global health, business, environment, technology, and development.
• International political economy, and economic factors in international relations.^[10]
• International political culturology – Looks at how culture and cultural variables impact in international relations.^[11][12][13]

Institutions in international relations[link]

The United Nations Secretariat Building at the United Nations headquarters in New York City.

International institutions form a vital part of contemporary International Relations. Much interaction at the system level is governed by them, and they outlaw some traditional institutions and practices of International Relations, such as the use of war (except in self-defence).

As humanity enters the Planetary phase of civilization, some scientists and political theorists^[who?] see a global hierarchy of institutions replacing the existing system of sovereign nation-states as the primary political community. They argue that nations are an imagined community that cannot resolve such modern challenges as the “Dogville” effect (strangers in a homogeneous community), the legal and political status of stateless people and refugees, and the need to address worldwide concerns like climate change and pandemics.

Futurist Paul Raskin has hypothesized that a new, more legitimate form of global politics could be based on “constrained pluralism.” This principle guides the formation of institutions based on three characteristics: irreducibility, where some issues must be adjudicated at the global level; subsidiarity, which limits the scope of global authority to truly global issues while smaller-scope issues are regulated at lower levels; and heterogeneity, which allows for diverse forms of local and regional institutions as long as they meet global obligations.

Generalist Inter-State Organizations[link]

• United Nations

The United Nations (UN) is an international organization that describes itself as a "global association of governments facilitating co-operation in international law, international security, economic development, and social equity"; It is the most prominent international institution. Many of the legal institutions follow the same organizational structure as the UN.

• OIC

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is an international organization consisting of 57 member states. The organisation attempts to be the collective voice of the Muslim world (Ummah) and attempts to safeguard the interests and ensure the progress and well-being of Muslims.

• African Union
• ASEAN
• Arab League
• CIS
• European Union
• G8
• G20
• League of Nations
• Organization of American States

Economic institutions[link]

The World Bank headquarters in Washington, D.C.

• Asian Development Bank
• African Development Bank
• Inter-American Development Bank
• International Monetary Fund
• Islamic Development Bank
• World Bank
• World Trade Organization

International legal bodies[link]

Human rights[link]

• European Court of Human Rights
• Human Rights Committee
• Inter-American Court of Human Rights
• International Criminal Court
• International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
• International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
• United Nations Human Rights Council

Legal[link]

• African Court of Justice
• European Court of Justice
• International Court of Justice
• International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea

Regional security arrangements[link]

NATO E-3A flying with USAF F-16s in a NATO exercise.

• CSCAP
• GUAM
• Maritime security regime
• NATO
• SCO
• SAARC
• UNASUR

See also[link]

This "see also" section may contain an excessive number of suggestions. Please ensure that only the most relevant suggestions are given and that they are not red links, and consider integrating suggestions into the article itself. (May 2012)

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: International relations

• Ahidnâme
• Branding National Myths and Symbols
• Capitulation (treaty)
• Center for Global Public Relations (in North Carolina in the US)
• Confidence-building measures
• Confidence-building measures in South America
• Continental union
• Democracy promotion
• Development criticism
• Diplomacy Monitor, a tool for tracking Internet-based public diplomacy
• Diplomatic history
• Intermediate Region
• e-International Relations, leading student-run website on global governance, International Relations and diplomacy
• Global Relations Forum
• Global Studies
• Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, MA and PhD programmes in International Relations
• National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies, MA and PhD programmes in Security and International Studies and Developmental Studies
• History of ideas
• Human condition
• Human history
• Human nature
• Human security
• Intercultural competence
• List of international relations institutes and organisations
• List of international relations schools
• List of scholarly journals in international relations
• Moral syncretism
• Political Realism
• Think Tank

References[link]

Notes

Further reading[link]

Theory[link]

