At the core of the balance of power theory is the idea that national security is enhanced when military capabilities are distributed so that no one state is strong enough to dominate all others.[1] If one state gains inordinate power, the theory predicts that it will take advantage of its strength and attack weaker neighbors thereby providing an incentive for those threatened to unite in a defensive coalition. Some realists maintain that this would be more stable as aggression would appear unattractive and would be averted if there was equilibrium of power between the rival coalitions.[1] When confronted by a significant external threat, states may balance or bandwagon. Balancing is defined as allying with others against the prevailing threat, whereas bandwagoning refers to alignment with the source of danger.[2] States may also employ other alliance tactics, such as buck-passing and chain-ganging. There is a longstanding debate among realists with regard to how the polarity of a system impacts on which tactic states use,[3] however, it is generally agreed that balancing is more efficient in bipolar systems as each great power has no choice but to directly confront the other.[4] Along with inter-Realist debates about the prevalence of balancing in alliance patterns, other schools of International Relations, such as constructivists, are also critical of the balance of power theory, disputing core realist assumptions regarding the international system and the behavior of states.[5]
Posted on: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 08:04:51 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015