DIFFERENCE IN STATES' POTENTIAL AS A KEY DETERMINANT OF THE ASYMMETRY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29038/2524-2679-2025-02-6-18Keywords:
asymmetry, asymmetric relations, asymmetry of international relations, potentialAbstract
The article considers the concept of asymmetry of international relations as a characteristic of the features of relations between unequal actors. Empirical evidence is provided that the key determinant of the asymmetry of international relations is the difference in the potentials of states. It is the inequality of power indicators that is the defining and fundamental feature in the formation of the asymmetry of international relations. It is noted that the asymmetry of material capabilities can significantly affect the results of relations between dispropor- tionate actors. The practice of international relations shows that the asymmetry of the potentials of countries creates the basis for demonstrating the advan- tages of one country over another in relations, despite the legal equality of all states regardless of economic, social and political differences. The asymmetry that manifests itself in international relations is to a certain extent decisive be- tween neighboring unequal actors, which can pose a threat to the sovereignty of the weaker state. Asymmetry in relations has consequences that go far beyond simple economic cooperation. It is recognized that this can threaten peace and security, cause significant harm to society, limit its benefits. Dissatisfaction with the violation of the interests of the state in relations with a stronger state can lead to unrest, hostility, violence. The study of asymmetry should focus pri- marily on relations, of course, the structural indicators of the state and its place in the complex system of international relations are important. In addition, the advantage in the potential of a large state over a small one is not always a guarantee of asymmetric (unequal) dialogue, since it still needs to be able to be implemented in practice. However, systemic parameters, the configuration of the balance of power, reflecting the presence of centers of power, monological
communication with manifestations of threats and contempt (without the need for feedback) remain the main elements in asymmetric international relations, which are largely fueled by inequality of opportunities.
References
1. Jackson, G. (2015). The showdown that wasn’t: U.S.-Israeli relations and American domestic politics, 1973–75. International Security, 39(4). 130–169.
2. Dittmer, L. (1981). The Strategic Triangle: An Elementary Game-Theoretical Analy- sis. World Politics, vol. 33, no. 4, 485–515.
3. Long, T. (2017). It’s not the size, it’s the relationship: from «small states» to asym- metry. International Politics, 54 (2), 144–160. Retrieved from https://centaur.reading. ac.uk/59064/3/Long-IP-1.
4. Mattes, M. (2012). Reputation, symmetry, and alliance design. International Orga- nization, 66(4), 679–707.
5. Morrow, J. (1991). Alliances and asymmetry: An alternative to the capability aggre- gation model of alliances. American Journal of Political Science, 35(4), 904–933.
6. Park, C. (1975). The influence of small states upon the superpowers: United States- South Korean relations as a case study, 1950–53. World Politics, 28(1), 97–117.
7. Pfetsch, F. (2011). Power in International Negotiations: Symmetry and Asymmetry.
Dans Négociations, (n 16), 39–56.
8. Thayer, C. (2011). The Tyranny of Geography: Vietnamese Strategies to Constrain China in the South China Sea. Contemporary Southeast Asia, vol. 33, No. 3, 348–369.
9. Tokatlian, J. (2007). Las Relaciones Entre Latinoamérica y China: Un Enfoque Para Su Aproximación. Análisis Político, vol. 20, N. 59, 46–56. Retrieved from https://dialnet. unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=9471663
10. Harrison, H. (2005). Driving the Soviets up the Wall: Soviet-East German Rela- tions, 1953–1961. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
11. Shin, Gi-Wook (2016). Asymmetry of Power and Attention in Alliance Politics: The US-Republic of Korea Case. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 70(3), 1–21. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2015. 1113228.
12. Womack, B. (2003). Asymmetry and Systemic Misperception: China, Vietnam and Cambodia during the 1970s asymmetry. The Journal of Strategic Studies, vol. 26, No. 2, June. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01402390412331302995
13. Womack, B. (2004). Asymmetry Theory and China’s Concept of Multipolarity. Journal of Contemporary China, 13 (39), 351–366. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semantic- scholar.org/ed61/fecb11d32e3eda43377b76c31d4799483056.pdf
14. Womack, B. (2006). China and Vietnam: The Politics of Asymmetry. New York: Cambridge University Press, 281 р.
15. Womack, B. (2008). China as a normative foreign policy actor. CEPS Centre for European Policy Studies, 265–299.
16. Womack, B. (2010). China Among Unequals: Asymmetric Foreign Relationships in Asia. Singapore: World Scientific, 540 p.
17. Womack, B. (March, 2012). Asymmetry and China’s Tributary System. Oxford, Journals Social Sciences Chinese Journal of International Politics, vol. 5, Issue 1. Retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/cjip/article/5/1/ 37/343602
18. Womack, B. (2016). Asymmetry and International Relationships. New York: Cam- bridge University Press, 220 p.
19. Keohane, R., Nye, J. (1977). Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transi- tion. Boston: Little Brown, 273 p.
20. Baldwin, D. (October, 2016). [Review] Baldwin on Womack, Asymmetry and In- ternational Relationships. H-Diplo. Retrieved from https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev. php?id=47095
21. Tung, N. (November, 2022). From former foes to friends: strategic adjustment in America’s security policy toward Vietnam and the influence of the China factor. The Pacific Review. DOI:10.1080/09512748.2022.2142273
22. Olson, L. (2010). Citizens of London: the Americans who stood with Britain in its darkest, finest hour. New York: Random House.
23. Long, T. (March, 2021). The United States in Latin America: lasting asymmetries, waning influence? External Powers in Latin America: geopolitics between Neo-extractivism and South-South Cooperation. Routledge, 15–28. DOI:10.4324/9780429351808-1/united- states-latin-america-tom-long
