Nurul Ain Farhana Rizduan
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
The balance of Power
visibility
…
description
8 pages
link
1 file
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
AI-generated Abstract
The paper discusses the concept of power in international relations, particularly focusing on the dynamics of unipolarity, bipolarity, and multipolarity. It argues that while a unipolar system can maintain international security and order, it can also lead to the abuse of power and oppression of weaker states. Historical examples are cited to illustrate these points, and there is a suggestion that a balance of power may contribute to global stability and peace. The paper concludes that no single polarity system is optimal for maintaining international peace, leaving the decision to readers based on historical precedents.
Related papers
Multipolar World Order: Old Myths and New Realities
Vestnik RUDN. International Relations, 2019
The concept of multipolarity has come a long way from its categorical rejection by Western politicians and scholars to the strong necessity of taking into account the realities of a multipolar world even by US closest allies. The article is devoted to the analysis of the official discourse, normative and positive concepts of the study of polarity, including system models of international relations, an empirical assessment of the current distribution of power in the world, as well as forecasting the further development of world dynamics. An analysis of the political discourse on polarity over the past 25 years is made and the most significant political figures are highlighted - defenders of multipolarity (BRICS and EU countries) as well as adherents of the unipolar world (NATO countries). The basic theories (mainly of a normative nature) that conceptualize both unipolar discourse (hegemonic stability theory) and multipolar one (theory of multipolar world) are shown. The intellectual ...
In the Antechamber of a New Global Bipolarity
Romanian Journal of European Affairs, 2016
1. The regional turmoil boils over globallySome 15-20 years ago, nothing seemed more solid and durable than the international order established at the end of the Cold War. America ruled supreme. I f there was discontent, it was uttered under one's breath. Nowadays, challengers fight in the open, in official high fora and international bodies. Sir Robert Cooper, the distinguished British diplomat, says that international order used to be based either on hegemony or on balance2. Empires were hegemonic, and while they promoted order, they did not promote change, which finally led to their fall. Later, international order was based on balance, the co-existence of significant centres of power. Military confrontation was the solution when the balance of power was lessened. During the Cold War, the bipolar order was an expression of the confrontation between the two non-European superpowers. As early as 1964, Kenneth Waltz welcomed the bipolar world system as the most stable one; becau...
DOES THE CONCEPT OF MULTIPOLARITY ACCURATELY REFLECT THE CURRENT GEOPOLITICAL REALITY
We are witnessing the trend of relative economic and, consequently, political weakening of America and the West and a constant rise of the "rest of the world", primarily China, whose economic growth, despite slowing down in recent years, is still three times faster than that in the EU and the US. Given that the strategies and policies of great powers, as well as of smaller countries like Serbia, depend on it, in this paper, we try to answer the question of whether the world is in the process of becoming bipolar, multipolar, or whether some form of unipolarity will persist. We start with the definition of polarity in neo-realist terms. We generally accept that after the end of the Cold War, there was a moment of unipolar US dominance, coupled with its hegemony, but this moment has largely passed. However, we are faced with the situation that there has been no clear emergence of either a new bipolar or multipolar order. We cannot argue that Beijing is the other pole of power since only the US has functional alliances that carry weight economically and militarily. And, if we are witnessing the emergence of multipolarity, that is the one that is still fundamentally asymmetric in America's favour since Washington's actions predominantly determine the main currents of global geopolitical processes. Thus, we claim that the global order is shaped as an unbalanced multipolarity, with the caveat that the role and strength of poles are in modern times considerably less important than before due to the processes of globalisation and economic interdependency.
The Concept of Polarity and Centres of Power in International Relations
Jurnal Politik indonesia (Indonesian Journal of Politics)
This paper explains the concept of polarity and centres of power where the poles are divided into three types in the international system. To be a great power, the states build and maintain their power capability in the system, and that capability is growing in every period, such as the emergence of nuclear power in the Cold War era. Furthermore, the scholars of international relations have different perceptions to determine the poles after the Cold War until this era whether the international system is unipolar or multipolar or even bipolar, as several countries are predicted to be potential great power in the forthcoming years.
