Like love, strength is easier to experience than to measure or define. The dictionary tells us that social  power is the ability to do things and ultimately control others to achieve one's goals or objectives. However, Robert Dahl, who takes a slightly different and extreme view of power, defines it as the ability to get others to do things they would otherwise not do.

This article will focus on and explain the following question: "What does power mean in international relations?" Different types of power in IR are clearly presented in three basic forms: Domineering Power, Compromise Power, United Power.

Power in international relations is like the weather, and just as meteorologists and farmers try to predict storms and rains, analysts and leaders try to understand the dynamics of major shifts in the distribution of power among nations. let's try. Transitions of power affect the fortunes of nations and are often associated with the devastating storms of world war.

Changing the power source

Some observers and analysts argue that sources of power, in general, are moving away from the emphasis on military force that marked earlier times. Factors like education, technology and economic development are gaining prominence in international relations, while factors like raw materials, geography and population of a nation are losing their importance over time.

Economic power is increasingly becoming a significantly important factor in assessing a nation's power status in the world. However, the true economic status of any nation cannot be gauged solely by economic indicators such as gross domestic product (GDP) nor can it be measured in terms of tangible resources possessed by the nation. Intangible aspects also need to be given a greater role.

Types of Power in International Relations

Power is a central concept in international relations (IR), but its meaning has long been the subject of disagreement and debate among scholars. This is mainly due to the fact that definitions of the term often do not clearly recognize that power has multiple meanings.

It has often been regarded as the core domain of realism and is primarily understood as control over resources and/or outcomes (usually defined in terms of military, economic, or technological capabilities). 

Power in international relations can be classified using not only those aspects associated with domination, coercion, coercion, exploitation, military force and violence, but also those aspects of power which are related to people's forgiveness.

Dominant power

Coercive power is the power of the 'strong' (S) to impose their will on the 'weak' (W). Hegemonic power encompasses power as power and control over resources and outcomes--and primarily to the extent that they are exercised against the resistance of the weak. It is S's power to unilaterally impose his will, and even against W's resistance, to make W do what W would not do, to obtain those results without offering anything in return. What they want. W's resistance does not have to be obvious or obvious. If S imposes his will on W without regard to W's interests, we call this overbearing power even if W makes no observable effort to resist. However, there is an assumption that compliance with W is not voluntary and that W leads to a different outcome

Compromising power

Bargaining power is the relative ability of actors or parties to influence each other in a given situation. If both parties are on an equal footing in the debate, they will have equal bargaining power, as in a perfectly competitive economic market, but if the actors are not on an equal footing, then they will have an unequal bargaining power. will have the power to do, which will eventually produce a Monopoly economic market.

Speaking from an international relations perspective, the difference here lies in the fact that here W is sufficiently 'strong' (sufficiently committed and resourceful) that S cannot impose its will unilaterally. A shift from the use of coercive power to the use of compromising power

Transition from domineering power to compromising power: Afghanistan as a case

Sometimes actors need to change the way they deal with and interact with other actors. Afghanistan can be seen as a classic example of the shift in US strategy from the exclusive use of coercive power to a mixed strategy that primarily involves compromising power.

In 2001, President Bush addressed a joint session of Congress announcing the War on Terrorism. He issued five strict demands to the Taliban government of Afghanistan. He insisted that "these demands are not open to negotiation" and thus, clearly committing to the use of coercive force. He openly declared that America