Balancing in unipolarity: who is afraid of balance of power

  • Augusto César Dall'Agnol
Palavras-chave: unipolarity, balance of power, balancing

Resumo

Through a critical bias, this article aims to analyze the implications of unipolarity for balancing behavior. In order to do so, it discusses the dynamics of balance of power theory, assumed to be inoperative in the post-Cold War period by main academic debates over unipolarity: i) unipolar stability; ii) balance of threats; iii) soft balancing; iv) liberal institutionalism. We argue that these approaches, including the unipolar illusion view, tied to the balance of power theory, overestimate the effects of unipolarity on balancing behavior of other states. In this sense, we assume here that issues related to the unipolar moment are directly connected to discussions on hegemonic interregnum. Concluding that balance of power dynamics, especially those of hard balancing, are still observed in the post-Cold War era, we criticize two main conclusions from the literature: i) that balancing became inoperative and; ii) that the only available strategies to other states are soft balancing and bandwagoning. In sum, this conclusion has directly implication on strategies available both to the United States and to its main competitors.    

Downloads

Não há dados estatísticos.

Biografia do Autor

Augusto César Dall'Agnol

Mestrando do PPG em Estudos Estratégicos Internacionais pela Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS). Bacharel em Relações Internacionais pela Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM). Pós-graduando vinculado ao Grupo de Pesquisa em Capacidade Estatal, Segurança e Defesa (GECAP). Bolsista da Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES). E-mail: a.agnol@gmail.com.