Polarity and War: The Weak Case for the Bipolar Stability Theory
Journal of International and Area Studies, 2020
The idea that bipolarity is more stable than multipolarity has become dominant in the last decades. However, few studies have used historical cases of bipolarity for supporting or contradicting this theory. This paper briefly describes all the known cases of bipolar systems in history, with their duration, the distribution of power, and major wars. It then compares the occurrence of major war under both bipolarity and multipolarity. The results of this study show that bipolar systems are more unstable than multipolar ones.
Towards a Multi-Polar International System: Which Prospects for Global Peace?
In the discipline of international relations (IR), a great power is a state which excels in "size of population and territory, resource endowment, economic capability, military strength, political stability and competence" (Waltz, Theory of International Politics, 131).
The Balance of Power in World Politics The Balance of Power in World Politics Summary and Keywords The Balance of Power in World Politics
" balance of power " system is one in which the power held and exercised by states within the system is checked and balanced by the power of others. Thus, as a nation's power grows to the point that it menaces other powerful states, a counterbalancing coalition emerges to restrain the rising power, such that any bid for world hegemony will be self-defeating.
The Place of Former Soviet Union in the Bipolar Power Relations
2015
Since the early 1990‟s, the balance of power at bipolarity level has been altered significantly as a result of changes in Eastern Europe and eventual collapse of communism in former Soviet Union. The traditional balance of power has been shifted in favour of the USA, in the opinion of most analysts. Unlike the previous phases of detente, such as the early 1970‟s, there has of late, been a fundamental shift in the structure of international relations. Particularly notable has been the dismantling of the Soviet bloc in Eastern Europe, the collapse of communism in this area, and the demise of Soviet Union. In this paper, an attempt is made to explain the causes and effects of these developments, particularly; the perception since the early 1990‟s, of the pattern of balance of power; that suggests as it were, that bipolarity has given way to unipolarity. Special attention will be paid to the economic and political reforms introduced by the former Soviet Leader Mikhail Gorbachev, which c...
Running head: The balance of Power in the World
The balance of Power in the World
Nurul Ain Farhana binti Mohd Rizduan. (G1720822)
Foreign Policies of the Major Power (PSCI 6401)
Prof. Dr. El Fatih Abdillahi Abdelsalam
Semester 1 2018/2019
Department of Political Science
Kulliyyah of Islamic Revealed Knowledge and Human Sciences
International Islamic University Malaysia
Submission on 16 October 2018
1|P age
The balance of Power in the World
Question:
level,
In
considering
which
different
distributing
power
types
of
polarity
will
ensure
at
the
International
international
peace
and
order? And why it happens?
Power is dreams and interest of an individual or states.
Power defined
as a force that moves things from one point or state to another state. Power
also could allow us to get what we want and to prevent what we do not want.
The holding or obtaining of power can make the state conquer another state.
Today, we could see each nation competing each other’s to get known, scared
and recognized as the most hegemony and super power of the world. As we
could see, the conquering of strong or hegemony not only in aspects military
power
but
economic
also
oppressing
the
weak
state.
They
sectors,
influencing
the
foreign
policy
and
also
also
will
interfere
interfering
the
in
state
matters in one state in the name of helping and maintain the peace of the
world.
According
to
Welter
(1988),
power
is
defined
as
international
actors
deal with one another and the achieving influence over other actors and how
the rational use of power can shape the outcome of maintaining or improve
the actors’ satisfaction and achieve of the objectives of national interest.
The division ownership of power known as polarity and there are
types
of
polarity system
identified
According to Paul, cited from
inter-system
that
means
it
that
implies
cannot
in
which
are
unipolar,
bipolar
and
few
multipolar.
Monteiro (2011), unipolar system is defined as
existing
states
completely control
that
the
constrained
others
states.
by
anarchy,
He
also
which
suggesting
2|P age
The balance of Power in the World
that
obstructs
unipolarity
international
system’s
usual
tendency
toward
s
power balancing.
To
continue
with,
the
bipolar
and
multipolar
were
describing
as
the
same basis, which are both of the system did not hold predominate power by
one state. Therefore, these systems categorize
as tool to balancing the
The
states
bipolar
allying
with
system
either
reflects
of
the
two
two
dominant
super
powers.
