It was not until the beginning of the 17th century, when the science of international law took shape at the hands of Grotius and his successors, that the theory of the balance of power was formulated as a fundamental principle of diplomacy in the realist theory. According to Cobden, the first instance in which we find the "balance of power" alluded to in a king's speech is on the occasion of the last address of William III . 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" , criticising Lord Brougham and Gentz but failing to examine their arguments with great care.
[...] It has to be borne in mind that influence is different from power. For example, before 1914, Germany was military powerful but it lacked of influence on the diplomatic stage. In addition, power is nothing but a relative notion, only worth if it is compared to the other actors. Power can be evaluated with the military force (as Machiavel began to do in the 16th century), as the hard power Nye). But to Gentz, power is not simply expressed in military terms, even if there is a distinct role for economic power, which operates as a separate and significant force in the relations among states. [...]
[...] 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. So the controversies surrounding the balance of power are both ancient and enduring, as the articles in this issue make clear. Is the balance of power a relevant theory ? [...]
[...] Alliance politics and arms race are ways of maintaining a balance of power without war, but if they fail war may be necessary, as an essential mechanism for preserving the balance of power according to Cobden. The balance of power is about stability and equilibrium but sometimes the resolution of conflict requires a change which can only come via war. The value of peace is subordinate to that of security, and war may represent not the breakdown but the working of the system. [...]
[...] To Gentz it is “that constitution subsisting among neighbouring states by virtue of which no one among them can injure the independence or essential rights of another without meeting with effectual resistance on some other side, and consequently exposing itself to danger”[3]. The root idea is that only force can counteract the effect of force. In an anarchical world, stability can only occur when the forces that states are able to exert to get their way in the world are in some sort of equilibrium[4]. Because of their reliance on multiple meanings of the balance of power traditional realist like Morgenthau have often been accused of being ambiguous. [...]
[...] When realists refer to the balance of power they are drawing attention to the way that states endeavour to manipulate the prevailing distribution of power to promote their own interests. Gentz does not accept this definition as for him the principle virtue of the balance of power was the way that it preserved the independence of the members of the states system, so the partition of Poland was extremely troublesome. States had been willing to collaborate to destroy one of them : the balance of power had thereby been subverted. [...]
Source aux normes APA
Pour votre bibliographieLecture en ligne
avec notre liseuse dédiée !Contenu vérifié
par notre comité de lecture