International Relations: Balance of Power

balance of power theory

explain reoccurring phenomenon in IR

• production of balance of power

• catastrophy happens to great powers: become unbalanced in middle east (bi-polar regional system; iran and saudi arabia)

• systems have tendency to restore lost balance of power

situation in which power is distributed equally

systemic tendency toward equilibrium

realists: focus on military resources, look at great powers to see if the power is balanced/unbalanced way

two mechanisms of balance of power theory

states want power → ultimate source of security (survival)

• balanced distribution of power: why? if one state becomes too powerful, that states is too dangerous (puts security/survival at risk)

  • power-gap minimizers: states that want to make imbalances disappear

  • ex. build arms/make alliances → our power grows → balance power against powerful state

• unbalanced distribution of power (tilted in their favour): unlikely that others will come after me

  • power-gap maximizers: make system as unbalanced as possible in my favour, become hegemons

    • many states seeking the same thing: unintended effect = power is balanced

    • ex. invest in weapons: you want the same thing, you’ll invest in your weapons → now we both have investments in weapons and the power is balanced

intention vs effect (balancing)

balanced distribution of power → concerted

unbalanced distribution of power → unintended

both equal: balanced distribution of power

• how? wars, policies of other states

  • power-gap minimizers = maintained balance of power

  • ex. after napoleon was defeated, series of meetings of rulers of great powers of continental europe = make sure none of them would upset the balance of power

offensive realism

power-gap maximizers, assume the more power you have = the more security you have (more is always better for security)

defensive realism

offensive realism is true up to a certain point, optimal level of relative power

• after that point, decrease security (low prospects of survival) = military power superiority that is tolerable to other great powers → other states see you as a threat now → react against you

• other states want to bring back the balance of power

global hegemony

once a state is so much more powerful → both offensive and defensive realists agree that more power is more security

• why? → mechanisms of balance of power are inhibited, its too costly for other states to confront the hegemony

• ex. global hegemony is lost relative to others → balance of power mechanisms = security is going down

balancing

policies that contribute to restoring a balance of power

• if it contributed to effects: its balancing

• internal: militarization

  • direct: more weapons, new technology, going nuclear

  • indirect: boosting economy, trade policies

policies intended to restore a balance of power

• intention to restore balance of power, effect was that it made other states insecure

• external: alliances

  • commitments to pull resources to make threats

  • anarchic context: no authority will enforce commitments

  • defensive nature: commitment is about if you get attacked, all of us will come to the rescue

  • offensive alliances: ex. germany and russia against poland, goal to invade poland

hard balancing

military buildups and alliances

• rare: ex. no formal alliance against the USA

  • too costly and dangerous under unipolarity

  • high opportunity costs (econ interdependence, common threats)

• is theory useful in present day?

soft balancing

limited, attritional balancing

• may refer to hard power or soft power resources

• don’t engage in direct confrontation: counter-hegemonic formal alliance

  • informal connections with some states

institutional balancing

using and pooling institutional resources

• subtype of soft balancing: fighting against hegemony

• no formal alliances, explicit confrontation

• only institutional resources: ex. veto power in UN Security Council to block resolution that would favour USA

  • not confronting USA, defend it in ways that are not against the USA/hegemon

asymmetric balancing

war of attrition (gradually reducing the strength through sustained attack/pressure) by weak non-state actors against powerful states

• not a choice: its a necessity

• actor doesn’t have power to launch any other kind of war to the hegemon: terrorist organizations

  • ex. Al Qaeda: don’t have military power, can bite at the ankles of the giants, minimal conditionality of their behaviour

• can’t see the balancing part: strong state can’t balance against weak non-state actor

• definition: behaviour of a weaker actor towards a stronger actor

T.V. Paul balance of power theory

Argues that while the traditional concept of balance of power remains relevant, it needs to be adapted to account for contemporary international relations. He emphasizes the evolving nature of balancing strategies, including the emergence of "soft balancing" and "asymmetric balancing" in the post-Cold War era.

• Enduring Axioms:

  • Anarchy: The international system is inherently anarchic, lacking a central authority.

  • State as the Primary Actor: States remain the primary actors in international relations.

  • Survival: The primary goal of states is survival.

• Traditional Balancing:

  • States seek to maintain a balance of power to prevent any single state from dominating the international system.

  • This is achieved through:

    • Military Buildup: Increasing military capabilities.

    • Alliance Formation: Forming alliances with other states to counter potential threats.

• Criticisms of Traditional Balancing:

  • Limitations: Traditional balancing theory struggles to account for:

    • Threat Perception: States may balance against perceived threats rather than simply against power.

    • Bandwagoning: States may choose to align with a stronger power rather than balance against it.

    • Non-State Actors: The rise of non-state actors (like terrorist groups) challenges the traditional focus on state-centric interactions.

• Evolving Forms of Balancing:

  • Soft Balancing:

    • States use less confrontational strategies to counter a rising power, such as:

      • Diplomatic and economic measures.

      • Cooperation within international institutions.

      • Building relationships with other states to limit the dominant power's influence.

  • Asymmetric Balancing:

    • Weaker states may employ asymmetric strategies (like terrorism) to challenge stronger states.

    • This can involve non-state actors acting on behalf of states or independently.

• Contemporary Relevance:

  • While the Cold War bipolar system is gone, the logic of balance of power remains relevant.

  • States continue to seek to maintain their security and influence in a competitive international environment.

  • However, the forms of balancing have evolved, reflecting the changing nature of international relations.

Argues that while the core principles of balance of power theory endure, its application needs to be refined to account for the complexities of the contemporary international system, including the rise of new actors, the changing nature of threats, and the emergence of new forms of balancing behavior