So
with
less
that,
power.
powerful
states
bipolarity allows
two
states to control conflict in the international system of order such as happen
in Cold War between Soviet Union and United States of America.
On
the
other
hands,
multipolar
system
reflect
many
equal
powerful
states vying the power and differ with bipolar system because the states can
change
their
relationship
through
other
states
without
gaining
or
losing
power. The multipolar system has been known since the time period of World
War I. However, he emphasizing that unipolar is differs with hegemonic state
because hegemonic state is able to control the foreign policy of other states.
In
viewing
system,
the
polarity
that
of
balancing
practice
the
distribution
power
by
would
many
of
power
be
achieve
state
in
in
international
through
exercising
a
organization
few
power.
types
Some
of
idea
suggesting that unipolar is the best polarity system to maintain the balance of
power without share any power because only one state will be the most super
power
and
influence
Richard (2007),
also
shadow
quoting from
Pape
all
the
in his
foreign
book
policy
of
the
suggesting that
world.
the
For
balancing
3|P age
The balance of Power in the World
of power is hard to achieve so that the soft power much easier to bring off.
For
him,
unipolar
alliances.
system
However,
will
soft
involve
power
hard
only
power
in
involves
formation
of
international
military
institutions,
economic statecraft and diplomatic initiatives.
On
the
multipolar,
that
other
which
would
hands,
allow
maintain
the
the
the
idea
power
balancing
of
power
exercise
of
sharing
by
power.
one
using
or
James
the
more
(1998)
bipolar
state,
or
believed
emphasizing
that
the sharing of power sharing equally will avoid the misuse of power because
the state holder will have guidelines about the limits of the power he share
with
other
nations
and
prevention
from
use
power
unethically.
He
stressing
that the power share will make the exercising of power more effectives.
him,
power
expensive,
positives
sharing
is
abundant
tools
in
not
and
part
of
generous.
giving
decision
Not
opportunities
only
for
to
use
that,
our
power
power
in
sharing
power
to
exercised
instead
of
using
For
more
view
and
as
release
power that have been blocked before.
Furthermore,
in
sharing
of
power,
the
multipolar
system, which the power exercise by many states as we could see in World
War II, the bipolarity acknowledge as the best polarity system to maintain the
international peace of the world. In this system, power only share among two
powerful nations as we could see after World War between Soviet Union and
United State
of America.
differ
on
view
international
power
system
as
This argument
sharing
to
quoting
from
supported by
maintain
the
the
Waltz’s
Richard (2007)
balance
theory
of
power
that
have
in
shows
a
the
why
4|P age
The balance of Power in the World
bipolarity is
more
stable
from
multipolarity.
It
is
because
the
bipolar
system
will rely on two state rely solely on their own resources to survive and if one
state
starts to
increase
expenditure
on armaments
and the
others state
wishes
to ensure that it can survive the future, the it has no alternative but to follow
suit. The example we could see as Soviet Union keep pace with United State
of America, both keep maintaining their power and no one could expend or
misuse due to the equal power.
The
balancing
of
power
believes
will
contribute
the
stability
and
maintain the international peace and security of the nation state. It is because
the leader of the state would not have problem to competing with others state
to
increase
proliferation
was
their
beside
approaching
through
his
national
security
stratification
the
concept
pluralism
world
of
such
power.
of
view.
as
military
According
Utopia
in
He
was
power
to
global
Merriam
scale
suggesting
of
of
that
nuclear
(1975),
world
the
he
politics
world
as
warless will be successful with the implementation of the balance of power or
it other way, power sharing. It is because the statesman would not competing
and challenging the others’ state. He also was suggesting that the teaching of
civic education to the state holder will ensure the state man to avoiding war
and
greediness
nations.
Besides,
to
the
become
states
the
could
hegemony
share
power
their
by
ideas,
conquering
technology,
the
other
interest
and
power among other states because they did not have the interest to competing
to each other’s to become the most powerful. Merriam have very nice ideas
5|P age
The balance of Power in the World
to
ensure
the
peace
of
international
peace
even
though
it
looked
like
impossible to implement in the real world.
