Über die Autorinnen und Autoren

Von der hinteren Coverseite

Aus dem Klappentext

Auszug. © Genehmigter Nachdruck. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.

BALANCE OF POWER

STANFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

Contents

List of Tables...........................................................................................................................................viiAcknowledgments..........................................................................................................................................ixAbout the Editors and Contributors.......................................................................................................................xiIntroduction: The Enduring Axioms of Balance of Power Theory and Their Contemporary Relevance T. V. PAUL.................................................1Part I: Theories of Balance of Power and Major Powers1. What Do Great Powers Balance Against and When? JACK S. LEVY..........................................................................................292. Great Powers in the Post-Cold War World: A Power Transition Perspective DOUGLAS LEMKE................................................................523. The Political Economy of Balance of Power Theory MARK R. BRAWLEY.....................................................................................76Part II: New Security Challenges and Balance of Power4. The War on Terrorism and the Balance of Power: The Paradoxes of American Hegemony CHRISTOPHER LAYNE..................................................1035. The Balance of Power Paradox JAMES J. WIRTZ..........................................................................................................1276. A World Not in the Balance: War, Politics, and Weapons of Mass Destruction EDWARD RHODES.............................................................150Part III: Regional Subsystems and Balance of Power7. Europe Hedges Its Security Bets ROBERT J. ART........................................................................................................1798. Revisiting Balance of Power Theory in Central Eurasia WILLIAM C. WOHLFORTH...........................................................................2149. The International System and Regional Balance in the Middle East BENJAMIN MILLER.....................................................................23910. Bipolarity and Balancing in East Asia ROBERT S. ROSS................................................................................................26711. The South Asian Security Balance in a Western Dominant World RAJU G. C. THOMAS......................................................................30512. Regime Type and Regional Security in Latin America: Toward a "Balance of Identity" Theory MICHAEL BARLETTA AND HAROLD TRINKUNAS.....................334Conclusions: Balance of Power at the Turn of the New Century MICHEL FORTMANN, T. V. PAUL, AND JAMES J. WIRTZ............................................360Index....................................................................................................................................................375

Chapter One

JACK S. LEVY

The balance of power is one of the oldest and most fundamental concepts in the study of international relations. David Hume regarded the balance of power as a scientific law, and Glenn Snyder called the balance of power "the central theoretical concept in international relations." Historians talk about the "golden age" of the balance of power in the 18th or 19th centuries, but they have also applied the concept to the Renaissance and to ancient civilizations in China and Greece. Hans Morgenthau, echoing Hume, referred to the balance of power as an "iron law of politics," while others, such as Henry Kissinger, treated the balance of power as more of an art than a science, practiced more skillfully by some political leaders than by others.

Although the idea of the balance of power lost favor with the rise of idealism after World War I, it regained a prominent position with the turn to realist international theory after World War II. The writings of Morgenthau, Edward Gulick, Inis Claude, and Ludwig Dehio were particularly important, as was Kenneth Waltz's development of structural realism, which was intended to put realist theory on a more sound social science footing.

While the balance of power concept is one of the most prominent ideas in the theory and practice of international relations, it also is one of the most ambiguous and intractable ones. While some theorists use the concept to describe the actual distribution of power in the international system, others use it to refer to an ideal distribution of power or a particular kind of system, and still others see balance of power as a state strategy rather than as an international outcome. Many treat balance of power as a theory of international politics, yet theorists do not agree on the key assumptions or propositions of the theory or even what the theory purports to explain. Some say a balance of power helps maintain the peace; others say it contributes to the onset of war; still others claim that the theory makes no determinant predictions about war and peace at all. A scholar may use the balance of power concept to mean several different things, even in a single article or book, usually without being explicit about exactly what is meant in any particular context. The varied ways in which the term balance of power has been used led Richard Cobden to call it "a chimera-an undescribed, indescribable, incomprehensible nothing."

One manifestation of the ambiguity of balance of power theory is its application to the contemporary world. Despite the historically unprecedented power of the United States at the opening of the 21st century, the other leading states in the international system have not "balanced" against the United States either through the formation of defensive alliances or through a massive buildup of their own military strength. For many theorists, this behavior is a puzzle. Fareed Zakaria asks, "Why is no one ganging up against the United States?" John Ikenberry asks why, despite the unprecedented concentration of American power, "other great powers have not yet responded in a way anticipated by balance-of-power theory."

Characterizing the absence of balancing against the United States as a puzzle constitutes an erroneous interpretation of balance of power theory. Few balance of power theorists, at least in the tradition of Western international theory that includes Morgenthau, Claude, Gulick, and Dehio, would predict balancing against the United States, at least given current magnitudes of American strength and current U.S. behavior. To understand this view, we must take a long step back and outline the essential features of balance of power theory. In doing this, the chapter clarifies its key concepts, resolves many of its ambiguities, and specifies its primary propositions. It then returns to the puzzle of the absence of balancing against American primacy.

Summary of Balance of Power Theory

While some theorists use the balance of power concept to refer to the actual distribution of power in the system, that usage is confusing because it might reflect an equal balance, a favorable balance, an unfavorable balance, or any other distribution of power. If the focus is on the relative distribution of power in the system, it is better to use the term distribution of power. The concept of a balance of power system is also problematic,...