Balance of Power: Theory and Practice in the 21st Century
The balance of power is one of the oldest and most enduring concepts of international relations. In a world of powerful and threatening states, it is often the only dependable strategy. It is surprising, therefore, that since the end of the Cold War, the dynamics of power balancing have been all but absent: the great powers have not formed counterbalancing coalitions to guard against U.S. predominance and are unlikely to anytime soon. This book, which brings together leading international security experts to assess the current status of balance-of-power theory, confirms the peculiarity of today's international system. The authors do not settle the debate about why this is so-whether the cause is nuclear weapons, economic interdependence, democratic peace, or the relatively benign character of U.S. hegemony. Jack Levy argues that balance-of-power theory emerged to explain European dynamics but never claimed universal validity. Robert Ross argues that China is pursuing an indirect form of balancing through internal mobilization but may never be in a position to build a true anti-U.S. coalition. The editors conclude that states are pursuing an array of security strategies, including "soft balancing," in today's unipolar world. But the logic and stability of this new situation remain unclear.
Related
Stop searching for order. The international structure established by the liberal democracies after World War II is still in place, and in many ways stronger than ever. Containment got most of the attention, but the liberal powers' agreement to manage trade, security, and other big matters cooperatively has been more durable, and more successful than most recognize. Besides, the order is deeply rooted in the American experience of democracy and constitutionalism. It shaped the Germany and Japan of today, and now most of the rest of the world wants to join.
Amazement and concern are often expressed these days that the United Nations seems unable or unwilling to "do anything" about Viet Nam. What is the Security Council for, it is asked, if not to stop wars? If the Council is blocked by a veto, why does not the General Assembly act? Yet neither apparently will even discuss Viet Nam.
If ratified, the new EU constitution will change the way the union works. It cannot take effect unless approved by all 25 members, but in only one country -- the United Kingdom -- do polls show that a majority oppose the document. Still, a rejection there would throw Europe into a constitutional crisis. And it could ultimately harm transatlantic relations as well.
