Again, it's a Friday night.

Again, it's a Friday night. Let us continue with some really exciting international relations theory. Try and stay awake.

Balance of Power The oldest, most persistent and most controversial of all theories of international politics---the balance of power---was recognized at least implicitly in ancient India and in ancient Greece, although it was never formally articulated. David Hume noted that although the term balance of power may be modern, “the maxim of preserving the balance of power is founded so much on common sense and obvious reasoning that it is impossible that it could altogether have escaped antiquity,” concluding that it had been practiced from ancient times to the eighteenth century. Insofar as it could be called a formal theory of international politics, the modern concept of balance of power was associated with the Newtonian conception of the universe in equilibrium. {…}Naturally, theorists of international social reality employ “balance” as a central organizing concept for the power relations of nation-states, and then assume that the latter are driven, almost by a law of their own nature, to seek their security by some form of power-balancing. Balance of Power: Problems and Definitions

The term balance of power
has been roundly criticized for causing considerable semantic
confusion. Ernst B. Haas found at least eight distinct meanings for the
term: 1. any distribution of power, 2. equilibrium or balancing
process, 3. hegemony or search for hegemony, 4. stability and peace in
a concert of power, 5. instability and war, 6. power politics in
general, 7. a universal law of history, and 8. a system and guide to
policymakers. “The trouble with the balance of power,” says Inis L.
Claude, Jr. “is not that it has not meaning but that it has too many
meanings.” The term that has been used to connote equilibrium and
disequilibrium, or any distribution of power whether balanced or
unbalanced, or as both policy and system (either automatic and
self-regulating or wholly dependent upon manipulation by shrewd
statesmen). Claude concludes that the concept of balance of power is
extremely difficult to analyze because those who write about it not
only fail to provide precise clues as to its meaning but often “slide
blissfully from one usage of the term ro another and back again,
without posting any warning that plural meanings exist.”
It is true that the concept of balance of power is riddled with
ambiguity. Many statesmen have sought a unilateral superiority rather
than an objective bilateral balance with their principal rival.
Nevertheless, it is theoretically possible to conceive of the balance
of power as a situation or condition, as a universal tendency or law of
state behavior, as a guide for statesmanship, and as a mode of
system-maintenance characteristic of certain types of international
systems. As long as we think in terms of equilibrium rather than
superiority, these four usages need not be inconsistent with each
other. Conceived as a situation or condition, balance of power implies
an objective arrangement in which there is relatively widespread
satisfaction with the distribution of power. The universal tendency or
law describes a probability, and enables one to predict, that members
of a system threatened by the emergence of a “disturber of the
balance”---that is, a power seemingly bent on establishing an
international hegemony---will form a countervailing coalition. Balance
of power as a policy guide prescribes to statesmen who would act
“rationally” that they should maintain eternal vigilance and be
prepared to organize a countervailing coalition against the disrupter
of equilibrium. Balance of power as a system refers to a multinational
society in which all essential factors preserve their identity,
integrity, and independence through the balancing process. Contending Theories of International Relations James E. Dougherty and Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, Jr.