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.

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.

scholarly journals Is It Time for the Beaver to Hop off the Eagle? A Case for Canada to Reconsider Its Geopolitical Alignment with the United States

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Zhou
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cold War ◽  
International System ◽  
Economic Cost ◽  
The United States ◽  
Islamic State ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Korean War ◽  
International Diplomacy

Canada is known for its close relations with the United States in the domains of economic affairs, defence and international diplomacy. This arrangement, however, was a product of the great changes brought about by the Second World War. The combination of British decline, Ottawa’s desire to achieve full independence from London, and the looming Soviet threat during the Cold War created a political environment in which Canada had to become closely integrated with the United States both militarily and economically. Canada did so to ensure its survival in the international system. With the exception of a few controversial issues like US involvement in Vietnam (1955) and Iraq (2003) as well as Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD), Ottawa has been Washington’s closest ally since 1945. On numerous occasions like the Korean War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and as recently as the War in Afghanistan and the War Against IS (Islamic State), Canada had provided staunch military and diplomatic support to Washington in its engagements around the globe. In an era of relative peace, stability, and certainty, particularly during the Post-Cold War period and the height of American power from 1991 to 2008, this geopolitical arrangement of continental integration had greatly benefited Canada. This era of benefits, however, is arguably drawing to a close. The Great Recession of 2007-09, the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the insistence on pursuing a foreign policy of global primacy despite its significant economic cost, are sending the US down an uncertain path. Due to its close relations and geographical proximity with the US, Canada now faces a hostile international environment that is filled with uncertainty as a result of superpower decline, great power rivalries, environmental degradation, and failed US interventions.

1. Theories of US foreign policy

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Cold War ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
International System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Offensive Realism ◽  
Defensive Realism ◽  
The Cold War

This chapter examines some of the competing theories that have been advanced to explain U.S. foreign policy. In trying to explain the foreign policy of the United States, a number of competing theories have been developed by International Relations scholars. Some theories focus on the role of the international system in shaping American foreign policy while others argue that various domestic factors are the driving force. The chapter first considers some of the obstacles to constructing a theory of foreign policy before discussing some of the competing theories of American foreign policy, including defensive realism, offensive realism, liberalism, Marxism, neoclassical realism, and constructivism. The chapter proceeds by reviewing the theoretical debate over the origins of the Cold War and the debate over the most appropriate grand strategy that the United States should follow in the post-Cold War era.

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.

Heading for the Exit

2020 ◽  
pp. 186-202
Author(s):  
Alexander Cooley ◽  
Daniel Nexon
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
International System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Great Power ◽  
Expiration Date ◽  
Global Order ◽  
The World ◽  
Emerging Powers

After two decades, American global hegemony is almost certainly reaching its expiration date. America will remain a great power, if the not greatest power. But, barring a major shock to emerging powers—and especially China—the world will fully transition to a new global order. This chapter sketches out some possible futures. These include a new bipolar system, perhaps with China and the United States locked in a new Cold War; a multipolar system that maintains the veneer of liberal global governance, but in the service of authoritarianism; and an international system characterized by globalized oligarchy and kleptocracy. There is still time to avoid the worst versions of these orders, and to push back against the full hijacking of liberal institutions in the service of worldwide corruption. But on these, and a number of other matters, American policymakers should assume the window of outsized American influence is fast closing.

The Unipolar Illusion Revisited: The Coming End of the United States' Unipolar Moment

2006 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 7-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Layne
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Political System ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
The United States ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
Second Tier ◽  
Distribution Of Power ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
New Distribution

The conventional wisdom among U.S. grand strategists is that U.S. hegemony is exceptional—that the United States need not worry about other states engaging in counterhegemonic balancing against it. The case for U.S. hegemonic exceptionalism, however, is weak. Contrary to the predictions of Waltzian balance of power theorists, no new great powers have emerged since the end of the Cold War to restore equilibrium to the balance of power by engaging in hard balancing against the United States—that is, at least, not yet. This has led primacists to conclude that there has been no balancing against the United States. Here, however, they conflate the absence of a new distribution of power in the international political system with the absence of balancing behavior by the major second-tier powers. Moreover, the primacists' focus on the failure of new great powers to emerge, and the absence of traditional “hard” (i.e., military) counterbalancing, distracts attention from other forms of counterbalancing—notably “leash-slipping”—by major second-tier states that ultimately could lead to the same result: the end of unipolarity. Because unipolarity is the foundation of U.S. hegemony, if it ends, so too will U.S. primacy.

scholarly journals China’s Rise and Balance of Power Politics

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhen Han ◽  
T V Paul
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cold War ◽  
International System ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
The United States ◽  
Power Politics ◽  
Peaceful Rise ◽  
Us Economy ◽  
Key Factor ◽  
Rise Of China

Abstract The post-Cold War international system, dominated by the United States, has been shaken by the relative downturn of the US economy and the simultaneous rise of China. China is rapidly emerging as a serious contender for America’s dominance of the Indo-Pacific. What is noticeable is the absence of intense balance of power politics in the form of formal military alliances among the states in the region, unlike state behaviour during the Cold War era. Countries are still hedging as their strategic responses towards each other evolve. We argue that the key factor explaining the absence of intense hard balancing is the dearth of existential threat that either China or its potential adversaries feel up till now. The presence of two related critical factors largely precludes existential threats, and thus hard balancing military coalitions formed by or against China. The first is the deepened economic interdependence China has built with the potential balancers, in particular, the United States, Japan, and India, in the globalisation era. The second is the grand strategy of China, in particular, the peaceful rise/development, and infrastructure-oriented Belt and Road Initiative. Any radical changes in these two conditions leading to existential threats by the key states could propel the emergence of hard-balancing coalitions.

State Representative: The Thucydides Trap and the Future of Global Governance

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 ◽  
pp. 100-103
Author(s):  
Mohamed S. Helal
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
International System ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
The United States ◽  
First Century ◽  
Great Power ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
Political Drama ◽  
Thucydides Trap

Imagining an alternative institutional and normative architecture for global governance must proceed on the bases of an identification and understanding of the principal challenges facing the international system. In my view, the gravest challenge facing the international system, and perhaps the greatest political drama of the twenty-first century, is the ongoing shift in the global balance of power. As we move from a U.S.-led unipolar system to a world in which non-Western powers, particularly China, exercise greater influence in international affairs, the foremost priority for global governance is to ensure that this transition proceeds peacefully and to minimize the potential for Great Power conflict, especially between the United States and China.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document