Balance of Power Principle Revisited: The Neoinstitutionalism Approach to Defining the Classical Category

In the changing conditions of the international environment, there is a clear demand for reassessing theoretical and conceptual approaches to international studies. Among the concepts that have to be revised is the ‘balance of power’ principle, which was formulated in conditions very much different from what is happening today in world politics. Analyzing the evolution of the ‘balance of power’ concept, one may conclude that the understanding of the concept has been changing with new arguments having been added to it. This led to polysemanticism and vagueness of the term. Apart from that, it has become obvious that western and oriental states practice different approaches to the implementation of ‘balance of power’. Furthermore, the concept of power in international relations itself has evolved considerably, as have the ways of exercising it. For instance, in addition to the use of force as a means of reacting to external threats, some nontraditional non-force methods have been practiced. The conditions of the international environment since the second half of the 20th century demand a more critical approach to the classical realist application of ‘balance of power’, which has encouraged new models of international behavior for states to develop. The author of the article studies the main theoretical approaches to the ‘balance of power’ principle and concludes that it has to be re-interpreted and re-defined because of the existing ambiguity and the changing conditions of the international environment. The article also concentrates on the structure of the international negotiation process, whose changes broaden the spectrum of possible ways in ensuring the balance of power. The author, who is studying the principle from the neoinstitutionalist angle, states that it is to be defined as a set of expectations, attitudes and rational approaches to foreign policy that define the behavior of states in world politics and secure certain balance in the international environment.

1. Braun S. 2004. Sila v instrumentarii sovremennoi diplomatii [The power of the modern diplomacy instruments]// Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. No. 2. P. 4-20.

2. Brooks S.G., Wohlforth W.C. 2011. Assessing the Balance // Cambridge Review of International Affairs. Vol. 24. No. 2. P. 201-219.

3. Bull H. 1977. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. London: Macmillan. 335 p.

4. Claude I. 1989. The Balance of Power Revisited // Review of International Studies. P. 77-85.

5. Cohen E.A. 1996. A Revolution in Warfare // Foreign Affairs. No. 2. P. 37-54.

6. Craig G.A., George A.L. 1995. Force and Statecraft: Diplomatic Problems of Our Time. N.Y.: Oxford University Press. 304 p.

7. Di Maggio P., Powell W. 1983. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields // American Sociological Review. No. 2. P. 147-160.

8. Doyle M. 1986. Empires. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 407 p.

9. Donzhes P. 2012. Politicheskie aktory v institutsional'nom kontekste [Political actors in the institutional context]// Politika i lichnost' / I. Pollaka, F. Zagera, U. Sartsinelli, A. Tsimmer (eds.). Khar'kov: Gumanitarnyi tsentr. P. 37-50.

10. Finnemore M., Sikkink K. 2001. Taking Stock: The Constructivist Research Program in International Relations and Comparative Politics // Annual Review of Political Science. No. 4. P. 391-416.

11. Fossum I.E. 2009. Printsip balansa sil: stabil'nost' i sila v mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniiakh [The balance of power principle: power and stability in international relations] // Teoriia i metody v sovremennoi politicheskoi nauke: Pervaia popytka teoreticheskogo sinteza / S.U. Larsena (ed.). Moscow. ROSSPEN. P. 230-254.

12. Fritz P., Sweeney K. 2004. The (De)Limitations of Balance of Power Theory // International Interactions. Vol. 30. P. 285-308.

13. Haas E.B. 1953. The Balance of Power: Prescription, Concept, or Propaganda? // World Politics. Vol. 5. P. 442-477.

14. Israelian V.L. 1990. Diplomaty litsom k litsu [Diplomats face to face]. Moscow. Mezhdnarodnye otnosheniia. 352 p.

15. Kaplan M. 1975. System and Process in International Politics. N.Y.: J. Wiley. 260 p.

16. Kaufman S., Little R., Wohlforth W.C. (eds.). 2007. Balance of Power in World History. N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan.

17. Khrustalev M.A. 2004. Metodologiia analiza mezhdunarodnykh peregovorov [Analysis methology of international negotiations] // Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. No. 3. P. 64-78.

18. Kobrin S. 1997. Electronic Cash: A Glossary // Foreign Policy. No. 107. P. 76-77.

19. Libicki M.C. 1998. Information War, Information Peace // Journal of International Affairs. No 2. P. 411-413.

20. Libiki M.C. 2007. Conquest in Cyberspace: National Security and Information Warfare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 336 p.

21. Lijphart A. 1974. The Structure of the Theoretical Revolution in International Relations // International Studies Quarterly. Vol. 18. No. 1. P. 41-74.

22. Little R. 2007. The Balance of Power in International Relations: Metaphors, Myths and Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 328 p.

23. Little R. 2007. The Balance of Power in Politics Among Nations // The Legacy of Hans Morgenthau in International Relations / Ed. by M.C. Williams. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 137-165.