• Norman Angell The Great Illusion (London: Heinemann, 1910)
• Hedley Bull Anarchical Society (New York: Columbia University Press, 1977)
• Robert Cooper The Post-Modern State
• Goodin, Robert E., and Hans-Dieter Klingemann, eds. A New Handbook of Political Science (1998) ch 16-19 pp 401–78 excerpt and text search
• Robert Keohane After Hegemony
• Hans Köchler, Democracy and the International Rule of Law. Vienna/New York: Springer, 1995
• Andrew Linklater Men and citizens in the theory of international relations
• Reinhold Niebuhr Moral Man and Immoral Society 1932
• Joseph Nye Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, Public Affairs Ltd 2004
• Paul Raskin The Great Transition Today: A Report from the Future
• J. Ann Tickner Gender in International Relations (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992)
• Kenneth Waltz Man, the State, and War
• Kenneth Waltz Theory of International Politics (1979), examines the foundation of By Bar
• Michael Walzer Just and Unjust Wars 1977
• Alexander Wendt Social Theory of International Politics 1999
• J. Martin Rochester Fundamental Principles of International Relations (Westview Press, 2010)

Textbooks[link]

• Baylis, John, Steve Smith, and Patricia Owens. The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations (2011)
• Mingst, Karen A., and Ivan M. Arreguín-Toft. Essentials of International Relations (5th ed. 2010)
• Nau, Henry R. Perspectives on International Relations: Power, Institutions, Ideas (2008)
• Roskin, Michael G., and Nicholas O. Berry. IR: The New World of International Relations (8th ed. 2009)

History of international relations[link]

• New Cambridge Modern History (13 vol 1957-79), thorough coverage from 1500 to 1900
• Black, Jeremy. A History of Diplomacy (2010)
• Calvocoressi, Peter. World Politics since 1945 (9th Edition, 2008) 956pp excerpt and text search
• E. H. Carr Twenty Years Crisis (1940), 1919–39
• Kennedy, Paul. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers Economic Change and Military Conflict From 1500-2000 (1987), stress on economic and military factors
• Kissinger, Henry. Diplomacy (1995), not a memoir but an interpretive history of international diplomacy since the late 18th century
• Schroeder, Paul W. The Transformation of European Politics 1763-1848 (Oxford History of Modern Europe) (1994) 920pp; history and analysis of major diplomacy
• Taylor, A.J.P. The Struggle for Mastery in Europe 1848–1918 (1954) (Oxford History of Modern Europe) 638pp; history and analysis of major diplomacy
• Stéphane Beaulac: “The Westphalian Model in defining International Law: Challenging the Myth”, Australian Journal of Legal History Vol. 9 (2004), http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AJLH/2004/9.html
• Krasner, Stephen D.: “Westphalia and all that” in Judith Goldstein & Robert Keohane (eds): Ideas and Foreign Policy (Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1993), pp.235-264

Joseph Nye

Born	(1937-01-19) January 19, 1937 (age 75) South Orange, New Jersey
Era	International relations theory
Region	Western Philosophers
School	Neoliberal institutionalism
Main interests	International security, interdependence, globalization
Notable ideas	Soft power/hard power/smart power, complex interdependence
Influenced by Stanley Hoffmann

Joseph Samuel Nye, Jr. (born January 19, 1937) is the co-founder, along with Robert Keohane, of the international relations theory neoliberalism, developed in their 1977 book Power and Interdependence. Together with Keohane, he developed the concepts of asymmetrical and complex interdependence. They also explored transnational relations and world politics in an edited volume in the 1970s. More recently, he pioneered the theory of soft power. His notion of "smart power" became popular with the use of this phrase by members of the Clinton administration, and more recently the Obama Administration.^[1] Nye is currently University Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard University, and previously served as dean of Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. He also serves as a Guiding Coalition member for the Project on National Security Reform.

