GEOPOLITICAL POWER TRANSITION

Geopolitical Power Transition

Geopolitical Power Transition

Power Polarization

Balance of power is a concept within the realm of international relations that stretches back centuries in both theory and practice and is still among the prevalent topics of debate within contemporary political science. These centuries of historical perspective and scholarship, however, have served only to intensify the debate over the merits of balance of power theory.

There are many ways in which the term balance of power used in theory or in practice, and this variety of approaches to the concept demonstrates that the term is often used so freely as to potentially confuse rather than clarify its meaning. Despite this diversity, however, nearly all of these definitions center on the same general principles and assumptions and boil down to the fundamental assertion that nation-states will ally with one another in order to create equality of capabilities between opposing alliances that serve to preserve peace at the international level. Some scholars have attempted to codify the formal assumptions, conditions, and criteria for labeling an arrangement as a balance of power system, and perhaps the best known of these is Kaplan. Based on theoretical modeling, he delineated six assumptions that had to be accepted, then outlined his six fundamental rules for a balance of power system. Although these and other attempts to formalize the process are aspiring to help the field of study and policymakers alike, the problem is that balance of power systems in practice neither cohere to all of the assumptions nor follow all of the rules set out by any given treatise on the subject. The global environment and the myriad of other variables are not static but rather are fluid in nature and are therefore, difficult to prescribe (Aghion & Trebbi, 2007).

Some scholarship has focused on the dynamic that exists between the main balance of power system and various local balances that exist as subsets of the main system, including the roles played by dominant and submissive balances within the overall system. Though there is no consensus concerning the full extent of the relationship between these smaller balances and the overall arrangement, it is generally agreed that these play a crucial role in understanding the true dynamic of any balance of power arrangement.

Polarity and Balance of Power

There are various ways in which capabilities may be divided or distributed in the international system, leading to different forms of balancing between one, two, three, or more major states in the system. The ways in which balances of power formed make a difference, scholars contend, because some balance arrangements are more stable and more capable of maintaining peace than are others. The difficulty here is that there is disagreement on which balance arrangement brings the greatest stability. Waltz contends that stability comes from having the fewest possible expansive powers competing for power. Thus, a bipolar balance of power would be best (Singer, 1972, 19-48). Other research, such as that of Singer, Bremer, and Stuckey, assert that in the 1800s, the incidence of war actually ...