24. March J.G., Olsen J.P. 1989. Rediscovering Institutions. N.Y.: Free Press.

25. March J.G., Olsen J.P. 1996. The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life // Comparative Politics: Notes and Readings / Ed. by B. Brown, R. Macridis. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Co. P. 289-292.

26. Mayer C.S. 2007. Dark Power: Globalization, Inequality, and Conflict // Harvard International Review. Spring. P. 60-65.

27. McGuire S. 2013. Multinationals and NGOs amid a Changing Balance of Power // International Affairs. Vol. 89. No. 3. P. 695-710.

28. McKibben H.E. 2013. The Effects of Structures and Power on State Bargaining Strategies // American Journal of Political Science. Vol. 53. No. 2. P. 411-427.

29. Morgenthau H.J. 1948. Politics among Nations: The Struggle of Power and Peace. N.Y.: Alfred A. Knopf. 421 p.

30. Moul W.B. 1988. Balances of Power and the Escalation to War of Serious Disputes among the European Great Powers, 1815-1939: Some Evidence // American Journal of Political Science. May 1988. P. 241-275.

31. Niou E.M., Ordeshook P., Rose G. 1989. The Balance of Power: Stability in International Systems. N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.

32. Nye Jr. J.S. 1990. Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power. N.Y.: Basic Books. 336 p.

33. Nye Jr. J.S., Owens W.A. 1996. America’s Information Edge // Foreign Affairs. No. 2. P. 20-37.

34. Ostrom E. 1990. Governing the Commons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 298 p.

35. Patterson J.M. 1969. Corporate Behavior and Balance of Power: Some Uses of the Structural Approach // Business Horizons. June 1969. P. 39-52.

36. Penrose E.F. 1964. Political Development and the Intra-Regional Balance of Power // Journal of Development Studies. October 1964. P. 47-70.

37. Powell W., Di Maggio P. (eds.). 1991. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 486 p.

38. Raiffa H. 1985. Mock Pseudo-Negotiations with Surrogate Disputants // Negotiation Journal. 1985. April. P. 111-115.

39. Rothkopf D.J. 1998. Cyberpolitik: The Changing Nature of Power in the Information Age // Journal of International Affairs. No. 2. P. 325-360.

40. Schelling T. 1960. The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 309 p.

41. Schweller R.L. 2006. Unanswered Threats: Political Constraints on the Balance of Power. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 200 p.

42. Schweller R. 2011. Emerging Powers in the Age of Disorder // Global Governance. No. 17. P. 285-297.

43. Scott W.R. 1994. Institutions and Organizations. Toward a Theoretical Synthesis // Institutional Environment and Organizations. Structural Complexity and Individualism / Ed. by W.R. Scott, J.W. Meyer. Thousand Oaks: Sage. P. 55-80.

44. Scott W.R. 2004. Institutional Theory: Contributing to a Theoretical Research Program // Great Minds in Management: The Process of Theory Development / Ed. by K.G. Smith, M.A. Hitt. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 3-11.

45. Sheehan M. 1996. The Balance of Power: History and Theory. London, N.Y.: Routledge.

46. Sheehan M. 2004. The Sincerity of the British Commitment to the Maintenance of the Balance of Power, 1714-1763 // Diplomacy and Statecraft. Vol. 15. No. 3. P. 489-506.

47. Valeriano B. 2009. The Tragedy of Offensive Realism: Testing Aggressive Power Politics Model // International Interactions. Vol. 35. P. 179-206.

48. Venkatachar C.S. 1966. The Changing Balance of Power: A View from Asia // Journal of Development Studies. January 1966. P. 174-188.

49. Walt S.M. 1987. The Origins of Alliances. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

50. Waltz K. 1959. Man, the State and War: A Theoretical Analysis. N.Y.: Columbia University Press. 263 p. Waltz K. 1979. Theory of International Politics. N.Y.: McGraw-Hill. 250 p.

51. Waltz K. 1993. The Emerging Structure of International Politics // International Security. No. 2. P. 44-79.

52. Wohlforth W., Little R., Kaufman S.J., Kang D., Jones C.A., Tin-Bor Hui V., Eckstein A., Deudney D., Brenner W.J. 2007. Testing Balance-of-Power Theory in World History // European Journal of International Relations. Vol. 13. No. 2. P. 155-185.

53. Zartman W., Rubin L. (eds.). 2000. Power and Negotiation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

54. Zobnin A.V. 2013a. Problema manipulirovaniia v khode mezhdunarodnykh konsul'tatsii [The problem of manipulations in the course of international consultations] // Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. No. 1. P. 16-28.

55. Zobnin A.V. 2013b. Mezhdunarodnye psevdokonsul'tatsii v strukturakh Organizatsii Varshavskogo Dogovora [International pseudo-consultations in the structure of the Warsaw Pact Organization] // Politika i obshchestvo. No. 8. P. 1021-1028.