Referências

Acharya, Amitav. 2014. The end of the American World Order. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Art, Robert J. 2003. A Grand Strategy for America. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Braudel, Fernand. 1958. Histoire et Sciences sociales: La longue durée. Annales, v. 13, n. 4, p. 725-753.
Brooks, Stephen G.; Ikenberry, G. John; Wohlforth, William C. 2013. Don’t Come Home, America: The Case against Retrenchment. International Security, v. 37, n. 3, p. 7-51.
Brooks, Stephen G.; Wohlforth, William C. 2005. Hard Times for Soft Balancing. International Security, v. 30, n. 1, p. 72-108.
Brooks, Stephen G.; Wohlforth, William C. 2008. World out of balance: international relations and the challenge of American primacy. Princeton University Press.
Brooks, Stephen G.; Wohlforth, William C. 2016. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers in the Twenty-first Century: China’s Rise and the Fate of America’s Global Position. International Security, v. 40, n. 3, p. 7-53.
Brooks, Stephen G.; Ikenberry, G. John; Wohlforth. William C. 2013. Don’t Come Home, America: The Case against Retrenchment. International Security, v. 37, n. 3, p. 7-51.
Cepik, Marco A. C; 2013. Seguranca Internacional: da Ordem Internacional aos Desafios para a América do Sul e para CELAC. [International Security: From International Order to Challenges for South America and for CELAC]. In: Bonilla, Adrian; Alvarez, Isabel (eds.). Desafíos estratégicos del regionalismo contemporáneo: CELAC e Iberoamérica. San Jose.
Cox, Robert W. 1981. Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory. Millennium, v. 10, n. 2, p. 126–155.
Dall’Agnol, Augusto C. Os Think Tanks e o Debate Estratégico sobre os Países Emergentes: o Council on Foreign Relations, a Ordem Liberal e a Rússia de Putin. [Think Tanks and the Strategic Debate on Emerging Countries: The Council on Foreign Relations, Liberal order and Putin’s Russia]. Revista Aurora, v. 10, n. 2, p. 9-26.
Dall'Agnol, Augusto C.; Secchi, Eduardo T. 2018. Beyond Russia’s Development of New Weapons: Insights From Military Innovation and Emulation Theory. Bol. Conj. Nerint, v. 3, n. 9, p. 91-99.
Dawood, Layla I. A. 2013. China versus the United States: is bipolarity back? A study of internal balancing as a possible source of international systemic change. Doctorate Dissertation, Post-Graduate Program in International Relations, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro.
Deudney, Daniel; Ikenberry, G. John. 1999. The nature and sources of liberal international order. Review of International Studies, v. 25, n. 2. p. 179-196.
Deutsch, Karl W; Singer, J. David. 1964. Multipolar Power Systems and International Stability. World Politics, v. 16, n. 3, p. 390-406.
Elman, Colin. 2003. Introduction. In: Vasquez, John A.; Elman, Colin (eds.). Realism and the Balancing of Power: A New Debate. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Gilpin, Robert. 1981. War and change in world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Glaser, Charles L. 2011. Why unipolarity doesn't matter (much). Cambridge Review of International Affairs, v. 24, n. 2, p. 135-147.
Gourevitch, Peter. 1978. The Second Image Reversed: The International Sources of Domestic Politics. International Organization, v. 32, n. 4, p. 881-912.
Hobson, John M. 2000. The State and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ikenberry, G. John. 1998. Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Persistence of American Postwar Order. International Security, v. 23, n. 3, p. 43-78.
Ikenberry, G. John. 2001. After victory: institutions, strategic restraint, and the rebuilding of order after major wars. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Ikenberry, G. John. 2018. The end of liberal international order? International Affairs, v. 94, n. 1, p. 7-23.
Jervis, Robert. 2006. The remaking of a unipolar world. The Washington Quarterly, v. 29, n. 3, p. 5-19
Jervis, Robert. 2009. Unipolarity: A Structural Perspective. World Politics, v. 61, n. 1, p. 188-213.
Kashin, Vasily; Raska, Michael. 2017. Countering the U.S. Third Offset Strategy: Russian Perspectives, Responses and Challenges. RSIS Policy Papers.
Krathammer, Charles 1990. The Unipolar Moment. Foreign Affairs, v. 70, n. 1, p. 23-33.
Kupchan, Charles A. 1998. After Pax Americana: Benign Power, Regional Integration, and the Sources of a Stable Multipolarity. International Security, v. 23, n. 2, p. 40-79.
Layne, Christopher. 1993. The Unipolar Illusion: Why New Great Powers Will Arise. International Security, vol. 17, n. 4, p. 5-51.
Layne, Christopher. 2006a. The Unipolar Illusion Revisited. The Coming End of the United States’ Unipolar Moment. International Security, v. 31, n. 2, p. 7-41.
Layne, Christopher. 2006b. The Peace of Illusions: American Grand Strategy from 1940 to the Present. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Lieber, Kier A.; Alexander, Gerard. 2005. Waiting for Balancing: Why the World Is Not Pushing Back. International Security, v. 30, n. 1, p. 109-139.
Liber, Keir A.; Press, Daryl G. 2006. The End of MAD? The Nuclear Dimension of U.S. Primacy. International Security, v. 30, n. 4, p. 7-44.
