IR: Theories and Approaches (Ali Hameed Khan)

Classical realism
 1950s
 Thucydides 500bc - first person to think about war/international system - self-interest means people
cannot work together - no strong enough system.
 Machiavelli 1469-1527 expands "the prince" leadership rules.
 Human nature is aggressive and competitive and this drives state behaviour - leaders selfish - roman
empires violent rules.
 Appreciation for the role that greed and folly play in world affairs: lots of countries do a lot of rather
stupid things, and often for very selfish reasons – s waltz
 States are the only relevant players in international relations.
 Self-interest, security and survival are the main drives of states' behaviour, and survival depends on
material capabilities and alliances.
 Anarchy there is no higher authority above states.
 Self-help states can only rely on themselves given international anarchy.
 Balance of power international order is unstable and it depends on an ever changing balance of
power between states. When the balance is unsettled, war can ensue.
 State-level analysis
 Power is an end in itself, it is part of human nature; everyone is born with a will to power.
 Hans Morgenthau 5 principles of realism
 Politics is governed by objective laws with their roots in unchanging human nature.
 Realism perceives the world through the concept of interest understood in terms of power.
 While interest should be universally defined as power, the meaning and content of interests
may shift and change.
 Realism is a perspective aware of the moral significance of political action.
 Moral aspirations of a single community or a state may not be universally shared.
 Mainstream IR assumes that states have enduring interests such as power and wealth that are
constrained in ability to further those interests because of material forces such as geography,
technology and distribution of power.
 First true international society was League of Nations - broke down - Americans didn't join. UN
challenge realists until cold war. UN inherently flawed due to veto power of Security Council 5
permanent members. Russians veto around 160 times throughout cold war - Americans even more.

Neorealism
 1970s
 The international structure of anarchy drives state behaviour.
 States are more-or-less rational organizations seeking to improve their security and prosperity in an
uncertain and anarchic world – s waltz
 System-level analysis:
 Power is a means to an end and the ultimate end is survival
 Structure of the international system (anarchy) leaves little choice to states if they want to survive.
 Anarchical system forces states to pursue power.
 Core author: Kenneth waltz's theory of international politics, 1979.
 Great powers are the main actors and they operate in the anarchic system
 All states possess some offensive military capability (power to inflict harm upon its neighbours)
 States can never be certain about the intentions of other states (whether they are revisionist or
status quo).
 The main goal of states is survival (territorial integrity and domestic autonomy).
 States are rational actors.
 Defensive realists - structural realists who argue states shouldn't try and gains as much as power as
possible and aiming to become a hegemon is foolish. This is due to the likely consequences of the
subsequent balance of power. Switzerland
 Offensive realists - structural realists who maintain that states should attempt to gain as much
power as possible, which works to intensify security competition. E.g. Nazi Germany, American
imperialism

1
 IR: Theories and Approaches (Ali Hameed Khan)

 States are black boxes.

Realism and neorealism similarities and differences
 Definition of realism and neorealism:
 Realism believes that conflicts arise because states are self-interested and power seeking units
as they are made of people who are self-interested and unchanging.
 Neo-realism believes that conflicts arise because of anarchy. Since there is no central authority,
the states try to seek power to help themselves. They did not consider the nature of people.
 Focus:
 Realism focuses its interest on human nature.
 Neo-realism focuses its interest on the structure of the system.
 System polarity:
 In realism, since the focus is more on gaining power, unipolar system is the type of system of
polarity the realists speak the most about. In a unipolar system, there is only 1 great power. So,
to balance the power in an international system, all other countries have to come together to
equal the power of the one great power.
 In neo-realism, bipolar system is the most stable system according to neo-realists. In a bipolar
system, there are 2 great powers. So the international power is balanced. Multipolar system,
though it is talked of by both realists and neo-realists, is not a very favorable topic. In such a
situation, balancing power can be a great problem.
 Interests:
 Realism is interested in power.
 Neo-realism is interested in security.
 Strategic approach:
 Realism believes in the implementation of strategies to approach conflict in international
relations.
 Although the neo-realist believes in defining strategies to approach conflict in international
relations, this approach is more inclined towards security.

