Hard Times for Soft Balancing

2005 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 72-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen G. Brooks ◽  
William C. Wohlforth
Keyword(s):  
International System ◽  
Empirical Support ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
The United States ◽  
Strategic Partnerships ◽  
Nuclear Program ◽  
Power Theory ◽  
Major Powers ◽  
Soft Balancing ◽  
Hard Times

The development of the concept of soft balancing is an attempt to stretch balance of power theory to encompass an international system in which traditional counterbalancing among the major powers is absent. There are two fundamental faws, however, in current treatments of soft balancing: the failure to consider alternative explanations for state actions that have the effect of constraining the United States, and the absence of empirical analysis of the phenomenon. A comparison of soft balancing and four alternative explanations in the main cases highlighted by proponents of the concept-Russia's strategic partnerships with China and India, Russian assistance to Iran's nuclear program, the European Union's efforts to enhance its defense capability, and opposition to the U.S.-led Iraq war in 2003—reveals no empirical support for the soft-balancing explanation. The lack of evidence for the relevance of balancing dynamics in contemporary great-power relations indicates that further investments in adapting balance of power theory to today's unipolar system will not yield analytical dividends.

Soft Balancing in the Age of U.S. Primacy

2005 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
T.V. Paul
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International System ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Behavior ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Major Powers ◽  
Soft Balancing ◽  
Second Tier ◽  
Emerging Powers

Analysts have argued that balance of power theory has become irrelevant to understanding state behavior in the post-Cold War international system dominated by the United States. Second-tier major powers (such as China, France, and Russia) and emerging powers (such as Germany and India) have refrained from undertaking traditional hard balancing through the formation of alliances or arms buildups. None of these states fears a loss of its sovereign existence as a result of increasing U.S. power. Nevertheless, some of these same states have engaged in soft-balancing strategies, including the formation of temporary coalitions and institutional bargaining, mainly within the United Nations, to constrain the power as well as the threatening behavior of the United States. Actions taken by others in response to U.S. military intervention in the Kosovo confiict of 1999 and the Iraq war of 2003 offer examples of soft balancing against the United States.

scholarly journals BALANCING IN UNIPOLARITY

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 494-515
Author(s):  
Augusto César Dall'Agnol
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
The United States ◽  
Power Theory ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Soft Balancing ◽  
Cold War Era ◽  
Do So

This article aims to analyze, through a critical bias, the implications of unipolarity to balancing behavior. In order to do so, it discusses the dynamics of balance of power theory, assumed to be inoperative in the post-Cold War period by the main academic debates over unipolarity: i) unipolar stability; ii) balance of threats; iii) soft balancing; iv) liberal institutionalism. What is argued is that, including the unipolar illusion view, tied to the balance of power theory, these approaches overestimated the effects of the unipolarity to the balancing behavior of other states. In this sense, it is assumed here that the issues related to the unipolar moment are directly connected to the hegemonic interregnum discussions. By concluding that the dynamics of balance of power, especially those of hard balancing, are still observed in the post-Cold War era, the two main ponderations of the literature become inverted: i) that balancing became inoperative and; ii) that the only available strategies to other states would be soft balancing and bandwagoning. In sum, this conclusion has directly implication to the available strategies both to the United States and its main peer competitors.         Recebido em: Agosto/2018. Aprovado: Setembro/2018.

Strategic Balance between India and Pakistan with respect to “Balance of Power Theory”

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (12) ◽  
pp. 236-249
Author(s):  
Jaweriya Nasim ◽  
Khushboo Fatima ◽  
Sajida Noureen
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
South Asia ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Other ◽  
Single Event ◽  
Nuclear Program ◽  
Power Theory ◽  
Strategic Balance

India and Pakistan have strained relations since their independence because of serious conflicts like the Kashmir issue and major wars of 1965 and 1971. There is a continuous struggle for dominance among both the states through nuclear weapons and alliances with other nuclear weapons states, which have been addressed in this paper. India had made South Asia nuclear; to which Pakistan develop its nuclear program. Moreover, India and the United States growing relationship have further created an imbalance in the region. In return, Pakistan started strengthening its ties with China to counterbalance the Indian threat. This has been discussed in the paper that both states have actually created balance against one another in the context of the balance of power theory. But it is not going to be long lasting as there is a negative peace among them, and a single event can trigger a major conflict and depict dominance of one over the other.

scholarly journals India and the United States: The Contours of an Asian Partnership

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walter Ladwig ◽  
Anit Mukherjee
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Strategic Partnership ◽  
Regional Security ◽  
Strategic Partnerships ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Major Powers ◽  
Security Issues ◽  
Past Behavior