The 2011 TRIP survey of over 1700 international relations scholars ranks Joe Nye as the sixth most influential scholar in the field of international relations in the past twenty years.^[2]

In 2011, he was named by Foreign Policy magazine to its list of top global thinkers.^[3]

Life and career[link]

Education[link]

Nye graduated summa cum laude from Princeton University, where he was vice-president of the Colonial Club, a columnist for The Daily Princetonian, and a member of the American Whig–Cliosophic Society's Debate Panel.^[4] After studying Philosophy, Politics and Economics as a Rhodes Scholar in Exeter College at Oxford University, obtained his Ph.D. in political science from Harvard. He attended Morristown Prep (now the Morristown-Beard School) in Morristown, New Jersey and graduated in 1954.

Career[link]

Nye originally joined the Harvard faculty in 1964, serving as Director of the Center for International Affairs and as Associate Dean of Arts and Sciences. From 1977-1979, Nye was Deputy to the Undersecretary of State for Security Assistance, Science, and Technology and chaired the National Security Council Group on Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

In 1993 and 1994 he was chairman of the National Intelligence Council, which coordinates intelligence estimates for the President. Nye also served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs in the Clinton Administration, and was considered by many to be the preferred choice for National Security Advisor in the 2004 presidential campaign of John Kerry. He is widely recognized as one of the foremost liberal thinkers on foreign policy, and is seen by some as the counter to renowned Harvard conservative Samuel P. Huntington.

In 2005, Nye was voted one of the ten most influential scholars of international relations in the USA.^[5]

He is the co-chair of the Center for a New American Security Cyber Security Project,^[6] on the Advisory board of the USC Center on Public Diplomacy as well as on the International Editorial Board of the Cambridge Review of International Affairs, the editorial board of Foreign Policy, the Board of Directors of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Guiding Coalition of the Project on National Security Reform, the Advisory Board of Carolina for Kibera, and the Board of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. He has been awarded the Woodrow Wilson Prize by Princeton University and the Humphrey Prize by the American Political Science Association. In 2005 he was awarded the Honorary Patronage of the University Philosophical Society of Trinity College Dublin and in 2007 he was awarded an honorary degree by King's College London.

Nye has published many works in recent years, the most recent being The Future of Power (2011, ISBN 978-1-58648-891-8), Understanding International Conflicts, 7th ed (2009), The Powers to Lead (2008), The Power Game: A Washington Novel (2004), Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics (2004), and The Paradox of American Power (2002). Nye coined the term soft power in the late 1980s and it first came into widespread usage following a piece he wrote in Foreign Policy in the early 1990s. He is the chairman of the North American branch of the Trilateral Commission.^[7]

Personal[link]

Nye and his wife, Molly Harding Nye, have three adult sons.^[8]

References[link]

External links[link]

• Column archive at Project Syndicate
• Appearances on C-SPAN
• Joseph Nye on Charlie Rose
• Joseph Nye at TED Conferences
• Joseph Nye at the Internet Movie Database
• Works by or about Joseph Nye in libraries (WorldCat catalog)
• Conversations with History interview with Harry Krelsler at the UC Berkeley Institute of International Studies in April 1998
• 'Joseph Nye - Viet Nam 2010' Coffee is soft power of Vietnam
• 'Talking Power', interview in the Oxonian Review in March 2005
• 'Joseph Nye on Teaching America to be more British', interview with Theory Talks in May 2008
• 'How Soft is Smart?', interview on the US Presidential Election in Guernica Magazine in October 2008
• Nye's profile, he is Chairman of the North American Group of the Trilateral Commission
• Nye's profile at the Harvard Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, where he is a board member
• Nye's profile at Harvard University, where he is Distinguished Service Professor and Sultan of Oman Professor of International Relations
• Video (with mp3 available) of discussion with Nye and Daniel Drezner on Bloggingheads.tv
• Audio: Joseph Nye in conversation on the BBC World Service discussion programme The Forum
• Soft Power, Smart Power and Intelligent Power A lecture in honor of Joseph Nye
• Interview in The Global Scholar Knowledge Initiative (GSKI)

Masaru Emoto (江本 勝, Emoto Masaru^?, born July 22, 1943) is a Japanese author and entrepreneur, best known for his claims that human consciousness has an effect on the molecular structure of water. Emoto's hypothesis has evolved over the years of his research. Initially Emoto claimed that high-quality water forms beautiful and intricate crystals, while low-quality water has difficulty forming crystals. According to Emoto, an ice crystal of distilled water exhibits a basic hexagonal structure with no intricate branching. Emoto claims that positive changes to water crystals can be achieved through prayer, music, or by attaching written words to a container of water.