Neoclassical realism
 Main questions that arise: how and under what circumstances will domestic factors hold back states
from pursuing the types of strategies predicted by neorealist theory? And who does ultimately
decide the range of acceptable and unacceptable foreign policy alternatives?
 It is a new realist synthesis which unites approaches deriving explanation either from domestic
politics (foreign policy analysis) or from systemic forces (neorealism).
 Dates from the late 1990s: term coined by Gideon rose (1998).
 According to some authors, 'NCR is a logical and necessary extension of neorealism'.
 Makes an effort to improve understanding of IR by bringing in what nr left aside:
 Structure (nr) but also leadership and domestic affairs.
 Structure (anarchy and balance of power) impacts but does not dictate foreign policy.
 This is quite similar to classic realism but a major difference here is the attention that ncr places on
domestic characteristics of state.
 2 main groups of state characteristics:
 State and society structures
 Perceptions and ideologies of leaders

Liberalism
 This idea of federalism , extending gradually to encompass all states and thus leading to perpetual
peace, is practicable and has objective reality - Kant
 International cooperation/institutions/collective security
 Democracy promotion
 Free trade/economic interdependence
 Liberal ideas, such as natural (human) rights, free trade, private property, civil liberty, and
democracy, should be universally applied.
 Self-interest is not necessarily antagonistic, and co- operation is possible.

2
 IR: Theories and Approaches (Ali Hameed Khan)

 Interdependence between nations instead of unregulated competition/rivalry.

 Individual freedom and civil equality need to be ensured.
 National self-determination and people's' sovereignty (democracy).
 Kant 3 principals - federalism , human rights, democracy
 Interdependence and 'harmony of interests' (Adam smith) between states is (or should be?) A key
feature of IR.
 International organizations can help to maintain a peaceful order among liberal nations.
 The world would be more peaceful if all states were democracies.
 Although states are essential, individuals, transnational companies (TNCs) and non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) are important actors in international politics.
 Institutions are limited in achieving peace through: bargaining, defections and autonomy.
 Liberal causes of war: intervention by government domestically and internationally disturbing
natural order (imperialism), undemocratic nature of international politics, especially foreign policy
and balance of power system.
 Liberal determinants of peace: individual liberty, free trade, prosperity interdependence; national
self-determination, open government responsive to public opinion, collective security; a world
government with powers to mediate and enforce decisions.

Different kinds of liberalism

 Commercial liberalism: advocates free trade and a market of capitalist economy as a way towards
peace and prosperity. Today this view is promoted by global financial institutions, most of the major
trading states and multinational corporations. Links to neoliberal orthodoxy that argues free trade,
private property rights and free market will lead to a richer more innovative world.
 Republican liberalism: democratic states are more inclined to respect the rights of their citizens and
are less likely to go to war with their democratic neighbors - democratic peace theory.
 Sociological liberalism: notion of community and process of interdependence are important
elements. More costly for states to act unilaterally and to avoid cooperation with neighbors in a
growing globalized world.
 Liberal institutionalism/neoliberal institutionalism: considered by many scholars to present the
most convincing challenge realist/neorealist thinking. Roots of this vision are found in functional
integration scholarship of the 1940s/50s and regional integration of studies of 1960s. Suggest that
ways towards peace and prosperity is to have independent states pool their resources and even
surrender some of their sovereignty to created integrated community to promote economic growth
or respond to regional problems. The European Union is such an institution that began as a regional
community for encouraging multilateral cooperation in the production of coal and steel. The world
wars developed its integration. 3rd generation of liberal institutionalism was the transnational and
complex interdependence of the 1970s. World had become more pluralist in terms of actor involved
in international interactions and they became more dependent on each other. Increasing linkage
between states and non-state actors; a new agenda of international issues with no distinction
between low and high politics; a recognition of multiple channels for interaction among actors
across national boundaries; the decline of the efficient of military force as a tool of statecraft.

Neoliberal institutionalism
 Lightened neorealism’s dark view on international politics by demonstrating that states cooperate
all the time on a range of issues in order to improve their lives.
 Because a primary obstacle to cooperation is the absence of trust between states, states construct
international institutions that can perform varying trust enhancing functions including monitoring
and publicizing cheating.
 Shared a commitment to individualism and materialism with neorealist.
 Individualism is the view that actors have fixed interest and that the structure constrains their
behavior.
 Materialism is the view that the structure that constrains behaviour is defined by the
distribution of power, technology and geography.

