Balanced Bipolarity, Balanced Multipolarity & Unbalanced Multipolarity

n his article “The Long Peace: Elements of Stability in the Postwar International System” John Lewis Gaddis argues that while The Cold War is not necessarily considered a peaceful time, the stability seen during this era argues that. Through the Systems Theory we are able to find evidence for distinguishing a stable balance of power. To further support his claims he uses the Structural Elements of Stability. I will provide a very brief summary of these elements. Gaddis begins with the Bipolarity, the presence of only two major powers.

However, there are some arguments about the weakness of hegemonic power to prevent states from going to war. They argue that hegemonic power has its own limitations in term of internal and external barriers to go as policeman around the world. This arguments see very good and logic. But they don’t have any proposal that which system could be the best to make the world more peaceful and prosperous. So, despite these points of view the other types of system such as balance of power or concert of power likely aren’t good replacement for great power hegemony system to be succeeded for making peace and stability in the world.

The multipolar system was less stable than the bipolar, and resulted in two world wars. The bipolar era meant more stable international politics due to the dominance of the USA and the Soviet Union. The transition to today’s unipolar power structure has brought major changes to world politics, with the USA emerging as the sole superpower. The total number of armed conflicts has decreased, despite the increase in number of terror attacks. However, it can be argued that the world could again become militarily multipolar, with China and Russia as possible challengers to U.S. hegemonic dominance. (Eirik B. Lundestad and Tor G.

History has shown us that dramatic changes to international power rarely unfold smoothly or peacefully. The danger of states undergoing rapid rises and declines in relative power, where one state seeks the status of a hegemon and another seeks to maintain it, is less valid than it once was. While the most destructive and influential conflicts in history have been situations where competing powers seek superiority over a rival power, the nuclear age makes power transition by means of war incredibly unlikely. As the cost of conflict between nuclear armed states would be unreasonably costly, the cycle of hegemonic-war has been broken. That leaves the question as to whether the existing international order will facilitate a smooth transition that incorporates emerging powers or one that excludes them and creates greater potential for conflict. The United States has shaped world politics with ideas such as "capitalism is better than socialism" and "democracy is better than dictatorship." However, recently, emerging non-Western powers have let it be known that they do not share the United States ' views on these issues. Bruce Jentleson and Steven Weber argue, "Outside the United States, people no longer believe that the alternative to Washington led order is chaos…. the rest of the world has no fear about experimenting with alternatives." Emerging powers such as China are willing to challenge the U.S., but largely within existing institutions rather than outside them.

The Balance of Power is a fiercely debated topic within the realm of international relations. Its true definition has been impossible to pin down and how it manifests itself has been argued over by many academics, in addition to this the idea is divided between the schools of thought that it is a force for preserving peace or a force for tension and war. This essay will look to examine the balance of power using retrospective analysis of historical events, focusing on the lead up to and the outbreak of WWI and its conclusion and the Cold war. Through this it can be hoped to find a clearer definition of the balance of power, whether it is really a balance analogous to a set of scales and whether the balance of power is a way of preserving peace and stability or whether it is on the whole, better termed as the balance of war, creating only tension and instability.

     Ideas are the corner-stones of International Relations and Diplomacy. These ideas are often titled theories, a term that grants the ideas a certain degree of credibility in application, though they remain theories; they cannot be proved., only applied intelligently in hopes of arriving at the correct conclusion. One theory concerning the Balance of Power (BOP) falls under the Neo-Realist analysis of conflict within the International system. This Essay will attempt to apply this theory, somewhat retroactively to the situation in

In the chapter of great power, Marco indicates the great powers are the main factors behind implementation of balance of power. When relation between each state becomes tense, they can engage in measures of crisis prevention and management. If a war occurs they can try and prevent it from escalating . We live in the world that seems to always contain war and conflict in most countries.

