Abstract
The paper focuses on a major question: should we abandon balance of power theory or seek to amend it in light many recent challenges? Author also raises crucial conceptual concerns: how should we define concepts such as „balancing”, „the balance of power”, and „balance of power theory”? Article elaborates a distinction between three related theories: balance of power theory, theories of power balances, and theories of balancing. In section II author discuss the concept balance of power in works of Edmund Burke. In section III he presents a survey of three historical international systems: ancient Middle Eastern system, the Greek city-state system and ancient China system. The weight of historical evidence casts significant doubt on the balancing efforts. This evidence shows that balancing processes rarely blocked the emergence of a prominent power or undermined it once it came into being. The balancing dynamics often failed in the face of the logics of domination. The balance of power theory is metaphor for the peculiar, impersonal form through which our collective human agency is expressed in the history of international relations. If and when it do disappear it will be through a process of social transformation, not one of cognitive reformulation. Balance of power theory must not any longer be the integrating theory of international relations.
Highlights
Author discuss the concept balance of power in works of Edmund Burke
The paper focuses on a major question: should we abandon balance of power theory or seek to amend it in light many recent challenges? Author raises crucial conceptual concerns: how should we define concepts such as „balancing”, „the balance of power”, and „balance of power theory”? Article elaborates a distinction between three related theories: balance of power theory, theories of power balances, and theories of balancing
The balancing dynamics often failed in the face of the logics of domination
Summary
Prawie wszyscy teoretycy równowagi si3y, mimo wielu ró¿nic miêdzy nimi, akceptuj[1] ideê, ¿e „[...] hegemonie nie formuj[1] siê w wielopañstwowym systemie, poniewa¿ dostrzegane zagro¿enie hegomoni[1] nad systemem generuje zachowanie równowa¿enia przez inne wiod1ce pañstwa w systemie. Nawet teorie uznaj1ce powszechnoœæ strategii równowa¿enia nie musz[1] zak3adaæ, ¿e strategie te 31cz[1] siê w systemowy poziom równowagi si3y.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.