3
 IR: Theories and Approaches (Ali Hameed Khan)

 Neoliberalism recognizes that states might willingly construct norms and institutions to regulate
their behavior - if doing so will enhance their long term interests.
 Sees institutions as the mediators and the means to achieving cooperation among actors in the
system.
 Neoliberal institutionalists are focusing research on global governance and the creation of
institutions to manage the process of globalization.
 For neoliberal institutionalists the focus on mutual interests extends beyond trade and development
issues. After the cold war states were forced to address new security concerns like the threat of
terrorism, disease (HIV) drug trafficking etc. Realization that country’s security cannot be addressed
unilaterally but security responses require global regimes that promote cooperation among states.

Neo-neo debate
 Both agree the international system is anarchic.
 Neo-realists focus on security and military issues
 Neo-realists say that anarchy puts more constraints on foreign policy.
 Neo-realists believe that international cooperation will not happen unless states make it happen.
They feel that it is hard to achieve, difficult to maintain dependent on state power.
 Neo-realists claim that neoliberals overlook the importance of relative gains
 Neo realists believe that the fundamental goal of states in cooperative relationships is to prevent
others from gaining more
 Neo-realists state that anarchy requires states to be preoccupied with relative power, security and
survival in a competitive international system
 Neo-realists state that neoliberals exaggerate the impact of regimes and institutions on state
behaviour.
 Realists say that institutions and regimes do not mitigate the constraining effects of anarchy on
cooperation.
 Neo-liberals focus on political economy, environmental issues and human rights
 Neo-liberals claim that neo realists minimize the importance of international interdependence,
globalization and the regimes created to manage these institutions
 Neo-liberals believe that cooperation is easy to achieve in areas where states have mutual interest.
 Neo-liberals think that actors with common interests try to maximize absolute gains
 Neo-liberals are more concerned with economic welfare and other non-security issue areas such as
international environmental concerns over anarchy.
 Neo-liberals see institutions and regimes as significant forces in international relations
 Neo-liberals claim that institutions and regimes facilitate cooperation

Gender analysis
 Constructivist feminism - branch of feminism that focuses on the way gender ideas shape and are
shaped by global politics. How agent’s perceptions and other gender identities shape behavior.
 Critical feminism - a branch of feminism that addressed the ideational and material manifestations
of gendered identities and gendered power in global politics - e.g. patriarchy, men are strong
leaders.
 Liberal feminism - branch of feminism addressing the various material manifestations of women
subordination in global politics, usually through empirical analysis. E.g. representation in the public
sphere.
 Postcolonial feminism - a branch of feminism interested in the intersection of gender and cultural
subordination, addressing the way that dominant gender and political relations are entrenched both
in global politics and between feminists, depending on their class, race and geographical location -
e.g. cultural imbalance
 Poststructuralist feminism - discursive constructions of gender - how does 'woman' and 'man' get
written? - dichotomized linguistic constructions. Creation of identity through language and symbols.
 IR feminists are interested in how gender has been constructed as a tool of domination: 'hegemonic
masculinity'

4
 IR: Theories and Approaches (Ali Hameed Khan)

 IR feminists suggest that if we put on 'gendered lenses' we get a completely different view of global
politics
 Gendered constructs such as 'breadwinner ' and 'housewife' as central to modern western
definitions of masculinity, femininity, and capitalism
 This has meant the creation of a 'natural order ' of a gendered division of labour
 Even when women do join the labour force they have often still been expected to carry most of the
household labour burden.

