Balance of Power
The Balance of Power is a political theory in international relations that posits stability is achieved when the strongest opposing powers maintain equal strength, thereby restraining each other's ambitions. This theory, rooted in political realism, suggests that nations inherently seek power to further their self-interests, influencing the hierarchy of international relations. When power is balanced among major states, it fosters mutual restraint and collective security, as no single state can act aggressively without facing potential retaliation from others. Conversely, a dominance of one power can lead to instability and conflict, as evidenced by historical examples such as the Peloponnesian War and the political landscape in eighteenth-century Europe.
The concept evolved significantly during the Cold War, where it was intertwined with nuclear deterrence strategies and terms like "mutually assured destruction." In the modern context, the United States stands as a predominant power following the Cold War, raising questions about the implications of this unipolarity for future international dynamics. The Balance of Power remains a vital yet complex framework for understanding global politics, marked by its historical roots and the ongoing debates surrounding its relevance today.
Balance of Power
Balance of power is a political theory used in the field of international relations that suggests that when the world's strongest opposing powers are at equal strength, they keep each other in check. By contrast, during periods when there is only a single dominant power, the potential for international conflict is heightened. The principal goal behind a balance of power is to ensure that no single state is able to impose its will unopposed.
Definition
The balance of power theory is a facet of political realism, a body of thought that argues that all international relations are based upon the instinctive and immoral drive of nations to seek power in pursuit of their own personal self-interests. According to this theory, at any given point in history there is a hierarchy of international powers. The relative strength of each state determines the level of its political influence on the international stage. The collapse of one or more of the smaller powers would have little net impact on this overall international power hierarchy; however, any changes among the stronger powers could have an outsized effect on the dynamics of global politics.
Ideally, under the principles of a balance of power, two or more of the strongest powers have comparatively equal amounts of political influence and military power. When there is a balance, it creates a deterrent against any one state attempting to gain further power for fear of antagonizing its opposites to act against it. During such periods of relative balance, there exists a state of collective world security, as no single state will attempt to disrupt the status quo and potentially lose its place in the political hierarchy through acts of aggression. Should one powerful state become dysfunctional and unable to maintain its position on the world stage, it may result in a political vacuum in which a number of states aggressively compete to take its place. Thus, when a balance of power between opposing powers is in place, it creates a political stability based on mutual restraint and maintenance of the status quo.
Although the balance of power is an important theory of political realism, it nonetheless remains somewhat ambiguous in its definition. Besides the difficulty in unraveling the complicated dynamics that come with establishing a true military, political, and economic balance of power between multiple states, the term became politicized during the Cold War, further muddying its definition.
Early History
The concept of a balance of power dates back to the Athenian politician and philosopher Thucydides. Thucydides was a Greek historian who, through his firsthand observations of the Peloponnesian War between the Athenians and Spartans, helped to found the underlying principles of political realism.
Before 431 B.C.E., when Sparta and Athens had comparatively equal levels of strength, there existed a period of general political stability in ancient Greece. Thucydides argued that it was only when Athens tried to surpass Sparta as the strongest regional power that the foundations for the lengthy and devastating Peloponnesian War were established.
Although there have been many historical examples of this type of balance of power, the idea came into maturity in the eighteenth century. During this period, Europe had four great powers: England, France, Holland, and Spain. These rivals engaged in the War of the Spanish Succession from 1701–1714. This war was settled through a series of peace treaties collectively called the Treaty of Utrecht. Included among the provisions was the idea that a "balance of power" was required to maintain peace. As such, these treaties sought to keep the crowns of Spain and France under separate leadership so that no single European kingdom had too much power. The policies established at Utrecht would play important roles in providing a framework for maintaining an equitable balance of power in Europe for the next two centuries.
Balance of Power in the Modern Era
By the time Germany began to demonstrate heightened aggression toward its neighbors in the early twentieth century, the balance of power theory had largely fallen out of favor in international politics. In 1918, President Woodrow Wilson even raised the specter of a previous reliance upon a balance of power as being partially responsible for the political tensions of the era.
Similar thoughts reigned during World War II. President Franklin D. Roosevelt viewed the war in the black-and-white terms of the Allies leading a fight for democracy against the dictatorial campaigns of the Axis powers rather than as resulting from the need to restore an equitable balance of power. In the aftermath of World War II, however, the devastating nature of the war left many of the European powers severely weakened, establishing a power vacuum. This was quickly filled by the United States and the Soviet Union, who each established new spheres of influence.
These two powers engaged in the Cold War from roughly 1947 to 1991. The idea of a balance of power took on new overtones during this period, as nuclear weapons became factored into the equation. Terms like "brinkmanship" and "mutually assured destruction" became code for maintaining both this balance and the tense relations that defined this period.
In the twenty-first century, the United States has emerged as the sole dominant power. Since the splintering of the Soviet Union, no coalition or independent power has risen up to rival the United States. How this power void may impact future global political interactions is uncertain and represents a continuing point of debate among political theorists.
Bibliography
Butler, Chris. "A New Balance of Power and Cold War (1945–1948)." The Flow of History. Chris Butler. Web. 2 Mar. 2016. http://www.flowofhistory.com/readings-flowcharts/the-world-since-1945/the-post-war-world-1945-60/fc138
Campbell, A.E., and Richard Dean Burns. "Balance of Power." Encyclopedia of the New American Nation. Advameg, Inc. Web. 2 Mar. 2016. http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/A-D/Balance-of-Power.html
Danilovic, Vesna. "Balance of Power and Power Shifts: Global Interests at Stake." When the Stakes Are High: Deterrence and Conflict among Major Powers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2002. 71–97. Print.
Kemos, Alexander. "The Influence of Thucydides in the Modern World." Hellenic Resources Network. Hellenic Resources Network. Web. 2 Mar. 2016. http://www.hri.org/por/thucydides.html
Lesaffer, Randall. "The Peace of Utrecht and the Balance of Power." Oxford Public International Law. Oxford University Press. Web. 2 Mar. 2016. http://opil.ouplaw.com/page/utrecht-peace/The-Peace-of-Utrecht-and-the-Balance-of-Power
Levy, Jack S. "What Do Great Powers Balance Against and When?" Balance of Power: Theory and Practice in the 21st Century. Ed. T.V. Paul, James J. Wirtz, and Michel Fortmann. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004. 29–51. Print.