Lobell, Steven E. 2018. A Granular Theory of Balancing. International Studies Quarterly, v. 62, n. 3, p. 593-605.
Mair, Peter. 2008. Concepts and concepts formation. In: Della Porta, Donatella; Keating, Michael. Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Magalhães, Diego Trindade d'Ávila. 2010. A Formação de uma Comunidade de Segurança na América do Sul. [The Creation of a Security Community in South America]. Master’s Thesis, Post-Graduate Program in International Relations, University of Brasília, Brasília.
Martin, Susan B. 2003. From Balance of Power to Balancing Behavior: The Long and Winding Road. In: Hanami, Andrew K. (ed.). Perspectives on Structural Realism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mastanduno, Michael. 1997. Preserving the Unipolar Moment: Realist Theories and U.S. Grand Strategy after the Cold War. International Security, v. 21, n. 4, p. 44-98.
Mearsheimer, John J. 1990. Back to the Future: Instability in Europe After the Cold War. International Security, v. 15, n. 1, p. 5-56.
Mearsheimer, John J. 2001. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W. W. Norton.
Mearsheimer, John J.; Walt, Stephen M. 2016. The Case for Offshore Balancing: A Superior U.S. Grand Strategy. Foreign Affairs, v. 95, n. 4, p. 70-83.
Monteiro, Nuno P. 2011. Unrest Assured: Why Unipolarity Is Not Peaceful. International Security, v. 36, n. 3. p. 9-40.
Nexon, Daniel H. 2009. The Balance of Power in the Balance. World Politics, v. 61, n. 2, p. 330-359.
Organski, A.F.K.; Kugler, Jacek. 1980. The War Ledger. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pape, Robert A. 2005. Soft Balancing against the United States. International Security, v. 30, n. 1 p. 7-45.
Paul, T.V. 2005. Soft Balancing in the Age of U.S. Primacy. International Security, v. 30, n. 1, p. 46-71.
Posen, Barry; Ross, Andrew. 1996. Competing visions for US. Grand Strategy. International Security, v. 21, n. 3, p. 5-53.
Resende-Santos, Joao. Neorealism, states, and the modern mass army. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Sartori, Giovanni. 1970. Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics. The American Political Science Review, v. 64, n. 4, p. 1033-1053.
Schweller, Randall L. 2001. The Problem of International Order Revisited: A Review Essay. International Security, v. 26, n. 1, p. 161-186.
Schweller, Randall L.; 2011. Pu, Xiaoyu. After Unipolarity: China’s Visions of International Order in an Era of U.S. Decline. International Security, v. 36, n. 1, p. 41-72.
Singer, J. David. 1961. The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations. World Politics, v. 14, n. 1, p. 77-92.
Speier, Richard H. et al. 2017. Hypersonic Missile Nonproliferation: Hindering the Spread of a New Class of Weapons. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.
Steff, Reuben; Khoo, Nicholas. 2014. Hard Balancing in the Age of American Unipolarity: The Russian Response to US Ballistic Missile Defense during the Bush Administration (2001–2008). Journal of Strategic Studies, v. 37, n. 2, p. 222-258.
Stuenkel, Oliver. 2016. Post-Western World: How Emerging Powers Are Remaking Global Order. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Taliaferro, Jeffrey W. 2009. Neoclassical realism and resource extraction: State building for future war. In: Taliaferro, Jeffrey W.; Ripsman, Norrin M.; Lobell, Steven E. (eds.). Neoclassical Realism, the State, and Foreign Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Evera, Stephen. 1990. Primed for Peace: Europe after the Cold War. International Security, v. 15, n. 3, p. 7-57.
Vezirgiannidou, Sevasti-Eleni. 2012. The United States and Rising Powers in a Post-Hegemonic Global Order. International Affairs, v. 89, n. 3, p. 635-51.
Walt, Stephen M. 1987. The origins of alliances. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Walt, Stephen M. 2002. Keeping the World ‘Off-Balance’: Self-Restraint and U.S. Foreign Policy. In.: Ikenberry, John G. (ed.). America Unrivaled: The Future of the Balance of Power. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Walt, Stephen M. 2005. Taming American Power: The Global Response to U.S. Primacy. New York: W.W. Norton.
Walt, Stephen M. 2017. Who’s afraid of balance of power? Foreign Policy. 8 Dec. 2017. Available at: . Last access: Aug. 07, 2018.
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1993. The Emerging Structure of International Politics. International Security, v. 18, n. 2, p. 44-79.
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1997. Evaluating Theories. American Political Science Review, v. 91, n. 4, p. 915-916.
Waltz, Kenneth N. 2000. Structural Realism after the Cold War. International Security, v. 25, n. 1, p. 5-41.
Wendt, Alexander E. 1987. The agent-structure problem in international relations theory. International Organization, v. 41, n. 3, p. 335-370.
Wohlforth, William C. 1999. The Stability of a Unipolar World. International Security, v. 24, n. 1, p. 5-41.
Woolf, Amy F. 2018. Conventional Prompt Global Strike and Long-Range Ballistic Missiles: Background and Issues. CRS Report. Congressional Research Service.
Zakaria, Fareed. 2008. The Post-American World. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.



Recebido em: Agosto/2018.
Aprovado: Setembro/2018.
Publicado
2018-11-12