English school
 Hedley Bull main points:
 States have no higher power than themselves - they exist in a condition of international anarchy.
Unlike realists, who emphasize the inevitability of power struggles that can only be constrained by a
balance of power, he sees order in world politics as also deriving from the existence of an
international society.
 International society is a concept sometimes used to exploit others - e.g. Christian international
society was used to justify European seizure of land from the indigenous people of America or
elsewhere.
 The idea of the standard of civilization was employed to rationalize nineteenth century imperialism.
 International society however has its benefits depicting the overall structure constituted by norms,
rules and institutions.
 Bull defined international society as a group of states, conscious of common interests and values
form a society bound by common rule and share working of common institutions.
 Solidarist international society.
 Collective enforcement of international rules and guardianship of human rights. Defined by
shared values and institutions bind together by legal rules. Differs from pluralist society on the
content of the values and character of rules and institutions.
 Solidarity (the roots of solidarist IR meaning) means: agreement between and support for the
members of a group i.e. Solidarist views on human rights and on the means of safeguarding
human rights e.g. Military intervention via r2p. E.g. EU commission - don’t act in states interest
but act in interest in while of EU.
 Pluralist international society
 Pluralist - the existence of different types of people, who have different beliefs and opinions,
within the same society.
 The subject matter of IR, historical understanding. No escape from values. IR as a fundamentally
normative enterprise. International system direct impact upon each other. E.g. India and Pakistan
have still no trust
 Values - priority to international responsibilities; maintaining order. (Hobbes, Machiavelli) about
power politics among states and relates closely to realism.
 International society - defining marker of English school. Membership confined to sovereign states
(and mutual state recognition of sovereignty). Agency and actions. Other members apart from
sovereign states (e.g. the church). Common interests (with the possibility to grow. Values - priority
to international responsibilities; maintaining order. (Grotius) puts the creation of shared norms,
rules and institutions among states at the center of IR theory; it has some parallels to neoliberalism
but it is more focused on common values/culture.
 Pluralist international society - international framework geared towards the liberty of states and
maintenance or order amongst them. Rules are followed because collective benefits are huge.
 Solidarist international society - collective enforcement of international rules and guardianship
of human rights. Defined by shared values and institutions bind together by legal rules. Differs
from pluralist society on the content of the values and character of rules and institutions.
 World society - (Kant) takes individuals, non-state organizations and ultimately the global
population as the focus of global societal identities. Values - priority to humanitarian
responsibilities, protecting human rights.

5
 IR: Theories and Approaches (Ali Hameed Khan)

Social constructivism
 Emerged in the last 25 years. Key constructivist - Nicholas onuf ; world of out marking
1989.-demonstrated that the notion of world without norms and ideas was
nonsensical and their inclusion was important for understanding behaviour of states
and non-state actors.
 A social theory broadly concerned with how to conceptualize the relationship between
agents and structures ; for instance how should we think about the relationship between
stats and the structure of international politics
 Can be linked to rational choice theory that offers a framework for understanding how actors
operate with fixed preferences that they attempt to maximize under a set of constraints.
Rational choice offers no claims on what the preferences or constraints are or about the
actual pattern of world politics.eg both neorealism and neoliberalism subscribe to rational
choice but arrive at rival claims about conflict and cooperation in world politics.
 Constructivism is about human consciousness and its role in international life link to idealism
(taking seriously the role of ideas. Social ideas shaped by knowledge, symbols and rules.)
Idealism does not reject material reality but observes that meaning behind material is
dependent on ideas and interpretation.
 Constructivism also linked to holism - recognition of agents having some autonomy and their
interactions help to construct reproduce and transform those structures.
 Strong interest in global change, identity and social construction of interests.
 Constructivists made some similar claims to world affairs to the English school and feminist
approaches but constructivists were more attentive to the issue that mattered to neo-
realists and neoliberal institutionalists - how identity, norms and culture shape patterns of
war and peace.
 Constructivism developed different wings - some placing emphasis on structure , some on
agency, some on stability and some on transformation.
 Actors are produced and created by their cultural environment, nurture not nature.
 Concerned with human consciousness & knowledge
 Ideas are structural factors on actors interpretations
 Dynamic between ideas and materials
 Regulative and constitutive norm shape what actors do
 Meanings that actors bring to their activities are shaped by underlying culture
 Social construction denaturalized what is taken for granted , questions origins of what is
accepted as facts of life
 Power is not the only ability to influence another actor - production of identity, interest &
meanings
 The power of knowledge

Anarchy
 Alexander Wendt (SC) "the deep construction of anarchy is cultural or ideational rather than
material... Once understood this way we can see that the logic of anarchy can vary... Different
cultures of anarchy are based on different kinds of roles in terms of which states represent self and
other... There are three roles, enemy, rival and friend ...that are constituted by and constitute three
distinct macro levels cultures of international politics, Hobbesian, Lockean and Kantian, respectively.
These cultures have different rules of engagement , interaction logics and systematic tendencies
 Hobbesian anarchy - well know "war against all" - true self help system - survival depends on sole
military power - security is deeply competitive, a zero sum affair. Collective beliefs force states to
act as if they are power seeking even if they only want security
 Lockean anarchy - based rivalry rather than enmity structure. Like enemies, rivals are constituted by
representations about self and other with respect to violence but these representations are less
threatening: unlike enemies, rivals expect each other to act as if they recognize their sovereignty,
their life and liberty, as a right and therefore does not conqueror dominate them. Unlike friends
however, the recognition among rivals does not extend to the right to be free from violence in
disputes.