This special issue of Asia Policy scrutinizes the Indo-U.S. strategic partnership byexamining the prospects for bilateral cooperation in Asia. Although peacetimeforeign policy collaboration between major powers is a rarity, China’s rapid rise inthe international system appears to have forced the United States and India intounprecedentedly close consultation on regional security issues. Will this consultationmature into active cooperation? To answer this question, this introductory essay firstexamines the concept of strategic partnerships—a nebulous type of politicalrelationship that have proliferated since the end of the Cold War. It then highlightsthe obstacles to peacetime cooperation between major powers in other regions of the world. Following this, attention turns to the articles in this special issue whichexamine the history of Indo-U.S. cooperation in various sub-regions of Asia.Collectively, these pieces challenge misperceptions and misunderstandings of eachcountry’s policies and past behavior, as well as identify the differing understandingsof both the bilateral relationship and the region held by each party. Taken together,these articles provide a clearer sense of the geopolitical scope and depth, as well asthe important limitations, of the Indo-U.S. strategic partnership. The articleconcludes by identifying the key insights that come from this collection and offerssome thoughts the overall trajectory of U.S.-India relations.

Understanding the Anemic Global Response to COVID-19

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (6) ◽  
pp. 1013-1021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua W. Busby
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Global Financial Crisis ◽  
International System ◽  
The United States ◽  
West African ◽  
World Health ◽  
Global Response ◽  
Major Powers ◽  
Health Organization

Abstract The COVID-19 outbreak is the most serious test of the international system since the 2008 global financial crisis. Rather than cooperate to contain and respond to a common threat, the world's leading powers—the United States and China—have increasingly blamed each other through wildly speculative theories about the origins of the virus. The World Health Organization sought to coordinate a global response, but it has been hamstrung and has come under attack. Given past cooperation between major powers to mobilize and eradicate smallpox and previous US leadership to fight HIV/AIDS and the 2014 West African Ebola crisis, the limited cooperation and lack of leadership are puzzling. What explains the anemic global response to date? This article draws from structural international relations theory to suggest a partial but somewhat dissatisfying answer. International organizations are inherently weak and now face opposition by major powers. The international system simultaneously incentivizes states to cooperate and address common threats, but it also encourages countries to take care of themselves, potentially at the expense of others. Which of these motives dominates cannot be explained by structural theory, thus requiring us to look to other factors such as the attributes of states and leaders themselves.

scholarly journals Nordeste Asiático como Eixo das Disputas Hegemônicas: competição e desestruturação da ordem regional

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 611-644
Author(s):  
Pedro Vinícius Pereira Brites
Keyword(s):  
North Korea ◽  
International System ◽  
Northeast Asia ◽  
The United States ◽  
Xi Jinping ◽  
Nuclear Program ◽  
Military Presence ◽  
Regional Order ◽  
Distribution Of Power ◽  
The Cold War

A região do Nordeste Asiático destaca-se por sua singularidade geopolítica. É uma região na qual predominam atores cujas ações possuem alcance global, mesmo quando se trata da Coreia do Norte, o país mais pobre da região. Além da Coreia do Norte, as interações entre China, Rússia, Japão, Coreia do Sul, e Estados Unidos como potência extrarregional com presença militar na região, afetam a distribuição de poder no Sistema Internacional. A consolidação da China como Grande Potência reconfigurou a região e tem evidenciado o papel crucial que esse subsistema regional exerce para a polaridade no século XXI. Nos últimos anos, a consolidação do programa nuclear norte-coreano, a ascensão de Xi Jinping na China, a busca por reafirmação japonesa, a chegada de Donald Trump ao poder, reorientam as relações regionais. O presente artigo procura discutir as transformações na ordem regional no Nordeste Asiático desde o final da Guerra Fria até seus desdobramentos recentes e seus efeitos sobre as disputas hegemônicas. Assim, avaliam-se os processos que vêm ampliando a tendência à militarização e competição na região e o papel que a dissuasão nuclear exerce como fator determinante para o balanço regional.     Abstract: The region of Northeast Asia stands out for its geopolitical singularity. It is a region dominated by actors whose actions are global in scope, even when it comes to North Korea, the region's poorest country. In addition to North Korea, interactions between China, Russia, Japan, South Korea, and the United States as an extra-regional power with military presence in the region affect the distribution of power in the International System. The consolidation of China as a Great Power has reconfigured the region and has highlighted the crucial role that this regional subsystem plays in polarity in the twenty-first century. In recent years, the consolidation of North Korea's nuclear program, the rise of Xi Jinping in China, the search for Japanese reaffirmation, reorient regional relations. This article discusses the transformations in the regional order in Northeast Asia from the end of the Cold War until its recent unfolding and its effects on the hegemonic disputes. Thus, are evaluated the processes that have been increasing the tendency towards militarization and competition in the region and the role that nuclear deterrence plays as a determining factor for the regional balance. Keywords: Northeast Asia; Hegemonic Recomposition; Regionalism.     Recebido em: Agosto/2018. Aprovado em: Dezembro/2018.