Since 1999 Emoto has published several volumes of a work titled Messages from Water, which contains photographs of water crystals next to essays and "words of intent." In addition to his books, Emoto also sells various water products from his websites and catalogs, which are purported to have healing properties derived from his research and experiments.

Emoto's ideas appeared in the popular documentary "What the Bleep Do We Know!?". Like the film, Emoto's work is widely considered pseudoscience by professionals, and he is criticized for going directly to the public with misleading claims that violate basic physics, based on methods that fail to properly investigate the truth of the claims.^[1][2]

Biography[link]

Born in Yokohama, Japan, Emoto graduated from Yokohama Municipal University with courses in International Relations. "In 1986, he established the I.H.M. Corporation in Tokyo and is currently the head of the I.H.M. General Research Institute, Inc., the President of I.H.M., Inc., and the chief representative of I.H.M.'s HADO Fellowship".^[3] In 1992 he received certification as a Doctor of Alternative Medicine from the Indian Board of Alternative Medicines in India, an unaccredited institution.^[4][5] "Subsequently, he was introduced to the concept of micro-cluster water and Magnetic Resonance Analysis technology in the United States, which began his quest to discover the mystery of water".^[6]

Emoto is President Emeritus of the International Water For Life Foundation, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization based in Oklahoma City, founded in 2005. He has three children with his wife Kazuko. ^[7]

Emoto's water crystal experiments consist of exposing water in glasses to different words, pictures, or music, and then freezing and examining the aesthetics of the resulting crystals with microscopic photography.^[8] Emoto claims that there are "many differences in the crystalline structure of the water" depending on the type of water source, which were taken from all over the world. For example, a water sample from a "pristine mountain" stream would purportedly show a "geometric" design that is "beautifully" shaped when frozen. On the other hand, "polluted water" sources will supposedly show a "definite distortion" and will be "randomly formed".^[3]

Criticism[link]

Commentators have criticized Emoto for insufficient experimental controls,^[9] and for not sharing enough details of his approach with the scientific community.^[10] In addition, Emoto has been criticized for designing his experiments in ways that leave them open to human error influencing his findings.^[11]

In the day-to-day work of his group, the creativity of the photographers rather than the rigor of the experiment is an explicit policy.^[12] Emoto freely acknowledges that he is not a scientist,^[13] and that photographers are instructed to select the most pleasing photographs.^[14]

In 2003, James Randi publicly offered Emoto one million dollars if his results can be reproduced in a double-blind study.^[15]

In 2005, Kristopher Setchfield (a graduate of Castleton State College in Vermont with a BA in Health Science) published a paper^[16] that analyzed deeper motives regarding Emoto's study. In his paper, Setchfield writes,

Unfortunately for his credibility with the scientific community, Dr. Emoto sells products based on his claims. For example, the products page of Emoto's Hado website is currently offering "geometrically perfect" "Indigo water" that is "highly charged hexagonally structured concentrate," and supposedly creates "structured water" that is "more easily assimilated at the cellular level" for $35 for an eight-ounce bottle. Without providing scientific research references for the allegedly amazing qualities of his Indigo Water, Emoto's commercial venture calls to mind ethical concerns regarding his intent and motivation—questions that would not be present if any scientist had published research supporting his claims.

