An analysis of kenneth waltzs discussion on the balance of power
It is possible to find them, but one has to squint pretty hard to do it. Much nonsense has been talked in recent years about the balance of power.
Balance of power and deterrence
Today, no nation or group challenges American power … In fact, should the balance of power operate in its classical form, it would trigger countermoves by states seeking to pose a counterweight to America's expressed ambitions. On a broader scale, therefore, the pursuit of relative gain would undercut international cooperation in general, in both high and low politics. Kenneth Waltzs and the explanation of the limitati For Later. In some cases, it may cause new conflicts and treat to the Western World itself. Much of the discussion is about defining the concept of balance of power, the key propositions to test, and the historical or quantitative evidence. Rather, we saw the opposite happen where Soviet satellite states started drifting away one after another. The Fall of USSR, the Rise of China, and Empirical Implications for the BOP Theory Having shown that BOP has less to do with polarity than with intention of aggression, preference for relative gains, and circumstantial factors in an anarchic world, this essay will now show why our current system, characterized by American hegemony, is not so much different from the preceding ones. As the salience of the anomaly becomes undeniable, theoreticians redefine or shift their theoretical expectations, so as to contend that the anomaly can indeed be explained by their original theory even if their earlier writings ruled it out. In accordance with this new discipline, the European states formed a sort of federal community , the fundamental condition of which was the preservation of a balance of power, i. The clear intention actually was to be so strong that other countries had no choice but to rally to the side of the United States, concentrating all real power and freedom of action in the hands of America. Much nonsense has been talked in recent years about the balance of power. Rousseau defined the theoretical limit how far balance of power can be altered: "Will it be supposed that two or three potentates might enter into an agreement to subdue the rest? In short, the more rapid and unpredictable is the flux of information in a given situation, the less likely that the balance of power contingent on existing beliefs and preferences will occur as predicted. But the confusion of thought resulting from the attempt to brand it as a morally reprehensive policy has been less serious than the confusion resulting from the assumption that it is a policy which can be applied at all times and in all circumstances. Concluding that balance of power dynamics, especially those of hard balancing, are still observed in the post-Cold War era, he criticizes two main conclusions from the literature: i that balancing became inoperative and; ii that the only available strategies to other states are soft balancing and bandwagoning.
But even if there existed a malign hegemon that other states wanted to balance against, and the states all pursued relative gains, balance of power would still be conditional.
Hence states are also considered to be unitary actors in the international system.
Importance of balance of power in international relations
Focusing solely on aggregate power would lead us to expect more states to ally with the Soviet Union, in order to prevent the United States from using its superior overall resources in harmful ways. Elsewhere, Richard Little wrote: Events since the end of the Cold War "create a potential anomaly" for the theory because the outcome has "left the United States as the sole superpower in a unipolar world Waltz discussed in details the theory that the bipolar world is the most stable arrangement of the International Relations, based on the two hegemonies American and Soviet equilibrium. Waltz believes that the at one time or another Great States in their competition will decide to limit their pretension for safety reasons, concentrating on the defense. The essence of the BOP theory cannot be reduced to the occurrence of balance of power. In some cases, it may cause new conflicts and treat to the Western World itself. In multipolar distributions of power three or more states will balance through the formation of counterbalancing alliances. If states tend to favor absolute gains instead, we are more likely to see phenomena such as deep international institutions and pluralist security communities. From the traditional perspective of balance-of-power theory, this situation is surely an anomaly. Random House,the self-help anarchic system and shifts in the relative distribution of capabilities mean that balances of power recurrently form in the international system. And, according to Gilpin, the USA is to face the same end. A decade after the Berlin Wall collapsed… their dark vision of the future has not come to pass. Mowle, David H. Be it so. Adam Humphreys.
This logic of relative positionality of states in an anarchic system, as this essay will argue, has not fundamentally changed since the emergence of BOP theory.
This condition has led some to question the validity of BOP in a unipolar world, since two or more states need to coexist in the system in order for the theory to hold Waltz These three potentates, whoever they may be, will not possess half the power of all Europe.
States will be tempted to bandwagon when allies are unavailable, however excessive confidence in allied support encourages weak states to free ride relying on the efforts of others to provide security.
Walt in an attempt to explain why balancing against rising hegemons has not always been consistent in history. In accordance with this new discipline, the European states formed a sort of federal communitythe fundamental condition of which was the preservation of a balance of power, i.
Rome was not a balance of power. Due to the neorealist idea of anarchism as a result of the international system, states must ensure their survival through maintaining or increasing their power in a self-help world.
John Mearsheimer: Offensive Neorealism One more key representative of the American neorealism, giving the significant importance to the hegemony, is John Mearsheimer who is together with his followers used to be called the offensive realists.
based on 9 review