Title: Power and International Relations: The Rise of China and Its Effects
Abstract: The study of international relations inevitably involves the study of power relations among major states. But "power" is a Protean term, and there are many types of such relationships. Some are denominated in relative terms and involve constant-sum conflicts among participants. Others take place in arenas in which variable-sum outcomes apply, and the amount of conflict is thereby reduced. But the most important point to understand is that the amount of power that a nation possesses does not dictate its policy or behavior. If sometimes nations act in accord with the amount of power they possess, sometimes they either fail to exert the power they have or seek to act more aggressively than their power would technically permit. In either case, discontinuities and sometimes instabilities flow from the over or underuse of power. Tensions particularly accumulate when an overuser confronts underusers, and no balance ensues. There are two main approaches to the role of power in international relations and both have difficulties. The first has been described as "defensive realism" and is characterized by the work of Kenneth Waltz.1 Waltz has offered a disarmingly simple insight into the regularities of international behavior in claiming that nations have a tendency to "balance" the power of other states. If they do not do so, they may suffer the consequences and may be eliminated from the system. The disposition of nations to "balance" against power, however, is only a tendency. It may or may not occur in concrete circumstances, and it may represent a delayed response to the aggressive behavior of other states. Defensive realism is like weather forecasting. Like weather forecasters, a theorist can predict a 30 percent chance of balancing (or rain) and be right regardless of what actually transpires. Defensive realism may be a useful way of conceptualizing some of the differences between domestic and international affairs, but it does not technically tell us what states will do. It is consistent with any range of international behavior except perhaps that of the abolition of the system of states itself. It is therefore largely unfalsifiable and is to that degree unhelpful theoretically and empirically.
Publication Year: 2006
Publication Date: 2006-02-01
Language: en
Type: article
Indexed In: ['crossref']
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 49
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot