Session 10: What does Balance of Power "Actually" mean ?

Ernst B. Haas was a German-American political scientist who has made a lot of contributions in the field of international relations. One of those is Balance of Power. In this article, he basically tries to explain this concept but it would not have been problematic if there was a well-defined definition. Haas gives various definitions by different writers which makes it more confusing to understand the concept. He highlights eight verbal usages associated with balance of power which are; distribution of power, equilibrium, hegemony, stability/peace, instability/war, power politics, universal law of history and a system, or guide. 

There are some contradictions between some of these definitions like balance of power creating stability n peace and instability n war at the same time. On one hand some scholars like Francis Gould Leckie talks about creating peace and a "stable balance of power". Where as on the other hand, Abbe de Pradt says, " balance of power means war" (451). Taking these two into consideration, Haas says that it also means power politics, hegemony and equilibrium. Now when we think about this, if there will be power politics, each state would want to gain more power than the other state and this would mean that there is hegemony. But when there would be hegemony so how can there be equilibrium i.e. the exact equilibrium of power between two or more contending states. This, as we all know, is only a theoretical concept the state of "equilibrium" can never exist between contending states as they would want more power than the other to decrease the threat to their own state. 

However, I do like the explanation of balance of power as a system and guide to policy making. As Professor Fay said that it means such an equilibrium of power which will prevent any of the state to becoming strong enough to enforce its will upon the others (455). It means that states do not need to harm others or gain power more than the other but just making sure that there is no overpowering of each other. 

Talking about this article as a whole, people would say that the author is confused or not being able to explain balance of power properly. I do agree that Haas has given varipous explanations of BOP but I also like this thing because with BOP is such a vast concept in the international relations theory that it has different meanings and uses in different situations. So according to that perception, Haas has actually made it easier to understand this concept and its implications in different areas.