Many theorists, like Machiavelli, Bismarck, Hobbes, Sun Tzu, and Clausewitz, have contributed to the premise of realism. However, it was Hans Morgenthau’s writings of “Politics Among Nations” that can be credited with establishing the parameters of realism as an international theory. For several decades, classical realist approach dominated literature in international relations, stating that the balance of power creates peaceful structural situations. Years later, the empirical and logical grounds of this approach were challenged through the development of the power transition theory and the writings of A.F.K. Organski, in his textbook, “World Politics” . Related theories, such as international cycles and hegemonic decline, have been developed
…show more content…
Innis L. Claude Jr. recognized this and noted, “the trouble with the balance of power is not that it has no meaning, but that it has too many meanings.” Scholars proclaimed balance-of-power theory has never fine-tuned a precise meaning, leaving this basic attribute open to debate. Additionally, Morgenthau developed four different meanings as to what could be used to define his central term: (1) a state of affair, (2) a policy directed towards specific state of affairs, (3) a form of equal distribution of power and (4) any distribution of power. Humorously, when the term balance of power is used it is usually about balance or the condition or policy of balance. Quincy Wright presented two definitions by studying various uses and differentiating between policies adopted by government to retain the condition and the condition of balance itself. He highlighted even distribution of power as the most relevant meaning and, similarly, Morgenthau presented that, “whenever the term is used without qualification, it refers to an actual state of affairs in which power is distributed among several nations with approximate …show more content…
It is in everyone’s interest, both small and larger powers, that an aspiring hegemon’s power be restricted, but only through the military capability present in large powers can this ideal be achieved. Smaller and less powerful states must acknowledge they’re only subject to a minute impact on these outcomes. Depending on the situation, these dilemmas can be held under the systems of balancing and bandwagoning. The bias associated with balance of power systems proves to be overwhelmingly persuasive and stand as a shared belief amongst diplomatic histories and classical realists. Claude states that the “balance of power theory is concerned mainly with the rivalries and clashes of great powers.” Whereas, Waltz goes on to state that great powers define the context for not only themselves but all others, therefore any global theory consequently must be reliant on the great powers. Great powers can further be represented by formal theorists through the creation of stylized balance of power models, restricted to minimal state and non-state actors. Other manifestations of power bias in the balance of power system can be observed through the basic notion of equilibrium as it refers to holistic equality amongst great powers, although not between parties in general. Through reinterpreting of the balance of
Innis L. Claude Jr. recognized this and noted, “the trouble with the balance of power is not that it has no meaning, but that it has too many meanings.” Scholars proclaimed balance-of-power theory has never fine-tuned a precise meaning, leaving this basic attribute open to debate. Additionally, Morgenthau developed four different meanings as to what could be used to define his central term: (1) a state of affair, (2) a policy directed towards specific state of affairs, (3) a form of equal distribution of power and (4) any distribution of power. Humorously, when the term balance of power is used it is usually about balance or the condition or policy of balance. Quincy Wright presented two definitions by studying various uses and differentiating between policies adopted by government to retain the condition and the condition of balance itself. He highlighted even distribution of power as the most relevant meaning and, similarly, Morgenthau presented that, “whenever the term is used without qualification, it refers to an actual state of affairs in which power is distributed among several nations with approximate …show more content…
It is in everyone’s interest, both small and larger powers, that an aspiring hegemon’s power be restricted, but only through the military capability present in large powers can this ideal be achieved. Smaller and less powerful states must acknowledge they’re only subject to a minute impact on these outcomes. Depending on the situation, these dilemmas can be held under the systems of balancing and bandwagoning. The bias associated with balance of power systems proves to be overwhelmingly persuasive and stand as a shared belief amongst diplomatic histories and classical realists. Claude states that the “balance of power theory is concerned mainly with the rivalries and clashes of great powers.” Whereas, Waltz goes on to state that great powers define the context for not only themselves but all others, therefore any global theory consequently must be reliant on the great powers. Great powers can further be represented by formal theorists through the creation of stylized balance of power models, restricted to minimal state and non-state actors. Other manifestations of power bias in the balance of power system can be observed through the basic notion of equilibrium as it refers to holistic equality amongst great powers, although not between parties in general. Through reinterpreting of the balance of