Session 11 - Balance of Power

As E B Haas mentions in his article, many theorists choose to believe that balance of power is synonymous to peace and stability. It is not a means to achieving a peaceful end but an end to the means used to settle disputes and conflicts. When thinking about balance of power, thoughts of equilibrium and order come to one’s mind. However, it is just as easy to associate concepts of war and chaos with the concept of balance of power. Haas explains that states do not search for balance, but for hegemony and that even if balance is achieved, it would be immediately eliminated with the desire for slight superiority. Here, I agree with Haas. Keeping in mind the assumption that states have interests and desire power and hegemony, it can be said that they will never be content with being equal to another state. Even if balance of power is achieved, suspicions, insecurities and uncertainty of intentions can easily upset the balance. Therefore, war and instability seems like a result of this balance of power which shows that it can possibly be a means rather than an end.  

Furthermore, Haas mentions that states often use balance of power as propaganda for justification for war. Here, balance of power can be classified as a means, but to a chaotic end. One can question then, what is the purpose of studying this concept in depth? Haas answers this question  by highlighting the various theoretical and practical implications of balance of power. While interpreting balance of power as merely being a description of the world system may have no theoretical implications, interpretations of the concept as a tool for propaganda and prescription can have far reaching implications.