Balance of Power

Abstract

We assess the role of the balance of power concept in International Relations (IR) scholarship, examining its key interaction between historical research. We present compact accounts of the concept's history and role in IR and review efforts to evaluate the essential balance-of-power proposition against historical evidence. We contend that the balance of power is not a universal empirical law, that it does not merit explanatory precedence, and we criticize the common practice of framing research questions around the failure of international systems to conform to the expected norms of balancing. It follows that neither the way the concept itself has been used throughout history nor the effectiveness of the concept in explaining historical events and developments can justify the way the balance of power has been applied in IR. We argue that the concept has nonetheless survived because it has been extremely useful for a range of different purposes beyond its core propositions. In short, the balance of power has never been only about the ‘balance of power’. It follows that several historical and theoretical issues that are not currently a part of the debates about the balance of power should be. We conclude by arguing that scholars should not abandon balance-of-power theory, but expand it by rethinking some realist assumptions, incorporating other theoretical traditions and methodologies, and investigating more thoroughly how the balance of power is used in practical politics.