Balance of Power: Purposes and Functions
Various purposes and functions were attributed to the balance of power
in classical theory as expounded by Bolingbroke, Gentz, Metternich, and
Castlereagh. It was supposed to 1. prevent the establishment of a
universal hegemony, 2. preserve the constituent elements of the system
and the system itself, 3. ensure stability and mutual security in the
international system and 4. strengthen and prolong the peace by
deterring war, that is by confronting an aggressor with the likelihood
that a policy of expansion would meet with the formation of a
countercoalition. The traditional methods and techniques of maintaining
or restoring the balance were a. the policy of divide and rule (working
to diminish the weight of the heavier side), 2. territorial
compensations after a war, 3. creating of buffer states, 4. the
formation of alliances, 5. spheres of influence, 6. intervention, 7.
diplomatic bargaining, 8. legal and peaceful settlement of disputes, 9.
reduction of armaments, 10. armaments competition or races, and 11. war
itself. A review of the list of objectives and methods will show that
there were internal inconsistencies in the theory and in the practices.
These were probably unavoidable, given the historic oscillation between
stable and unstable equilibria within the nation-state system. If the
balance of power had worked perfectly as all statesmen expected, and if
the existing distribution of power had posed no threat to their
national security, then the balance of power as situation, law, policy
and system would almost certainly have contributed to the prolongation
of peace. But the dynamics of the international political system were
conducive neither to serene stability nor to prudent rational
decision-making at all times. Moreover, statesmen pursuing only what
they considered their own legitimate national interest---a term closely
associated with the balance of power system---may have appeared in the
eyes of other statesmen as conspiring to overturn the international
system and gain predominance. Conversely, a government embarked upon a
hegemonial path might not provoke the formation of a countercoalition
until it was too late to prevent the large scale war declared to
restore the balance. In theory, the balance of power policy helped
preserve the peace and identity of member-states, but in practice
balance of power policy sometimes led to war and to the partitioning of
“less essential” actors (such as Poland in the 1790’s). But
keeping the peace and preserving all the lesser members intact were
subordinate to the more fundamental aims of preserving the multi-state
system by observing the maxim expressed by Freidrich Gentz: “That if
the states system of Europe is to exist and be maintained by common
exertions no one of its members must ever become so powerful as to be
able to coerce all the rest put together.”
Another key concept in the classical theory must be mentioned. Under
normal circumstances, with several nations seeking to maximize their
power position through the various methods and techniques of balance of
power politics, no one nation gains hegemony, and a precarious
equilibrium is maintained. But for various reasons, the balance might
be on the verge of breaking down. At this point an impartial and
vigilant “holder of the balance” emerges, which is strong enough to
restore the balance swiftly once it is disturbed. Historically, England
played this role in the European state system. In a famous memorandum
published on January 1, 1907, Sir Eyre Crowe wrote that it had
“become almost a historical truism to identify England’s secular
policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now
in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side opposed to the
political dictatorship of the strongest single state or group at a
given time. Winston Churchill reiterated this as a fundamental tenet of
British foreign policy in 1936. Perhaps the theory of the balance of
power, as a policy guide to statesmen, is a distinctively British
theory, at least in modern times. Contending Theories of International Relations James E. Dougherty and Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, Jr

Posted by: Kathy at 11:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 675 words, total size 4 kb.