scholarly journals Post-Bipolar Structure of the International System

2019 ◽  
pp. 155-174
Author(s):  
Andrii Subotin
Keyword(s):  
United States Of America ◽  
Social Power ◽  
International System ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
The United States ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
Bipolar Structure ◽  
Leading Role ◽  
The Social ◽  
Systemic Constraints

The random and indeterminate nature of the current unipolar world is marked by a condition of increasing entropy. This claim is maintained by two assumptions. First, relative capability advantages under unipolarity do not translate as easily as they once did into power and influence over others. Second, systemic constraint is a property that limits actors’ freedom of action by imposing costs and benefits on certain kinds of actions. Unlike past multipolar and bipolar systems, the current unipolar system exerts only weak, systemic constraints on the unipolar power and all other actors as well. Thus, polarity has become a largely meaningless concept. Today, system process rather than structure best explains international politics, and this process is one of entropy. Finally, the author suggests two pathways from unipolarity to a more balanced international system: one is fairly consistent with standard balance-of-power realism; the other restores equilibrium by means of entropy. This current unipolar moment may become transcendent when the most powerful international actor, - the United States of America, - would choose to adapt to and to harness the social power of numerous nonstate international actors that are due take over the leading role in the future world’s politics.

scholarly journals Conceptualizing Soft Balancing Beyond Cold War. What’s Changed, What Remains the Same?

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 65-91
Author(s):  
Mila Larionova
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
The United States ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Empirical Potential ◽  
Soft Balancing

This article is a systematic inquiry into the nature and role of soft balancing in the contemporary theory and practice of international relations. By wading into the contentious debate concerning the place and legitimacy of soft balancing, the article explores the theoretical prominence of the concept and adds methodological content to the study. Thus, the research produces a quantitative corpus-based and thematic analysis of the existing soft balancing literature to demarcate the boundary of the concept. This approach enables the author to enhance conventional theorization and not only identify the main gaps within the existing studies but go beyond the popular post-Cold War era discussion. Additionally, this article addresses the question of how soft balancing is distinguished from other concepts in the balance of power theory. Ultimately, the study reveals that despite its theoretical and empirical potential, the soft balancing research agenda remains underdeveloped, largely due to the limitation in the empirical content. Precisely, the empirical studies are limited to balance of power rhetoric akin to hard vs. soft and its implications for the United States’ hegemonic power.

Putin, Putinism, and the Domestic Determinants of Russian Foreign Policy

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 95-139
Author(s):  
Michael McFaul
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International System ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
The United States ◽  
Russian Foreign Policy ◽  
Complete Understanding ◽  
The West ◽  
New Era ◽  
Vladimir Putin ◽  
International Behavior

Why did Russia's relations with the West shift from cooperation a few decades ago to a new era of confrontation today? Some explanations focus narrowly on changes in the balance of power in the international system, or trace historic parallels and cultural continuities in Russian international behavior. For a complete understanding of Russian foreign policy today, individuals, ideas, and institutions—President Vladimir Putin, Putinism, and autocracy—must be added to the analysis. An examination of three cases of recent Russian intervention (in Ukraine in 2014, Syria in 2015, and the United States in 2016) illuminates the causal influence of these domestic determinants in the making of Russian foreign policy.

Not between Scylla and Charybdis

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zakaria Ahmad
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Economic Growth ◽  
South China Sea ◽  
South China ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
The United States ◽  
The South China Sea ◽  
Strategic Partnerships ◽  
The South ◽  
China Sea

Malaysia’s relations with the United States and China are examined in the context of a changing balance of power scenario in Asia and Southeast Asia. China’s rise and U.S. “rebalancing” to the region as well as overlapping claims in the South China Sea are issues faced by Malaysia at the same time it is engaged in an era of increased trade and economic growth in the region. Malaysia’s posture and policy is to steer away from being embroiled in the Sino-U.S. rivalry, even as it continues to engage with both in “strategic partnerships.” As Malaysia is an ASEAN state of stature, with claims in the South China Sea, its position is to seek a peaceful solution with China and its ASEAN partners, and it will avoid any military conflagration.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document