In 2006, Emoto published a paper together with Dean Radin and others in the journal Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing. They describe that in a double blind test approximately 2000 people in Tokyo could increase the aesthetic appeal of water stored in a room in California, compared to water in another room, solely through their positive intentions.^[17]

Triple-blind study[link]

A better-controlled "triple-blind" follow-up study published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration did not yield positive results. More than 1,900 of Mr. Emoto's followers focused gratitude on water bottles in a vault over a period of three days. The water was then frozen and compared to two different sets of controls in a very elaborate protocol. Crystals from all three groups were not, on average, considered to be particularly beautiful (scoring 1.7 on a scale of 0 to 6, where 6 was very beautiful). Crystals from the experimental group were also rated slightly less beautiful than a set of controls. An objective comparison of contrast did not reveal any significant differences among the samples.^[18]

There were, however, potential problems with the "triple-blind" follow up. As the study explains:

In any experiment involving intention, the intentions of the "investigators" cannot be cleanly isolated from those of the nominal participants and this in turn constrains how one should properly interpret the results. In addition, there were many uncontrolled degrees of freedom in this experiment which may have allowed ‘‘unintended intentional’’ effects to creep in. They all involve human decisions, e.g. selecting six specific bottles of water from a huge population of available bottles, randomly assigning those bottles to three conditions, selecting and preparing the water drops, placing the water drop samples inside the freezer, searching for and photographing ice crystals on the frozen water drops at different magnification levels, choosing one of a large possible set of image processing algorithms to provide an objective measure of image contrast, and so on."^[19]

Physician Harriet A. Hall writes, about the ideas of Emoto, that "This watery fantasy is all very entertaining and imaginative, full of New Age feel-good platitudes, holistic oneness, consciousness raising, and warm fuzzies; but it's hard to see how anyone could mistake it for science."^[1]

Books[link]

Emoto has sold 2 million copies of his books.^[20]

• Messages from Water, Vol. 1 (June 1999), Hado Publishing, ISBN 4-939098-00-1
• Messages from Water, Vol. 2 (November 2001), Sunmark Pub. ISBN 0-7881-2927-9
• The Hidden Messages in Water (April 2004 Eng., 2001 Jap.), Beyond Words Publishing ISBN 1-58270-162-8
• The Message from Water III: Love Thyself (January 2006), published by Hay House ISBN 1-4019-0899-3
• Water Crystal Healing: Music & Images to Restore Your Well Being (17 October 2006), published by Atria Books ISBN 1-58270-156-3
• The Shape of Love: Discovering Who We Are, Where We Came From, and Where We are Going, Doubleday, 2007. ISBN 978-0-385-51837-6

See also[link]

• Water memory
• Polywater
• Penta Water
• Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab
• Pseudoscience
• Water (2006 film)

References[link]

Further reading[link]

• Sheridan, Patricia (September 26, 2005). "Masaru Emoto". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05269/577778.stm. Retrieved 2007-05-19. 
• Lafee, Scott (March 22, 2006). "Money can buy love – an additive to bottled water". The San Diego Union-Tribune. http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060322/news_1c22singular.html. Retrieved 2007-05-19. 
• Felt, Susan (April 27, 2005). "Good vibes: Author says water holds love, gratitude". The Arizona Republic. http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/arizonaliving/articles/0427emotoqqnda270.html. Retrieved 2007-05-20. 
• Norrell, Brenda (March 16, 2004). "News from the Southwest". Indian Country Today. Archived from the original on 2007-09-27. http://web.archive.org/web/20070927172553/http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1079449171. Retrieved 2007-05-20. 
• Berlin, David (February 10, 2007). "Let them count the ways to court your sweetie". The San Diego Union-Tribune. http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070210/news_1b10vday.html. Retrieved 2007-05-20. 
• Pasternack, Nancy (February 12, 2005). "Water-enlightening doctor comes to S.C.". Santa Cruz Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2007-09-30. http://web.archive.org/web/20070930200936/http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2005/February/12/local/stories/11local.htm. Retrieved 2007-05-20. 
• Zander, Carly (October 13, 2005). "Global Water Guru Considers Research Center in Big Bear, Says the Native Voices Foundation". Send2Press. http://www.send2press.com/newswire/2005-10-1013-003.shtml. Retrieved 2007-05-20.