6
 IR: Theories and Approaches (Ali Hameed Khan)

 Kantain anarchy - based on the role structure of friendship within which states expect each other to
observe 2 rules: disputes will be settled without war or threat of war (rule of non-violence) and they
will fight as a team if the security of any one is threatened by a third party.

Western identity of IR
 'The most striking feature of global international society is the extent to which the states of Asia and
Africa have embraced such basic elements of European international society ' bull and Watson
 Myths of the Western IR:
 The foundational myth of the birth of the discipline: International relations were born in 1918 to
overcome the traumatic experience of war.
 The positivist myth: IR is an objective, scientific and value- free discipline
 The sovereignty/anarchy myth: sovereignty is not a level-play field but a civilizational hierarchy
and graduated sovereignties; western states = full sovereignty; eastern/southern states =
qualified sovereignty
 Why is there no nonwestern IR theory?
 Western IR theories have discovered the 'right path' to understanding international relations
 Hegemonic status of western IR theories that discourages theoretical formulations by others
 The 'hidden' nature of IR Theories in Asia and in other parts of the world
 Lack of resources and local conditions that discriminate against the production of IR theory
 Orientalism is the way westerners define themselves against an inferior Orientalized other,
shaping dominant ideologies and identities. Edward said

Humanitarian intervention
 Post holocaust - society of states established laws against genocide, war crimes etc. - enhancing
human rights
 Global south worried about humanitarian intervention - possibly a Trojan horse rhetoric designed to
legitimize forcible interference if the state
 Global north and south NGOs build consensus around responsibility to protect - R2P(responsibility
to protect) - 3 pillars, to prevent, react and rebuild
 Responsibility to protect - responsibility to protect own citizens from genocide, war crimes, ethnic
cleansing, etc. but if the state fail to protect its own citizens the responsibility shifts to the
international community through the un.
 R2p was established by un general council in the un world summit in 2005
 Legal case for humanitarian intervention (counter restrictionist) UN charter chapters 1(identities
protection of human rights as principal purpose of UN) , 55 & 56 and customary international law -
right to protect human rights
 Moral case to protect citizens - a state's sovereignty derives from their responsibility to protect its
citizens thus when a state fails they lose sovereign rights. Common humanity - all individuals have
rights to human rights and duties to uphold the rights of others. Moral case can be flawed as it
depends on interpretation of the extent of abuse of human rights to require intervention.
 Objections to humanitarian intervention
 UN charter article 2 - common good is best preserved in banning any force not authorized by the
UNSC - apart from right of individual self help
 States don't intervene for primarily humanitarian reasons - mixed motives - self-interest.
Realists believe genuine humanitarian intervention is imprudent as it does not serve national
interest. Sacrificing own soldiers for strangers for strangers does not make sense
 States can abuse power - pursuit of national interest - e.g. Hitler intervention in Czechoslovakia
 Selectivity of humanitarian responses- inconsistent intervention on global basis - cases are
treated alike
 Disagreement about moral principles - pluralist international society theory - stronger states
impose their values above weaker states - disagreement on human rights violations
 Intervention doesn't work in the long run - temporarily tops killing. "democracy can be
established only by a domestic struggle for liberty - oppressed states should defend themselves