In the absence of peace, there is conflict. This might lead to war between countries if conflict is not handled carefully. Today it is almost a norm to see countries engaging others in war. Today the greatest problem facing many nations is international relation. Countries have failed to live like decent neighbors. There is disunity among many nations. War between nations is caused by mistrust and tension. Nations purchase arms to stock their armory. Major inventions are made daily in out on nuclear power and how to develop sophiscated weapons. This tries to explain the fact that countries are always in mistrust of each other. It also explains that there is constant tension between countries that one

Famous Prussian military theorist Karl von Clausewitz said that "war is the continuation of politics by other means." which supports the idea of war as a culturally influenced situation that is determined by the political power in control. War is a tool in the arsenal of a successful power to use when debating and non-violent persuasion fail to achieve the goals of the power. War is always waged for a reason, war is not a random act of slaughter. It is consequential to both the attacking and defending parties and no matter the amount of casualties, war comes with a heavy price. The financial cost of war is astronomical and the effects of war can be damaging to the political power. This is why war is usually a secondary resort instead of an impulsive decision coming from instinctive biology and not rationale. Biology has shown us that we do have reflexive, self defense mechanisms built in that serve the purpose of defending us from predators. But instead of fighting for a cause initiated out of respect for our self defense, we find these mechanisms being manipulated by the political power in order to gain public support for a war waged for entirely calculated reasons and not based on emotional expression. Denis Diderot, a French philosopher, elaborates on war as a

The first debate area is covered in articles by Stuart A. Bremer and William Reed. Particularly, Bremer claims that assumptions of idealism about pacifying effects of collective security alliances; democratization, economic development and reduced level of weaponry are more accurate than realism’s tenets. In contrary to Waltz’s (1988, 627) argument that “wars, hot and cold, originate in the structure of the international political system”, Reed contributes to this debate by further emphasizing the effects of domestic factors on the conflict onset and

Economic globalization and economic integration have long been thought to reduce the probability of conflict and war based on neoliberal institutionalist theory, complex interdependence theory, and World Systems theory. At first thought, it is plausible why one might agree with the claim. Yet the claim itself cannot procure such black-and-white answers when it combines conflict and war; two separate terms. Political scientists have long been in conversation with one another on the topic, from the writings of Peter Evans in 1989 to Nancy Bermeo in 2009. For this essay, conflict will be examined as a socio-economic conflict internal and external to a nation, and war will be examined as a military-backed conflict at an international level. When viewed this way, it will be made clear why the response lies in “50 shades of grey and more”.

Bipolarity exists when two states have a majority of the economic, military and cultural influence and can include alliance such as NATO or the WARSAW Pact or organizations but still have power. An example of this would be the United States and the U.S.S.R is the Cold War. In the Cold War the United States and the U.S.S.R. emerged as the two leading power, most western countries and capitalist states came under the influence of the United States and on the opposite end the communist states came under the influence of the U.S.S.R. and then then two major power fought indirectly for control of the other countries as can be seen during the Korean War, Vietnam, and the Russian-Afghan War. Multipolar is a where more than two states have nearly equal amounts of military cultural and economic influence. Theorist argue that this is more peaceful that a bipolar system because since power is equal states would not want to attack other states however it could also lead to conflict if one states feels the others may form an alliance. This could lead to more indirect conflicts and frequent shifting of alliance to prevent one states from becoming the sole world power.

The proliferation of stronger, more technologically advanced weapons created for “national security” meant to fashion safety for their people, has instead itself become the most dangerous threat to their security (Regehr, 1980). Also, at first claimed to be in the interest of national security, the Soviet Union and U.S. caused more insecurity around the globe with their proxy wars that spread weaponry to many nations, especially to the third world. By one superpower supplying a conflicting group with weapons, they reason that they are helping the people to have power enough to resolve their struggle, and in influencing the outcome, would therefore gain more power for themselves as well as widen their sphere of influence. But since both powers were doing this, for opposite sides of conflicts, it only caused more destruction and instability (Regehr, 1980).

Balance of power theory represents a body of interrelated concepts for achieving security and stability by maintaining an equal distribution of power throughout the international system. Some critics contend that the theory cannot provide guidance to states in a unipolar system since it developed out of centuries of multipolarity and decades of bipolarity. This assessment is incorrect. Although a specific conception of balance of power theory may not provide guidance, an appraisal of the concepts within its various forms suggests continuing relevance. This paper discusses balance of power theory by examining the evolution of its structural and ideational variants, and asserts that the concept remains relevant in a unipolar international system.

According to the book, the old borders that countries used to have are fading. The world is now headed into a state of connectedness that has been booming since the mid-20th century. These fading borders and stronger connectedness have had a strong positive impact on the world. Because of the connectedness of the nations the idea of “total war” does not really apply anymore. Total war has been a fading concept because countries are so connected, if you go to war with one of them, you are most likely going to somehow affect an ally. Where globalization has had great successes, it has also many failures. Globalization and the ties that are now created have made for a volatile political arena. It could be said that wars