Lecture on Balance of Power in International Relations

A set of flashcards covering key concepts from a lecture on balance of power and international relations theory.

Waltz

A prominent structural realist theorist known for his influential critique of earlier theories of war and his views on the balance of power.

Three Images

A framework proposed by Waltz to analyze the causes of war at three levels: individual, state, and systemic.

Individual Level of Analysis

The first image in Waltz's framework, which examines the psychological and decision-making factors of individual leaders.

Characteristics of the leader (e.g. personality, social background, human nature, leadership style)

State Level of Analysis

The second image in Waltz's framework, focusing on how internal state factors, such as government type and ideology, influence war.

Characteristics of the state (e.g. regime type, economic structure, society’s culture and ideology)

Systematic Level of Analysis

The third image in Waltz's framework, analyzing war causes based on the characteristics and structure of the international system.

Characteristics of the system (e.g., polarity, global norms, imbalance in distribution of power)

Power Transition Theory:

Probability of a major war is greatest at the point when the declining leader is being overtaken by a rising challenger, so either a hegemonic war or a preventive war by the hegemon

Different theories of thinkers of what causes war:

Blainey: war due to uncertainty at parity ○

Waltz: war due to imbalance and power shifts

○ Fearon – Rationalist Explanations for War

Bargaining” Models of War

A critique of the critique?

• Waltz and the neorealists say war happens

because “there’s nothing to prevent it”

(anarchy)

– But still: why does war happen when it’s a costly

choice, and alternatives providing the same

benefits without the cost may (often?) exist?

Why Bargaining Fails: Fearon's Three Mechanisms

• The puzzle: a negotiated outcome almost always exists that both sides would prefer to fighting — so why does bargaining fail?

– Private information and incentives to misrepresent: neither side can fully verify the other's claims

– Commitment problems: agreements are hard to enforce when promises can't be guaranteed

– Indivisibility: some issues appear impossible to divide

Real world example of why Bargaining fails: Iran (2026)

US-Iran negotiations repeatedly failed despite both sides having incentives to avoid conflict – why?

– Private information and incentives to misrepresent?

– Commitment problems?

– Indivisibility?

• How can we prevent future bargaining failures?

Balance of power theory (Waltz)

Multipolar: 3 or more great powers

More uncertainty and greater instability. Major war more likely, unless a balance of power is maintained

Bipolar: Only 2 great powers

Less uncertainty and less instability. Small wars may be common, but war among the (two) great powers is rare.

Unipolar: 1 great power

Least stable; unipole likely to engage in reckless behavior, provoking other states to balance against it.

Even with a Balance: Realist Paths to War

Fundamental conflict of interest

• Security dilemmas/unintended wars (e.g., preemptive wars)

• Preventive war

• Hegemonic war