To
add,
this
argument
was
support
by
James
(1998),
by
introducing
the concept power sharing as the tools of maintain the power politics. In his
book, he suggests three goals to have
power.
state
He
emphasizing
distribute
the
the
power
balance
equally
the balance
of
to
power
create
an
of power by sharing the
could
be
achieved
exceptional
when
environment
the
when
people are free to exchange the power and that dormant in the right times and
places.
To
of
conclude,
polarity
power.
in
In
because
multipolar
or
scholars
maintaining
my
for
many
opinion,
me,
this
I
agree
system
different
international
system
bipolar
have
with
peace
the
ideas
and
in
balance
unipolarity
will
avoid
conflict
because
the
exercising
viewing
power
as
of
the
the
world
system.
compared
power
types
more
It
is
with
the
than
one
nation will lead to the competition to be the most powerful hegemonic power.
In
addition,
the
unipolar
system
also
will
maintain
the
international
security
and order because it is nature the leader should be one person or only one
state because it will the other state will have the only main reference about
any
aspects
such
as
foreign
policy,
international
economic and etc. Thus, the main power will
terms
for
of
consultation
example
the
in
decision
Abbasid
making.
Caliphate
influence the
Throughout
system
security
become
history,
the
and
military,
other nations in
we
most
could
see
powerful
6|P age
The balance of Power in the World
government
across
the
world.
This
state
later
becomes
the
references
in
all
aspect of technology, education, military, civilization, economy and etc.
However,
this
unipolar
system
consequences of unipolar system
because
the
monitors,
condemn
conquering
unipolar
strongest
other
power
state
or
state
of
bullying
them.
in
system
which are
will
stop
also
It
will
led
weak
state
make
resources
the
own
flaws.
The
will led to the misuse
will
natural
has
the
for
powerful
with
one
of
power
anyone
could
unipolarity
examples.
state
able
obvious
will
led
Besides,
to
do
to
the
unlimited
action without any fear. For all the reading and my research regarding on this
topic,
what
I
could
say is
in
maintaining the
international
peace
and
order;
there is any of the polarity system that I could generalize as the best types of
polarities
We
system
only could
to
practice
make
in
maintaining
assumptions
and
the
prediction
international
through
the
peace
and
order.
historical
events
happened in world politics that happen before. It is depend to reader to decide
what the best is.
References.
Lucas. J. R. (1998), Balance of Power., New York, United State of America:
Amacon American Management Association.
Little.
R.
Metaphors,
(2007).
Myths
The
and
Balance
Models.
of
Power
United
in
Kingdom:
International
Relations,
Cambridge
University
Press.
7|P age
The balance of Power in the World
Jones.
W.
S.
(1988).
The
Logic
of
International
Relation.
The
Sixth
Edition.
Scott, Foresman and Company. Glenview, Illinois Boston: London.
Fox. W. T. R. (1975), The Pluralism, The Science of Politics and the World
World
System,
Cambridge
Politics,
Vol.
University
27,
No.
4
Press.
(Jul.,
1975),
Retrieved
pp.
from
597-611,
website
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2010016
Crawford.
C.,
(1988),
Balance
of
Power,
The
1990
United
Edition.
State
of
America: Mindscape Inc.
Mansfield.
E.
Trade,
D.,
(1992).
International
731-764,
The
Concentration
Vol.
Organization.
The
MIT
of
46,
Press.
Capabilities
No.3
and
(Summer,
Retrieved
International
1992),
from
pp.
website
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2706994
Kim
W.
K.,
(2012),
System
Polarities
and
Alliances
Politics.
University
of
Iowa. Retrieved from website http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/3482
Haas.
M.,
American
(1970).
International
Political
Science
Subsystem
Review.
Vol.
:
64,
Stability
No
1
and
(March
Polarity,
1970),
pp
The
98-
123. Retrieved from website http://www.jstor.org/stable/1955616
Horses.
P.,
Understanding
Paradigms
and
Polarity
in
International
Relation.
Atomi University.
8|P age
References (2)
- J. R. (1998), Balance of Power., New York, United State of America: Amacon American Management Association.
- Little. R. (2007).