The balance of power - publié le 31/03/2006

Extraits

[...] The resurgence of respect for balance of power as a system for ordering international relations is attributable not only to its own recent record f performance but also to the decline of its major competitors : collective security and world government. As Hedley Bull argued, we cannot do without the term as very currency is an indication of the importance of the ideas it is intended to convey”. balance of power idea is significant because it has a history” (Paul W Schroeder). [...]

[...] The possessors of the logic are the states themselves. Though when statecraft of the era before WWI is analysed through the lens of the security dilemma, or a similar analogue of game theory, the issue of Germany's will to conquest is filtered out. Finally, the place of folly and wisdom of policy also are effectively ignored by the balance of power theory. For example, after Bismarck, it is hard not to be impressed by the folly of German leaders. Max Weber argued that Germany's difficulties in foreign policy before WW1 were the result of poor leadership after Bismarck . [...]

[...] A balance of power exists when there is parity or stability between competing forces. As a term in international law for a "just equilibrium" between the members of the family of nations it expresses the doctrine intended to prevent any one state from becoming sufficiently strong to enforce its will upon the rest.The principle involved in this, as Hume pointed out in his Essay on the Balance of Power, would be as old as history. But during the greater part of the 19th century the series of national upheavals which remodelled the map of Europe obscured the balance of power; Cobden speaks of the balance of power as a “mere chimera”[2], criticising Lord Brougham and Gentz but failing to examine their arguments with great care. [...]

[...] Indeed attitudes and expectations of moderation are the intermediate means by which the balance of power system hopes to produce stability and peace. But nationalism and democracy broke the bonds of community and ideological passions and technological advances intensified warfare. Under such conditions, the salutary functions to the old balance of power system became impossible. So when the problems of the multistage system are mild and easy to manage, balance of power performs well; when they are extremely difficult and dangerous, the very factors that make them so also incapacitate the balance of power system for dealing with them[16]. [...]

[...] As a matter of fact, the fact that the ends of the balance of power are multiple and contradictory explains that it can lead to war. Indeed, Wright distinguish four main ends which are firstly the preservation of independence or sovereignty of all or a specified stratum of the international system, secondly the stability, thirdly the status quo and fourthly the avoidance of war. But some of these may exclude others; For example, war may be necessary to preserve the independence of some members of the system[17]. [...]