The changes in the aftermath of the Cold War deeply affected the functioning of international organizations, and increased their leverage in international affairs. This article chiefly argues that the paradigm shift in the policies of the International Olympic Committee mitigated the prospect of damage to the Olympic movement and paved the way for the International Olympic Committee to figure in international affairs more effectively. In the article, it is concluded that the Olympic Games have become a significant soft power instrument for states’ foreign policy, rather than being an arena of boycotts or chauvinism, owing to the changing nature of international relations; however, it is more difficult for some states to benefit from this resource of soft power because of domestic issues.
ArcherC (2001) International Organizations. New York: Routledge.
2.
BaradatLP (1994) Political Ideologies: Their Origins and Impact (5th edn). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
3.
BrzezinskiZScowcroftBIgnatiusD (2008) America and the world: conversations on the future of American foreign policy. New York: Basic Books.
4.
DayritCL (2003) The Olympic Movement in the Philippines. Quezon City: Hiyas Press.
5.
DonnellyP (2010) 1968 and all that: Social change and the social sciences of sport. Sport in Society13(1): 1–5.
6.
DurryJSamaranchJAMurphyJ (1996) Pierre de Coubertin the Visionary: His Life, his Work, his Key Texts. Paris: Comité Francais Pierre de Coubertin.
7.
EberleinBNewmanAL (2008) Escaping the international governance Dilemma? Incorporated transgovernmental networks in the European Union. Governance21(1): 25–52.
8.
EralpADagiID (1996) Devlet, Sistem ve Kimlik [State, System and Identity] (1st edn, in Turkish). Istanbul: Iletisim.
9.
FarerTSiskTT (2010) Enhancing international cooperation: Between history and necessity. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations16(1): 1–12.
10.
FinlayCJXinX (2010) Public diplomacy games: A comparative study of American and Japanese responses to the interplay of nationalism, ideology and Chinese soft power strategies around the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Sport in Society13(5): 876–900.
11.
GerardDF (2008) Playing foreign policy games: States, drugs and other Olympian vices. Sport in Society11(4): 459–466.
12.
GirginovVHillsL (2009) The political process of constructing a sustainable London Olympics sports development legacy. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics1(2): 161–181.
13.
GrattonCPreussH (2008) Maximizing Olympic impacts by building up legacies. The International Journal of the History of Sport25(14): 1922–1938.
14.
HuntingtonSP (1973) Transnational organizations in world politics. World Politics25(3): 333–368.
15.
JacksonRHSorensenG (2007) Introduction to International Relations: Theories and approaches (3rd edn.) New York: Oxford University Press.
16.
KoulouriC (2010) The first modern Olympic Games at Athens, 1896 in the European context. Center for German and European Studies. Available at: www.desk.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp/download/es_5_Koulouri_2.pdf (accessed 2 December 2011).
17.
LandryF (1995) Paralympic Games and social integration. In: de MoragasMBotellaM (eds) The Keys to Success: The Social, Sporting, Economic and Communications Impact of Barcelona’92. Barcelona: Servei de Publicacions, pp. 124–138.
18.
LeopkeyBMutterOParentMM (2010) Barriers and facilitators when hosting sports events: Exploring the Canadian and Swiss sport event hosting policies. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics2(2): 113–134.
19.
MacintoshDHawesM (1992) The IOC and the world of interdependence. Olympika: The International Journal of Olympic Studies1: 29–45.
20.
MacintoshDCantelonHMcdermottL (1993) The IOC and South Africa: A lesson in transnational relations. International Review for the Sociology of Sport28(4): 373–393.
21.
MajumdarBMehtaN (2010) It’s not just sport: Delhi and the Olympic torch relay. Sport in Society13(1): 92–106.
22.
NyeJS (1990) Bound To Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power. New York: Basic Books.
23.
NyeJS (2004) Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: Public Affairs.
24.
NyeJS (2008) The Powers to Lead. New York: Oxford University Press.
25.
NyeJS (2011) The Future of Powers. New York: Public Affairs.
26.
ShipwayRBrownL (2007) Challenges for a regional cultural programme of the London 2012 Games. Games, Culture and the Olympics9(5): 21–35.
27.
UNDP (1997) Governance for Sustainable Human Development. New York: UNDP.
28.
ZahranGRamosL (2010) From hegemony to soft power. In: ParmarICoxM (eds) Soft Power and US Foreign Policy: Theoretical, Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. New York: Routledge, pp. 12–31.
