Was There a Reformed Balance of Power System or Cooperative Great Power Hegemony?

Abstract

PAUL SCHROEDER'S ESSAY ON THE VIENNA SETTLEMENT AND THE BALANCE OF POWER touches on two major fields of research: the actual distribution of power and operation of the system, and the language and practices of the Vienna settlement. He argues we need not redefine the concept of balance of power with respect to the Vienna system of 1815 or understand it differently. For him, settlement did not represent a particular, modified kind of balance of power. He believes rather that any balance of power interpretation of the Vienna settlement is misleading and wrong. Its essential power relations were hegemonic, not balanced, and a hegemonic distribution of power, along with other factors, made the system work.' As far as the language and the practices of the Vienna system are concerned, Schroeder discusses the seemingly plausible reasons for calling the system of Vienna a balance of power system, referring to the language being used by statesmen and writers of the period, the success of the international system established at Vienna, and the assumption a hegemonic system could not suddenly come about and provide peace and stability. These perceptions he tests against his own evidence. He concludes the case against the balance of power interpretation of the Vienna system is clear, stating eighteenth-century balance of power rules and practices produced predatory, destabilizing hegemony. The Vienna era's equilibrist rules and practices promoted benign, stabilizing kinds of hegemony.2 I would argue instead for a characterization of the international system established in 1815 as a reformed, multipolar, and intertwined balance of power system with built-in checks. The Vienna system was not designed and set up as a hegemonic great power system, despite the fact the great powers played a