7
 IR: Theories and Approaches (Ali Hameed Khan)

Democratic peace theory

 Inspired by Immanuel Kant’s idea of order: 'perpetual peace' and 'pacific union' among democracies
would replace Hobbes' state of nature described as nasty, violent and unstable (anarchy) - idealism
vs. realism.
 Empirical dimension of DPT: 'the absence of war between democracies comes as close as anything
we have to an empirical law in international relations
 Normative dimension of DPT: 'our findings should encourage us to do what we can today to ensure
that the Kantian peace is strengthened where it now operates and spread to areas still gripped by
realpolitik'
 Democracies don't fight because: common interests, people don't like war, restrained government,
and democratic norms. Turkey not going EU because of democratic clause. Cyprus Germany and
France are blocking turkey from EU.
 US and democracy: Wilson 1917 "the world must be made safe for democracy" Clinton 1994
"democratic states are less likely to threaten our interests and security"
 Enforcing democracy can be seen as imperialistic, hegemonic action or even as establishing an
empire
 Inherently neoliberal
 Consequences of enforcing democracy:
 Military intervention for regime change:
 US ne Democracy aur Security ka nara laga k kitni countries ke band bja de
 Iraq, Afghanistan and more recently Libya
 Support/stabilize new democracies
 The Western Europe and japan post-WW2
 Support democratic movements in domestic civil
 Societies:-opposition in china, Burma (Myanmar) and Iran
 Provision of non-military (soft) incentives for democratic change- EU's enlargement policy and
the democratic clause
 Tunisian groups given noble peace price for becoming a democracy in Arab spring. E.g.
democracies going to war against each other: Armenia and acerb

Post-structuralism
 Post-structuralism - the suspicion of concise definitions. A point that language, symbols, discourse,
act never point to a simple meaning - context dependent.
 "the symbolic power to impose the principles of the construction of reality - in particular, social
reality - is a major dimension of political power "
 Ambiguity of language challenges realist believes of straightforward interpretation of discourse.
 Arbitrary connections of signification from symbol to meaning.
 Media has lost anchor in reality - designed reality - e.g. political propaganda - shape our own
realities.
 We can never escape the boxes of endlessly postponed meaning - can create own meanings
 Words aren't neutral
 Dispute the discipline and the practice of world
 Politics and to pay attention to the specific representations used in world politics and how they
construct the world
 Pay attention to the power relations entailed and often concealed in these representational
practices
 Challenge the 'taken for granted' of mainstream IR theory
 Foucault’s bio-power - states use power to direct popular opinion. Power is not only oppressive but
productive. Unlike realism power is not confined to a state. Everyone has power.2 levels - individual
level and collective level. Individual level people are told to discipline and control their bodies and a
collective level government and other organizations attempt to manage whole populations.
 Body power- birth rates individual - people told to control their bodies and discipline
 Collective level government - attempt to control whole populations
 Bio-power - controlling popular opinion.

8
 IR: Theories and Approaches (Ali Hameed Khan)

Hegemony
 Hegemony was a term previously used by Marxists such as Lenin to denote the political leadership
of the working-class in a democratic revolution.
 Gramsci greatly expanded this concept, developing an acute analysis of how the ruling capitalist
class - the bourgeoisie - establishes and maintains its control.
 Capitalism, Gramsci suggested maintained control not just through violence and political and
economic coercion, but also through ideology.
 The bourgeoisie (the Capitalist class) developed a hegemonic culture, which propagated its own
values and norms so that they became the "common sense" values of all. People in the working-
class (and other classes) identified their own good with the good of the bourgeoisie, and helped to
maintain the status quo.
 In Gramsci’s view, a class cannot dominate in modern conditions by merely advancing its own
narrow economic interests; neither can it dominate purely through force and coercion. Rather, it
must exert intellectual and moral leadership, and make alliances and compromises with a variety of
forces. Gramsci calls this union of social forces a "historic bloc". This bloc forms the basis of consent
to a certain social order, which produces and reproduces the hegemony of the dominant class
through a nexus of institutions, social relations, and ideas. In this way, Gramsci’s theory emphasized
the importance of the political and ideological superstructure in both maintaining and fracturing
relations of the economic base.
 Gramsci stated that bourgeois cultural values were tied to folklore, popular culture and religion, and
therefore much of his analysis of hegemonic culture is aimed at these. He was also impressed by the
influence Roman Catholicism had and the care the church had taken to prevent an excessive gap
developing between the religion of the learned and that of the less educated.
 Gramsci saw Marxism as a marriage of the purely intellectual critique of religion found in
renaissance humanism and the elements of the reformation that had appealed to the masses. For
Gramsci, Marxism could supersede religion only if it met people's spiritual needs, and to do so
people would have to think of it as an expression of their own experience.
 For Gramsci, hegemonic dominance ultimately relied on a "consented" coercion, and in a "crisis of
authority" the "masks of consent" slip away, revealing the first of force.