Session 10 - Balance of Power

In the article by Helen Milner, I find two interesting points made by the author.

The first one where the author suggests that regimes serve to constrain and guide state's behavior according to common norms and rules. This implies that states' behavior is predictable. Although regimes somehow do constrain and guide state's behavior but there are also times when states act in ways which are opposite to the established norms and rules. For example, taking the instance of China's backing of India to the permanent seat at UN security Council seems to go opposite the establisbed norms of Chinese regime. This too, is in the backdrop of India prime minister's visit to the disputed territory between China and India which the Chinese strongly protested.

Secondly the author's assertion of the balance of power being a deterrent to war and bringing order to the system is one which is substantiated by a number of examples in the international arena. One being the cold war, where the balancing of power between USSR and USA helped in being a deterrent. The cold war didn't materialize into a real war because of the two sides matching each other in power and might. ( or perhaps the perception of such a thing happening) 

Similarly in case of Pakistan and India after both the sides became nuclear capable and in a way balanced each other in power - this has proved to be a deterrent to both sides going to war till now.