I read you developing paper.

I do not see what is the ground for your postulate that "Power (P) is always equivalent to zero."

You provided definition of power as "simply the ability to do something", however usually the power is defined in IR in relation to other as ability to make others do something you want, even though they did not want to do it originally. But you explained how do you understand power for your purposes, so ok.

I do think that you cannot apply mathematical methods to explain international relations, because international relations are more complex and complicated than the pure logic of exact sciences. Exact sciences are able to be exact because their object of research is more simplex than of the social sciences - the human society.

I do not see why "Whatever power quantity state (a) applies on state (b), the latter state applies the same quantity of power, because for every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction" is true.

The conclusion that individual actor involved in international relations (e.g. Elon Musk or Greta Thunberg) is possess equivalent amount of power as the USA is obviously false.

Based on your conclusion, which is absurd, you can conclude that the method that you used has some issue that has to be solved. Due to that this theory is hardly to have practical application in IR.

Example USA v. Greta Thunberg - in the sense of soft power it is evident that Greta Thunberg was not able to change USA environmental policy and it is also evident that Greta Thunberg would not be able to defend herself against military forces of the USA.

Example Nazi Germany v. Czechoslovakia - Germany used force against Czechoslovakia, which decided not to defend itself - for action there was not an opposite and equal reaction.

Maybe I misunderstood something, feel free to explain me your thoughts.

How about the power is dispersed among many actors in international relations?

Article Subjects of Public International Law and Non-State Actors - ...

In International Relations (IR), the assertion that "Power = 0" is not accurate. Power is a central concept and is seen as a determinant of states' behavior and the structure of the international system. However, its nature, sources, and manifestations are debated across different theoretical frameworks. Below is a nuanced discussion of why power remains crucial but its definition and utility vary:

1. Power as the Core of Realism

• Realism views power, especially military and economic power, as the foundation of international relations.Classical Realism: Power is an end in itself (e.g., Hans Morgenthau). Neorealism: Power is a means to ensure security in an anarchic international system (e.g., Kenneth Waltz). Example: The arms race during the Cold War showcased the primacy of power competition.
• Thus, power is never zero; it is the primary currency of state interactions.

2. Soft Power and Non-Material Dimensions

• Joseph Nye's concept of Soft Power demonstrates how power extends beyond military and economic dimensions. It includes cultural influence, diplomacy, and the ability to shape preferences through attraction rather than coercion.Example: The global appeal of Western democratic values or China's Belt and Road Initiative reflects the use of soft power.
• In this sense, power adapts to the tools available and is rarely nullified.

3. Constructivist Perspective on Power

• Constructivism emphasizes the role of ideas, norms, and social structures in defining power.Power is not a fixed material quantity but a socially constructed and context-dependent concept. Example: International norms like the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) exert power over states' behavior without reliance on force.
• Here, power exists in discourse, identity, and shared understandings.

4. Power Diffusion and Multipolarity

• The 21st century has seen a diffusion of power among non-state actors (e.g., multinational corporations, NGOs) and rising states, leading to multipolarity.Example: The influence of tech companies like Google or movements like Greta Thunberg's climate advocacy demonstrates power shifting from traditional state actors.
• While the distribution of power changes, the concept itself remains integral.

5. Globalization and Interdependence

• Liberal theories argue that globalization reduces the utility of coercive power in favor of cooperation and interdependence.Example: Economic sanctions on Russia after the Ukraine conflict showcase the power of economic interdependence over outright military engagement.
• Power does not disappear; its expression evolves within interconnected systems.

6. Powerlessness in Certain Contexts

• Situations where actors are unable to exercise power do exist:Failed States: Lack of effective governance renders them "powerless" in traditional state terms. Marginalized Communities: Groups without access to resources or representation may experience powerlessness in the global system.
• However, this does not equate to power being universally absent.

The "zero" might not literally mean the absence of power but rather a shift in understanding power dynamics.

Yes I agree. I hope you find the work fruitful in addressing a message that maybe has yet to be addressed.

Thank you for your comment.

May I kindly suggest reviewing the work more attentively, as it seeks not to demonstrate the absence of power but rather its omnipresence in international relations.

Thank you for your understanding.

Dear Nabil Hamidi ,

Thank you for sharing your thought-provoking draft. I’ have carefully read your paper “A World Without Power: How the Number Zero Changes International Relations”, and I commend your bold and original theoretical approach. The attempt to mathematically interrogate the foundations of power in IR, particularly through your concept of quantitative relativity and the equation P=0 is, I would say, intellectually daring.

Your paper challenges the traditional hierarchies in IR theory by deconstructing power as a universally equal and relative concept. Again, the blending of mathematical logic with philosophical insight is offering a unique framework that prompts readers to rethink the ontological assumptions of international power dynamics. And I appreciate your critique of the "possession" of power as an illusion, and the notion of power as a diffused process, brings a metaphysical and structuralist flavor that is rare in IR literature.

But, I , based on my understanding and scope of knowledge, would like to suggest some points that can strengthen your paper-

Theoretical Contextualization: As you noted, the paper would benefit from situating your argument within existing literature. Engaging with realism (especially Kenneth Waltz), constructivism (Alexander Wendt), and post-structuralist critiques (for example Foucault's concept of power as diffuse and relational) will anchor your work within recognizable schools of thought.

Your idea that all power is relative and therefore cancels out to zero offers a compelling way to rethink agency, structure, and equality in international relations. If fully developed and situated within the scholarly conversation, I strongly believe, it could serve as the foundation for a new post-structural theory of IR, where power is not accumulated, but embodied, enacted, and always balanced in motion.

Looking forward to your completed work. This is a promising and genuinely original contribution.

Respectfully,

Subham

From Bharat (India)

Thank you for your appraisal and comments. Hopefully you can publicize my work to other researchers.

Nabil.

Subham Tripathy

Dear professor,

I hope you are doing well. I thank you a second time for your appraisal. I would to like to privately discuss with you a potential collaboration on this paper if you are ever interested.

Thank you.

Nabil.

Masters' in International Studies and Diplomacy at Al Akhawayn University.

Double Bachelors in Political Philosophy and Political Science from Arizona State University.

Sure Nabil Hamidi

Do connect with me with the following email ID: [email protected]

Respectfully,

Subham

i already sent the email Subham Tripathy

Thanks,