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

Read more

Summary

Introduction

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.

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call