BOOK REVIEW

Kwara State University, Malete

Department of Politics and Governance

Course: IRS 801: Theories of International Relations

Lecturer: Dr. Ibrahim Salawu
Book Title: Understanding International Relations
Chapter Six: The Balance of Power and War
Author: Chris Brown and Kirsten Ainley
Publisher:Palgrave Macmillan
Extent: 19 Pages
Reviewer: Group 2

Group members:

1. Lateef Isiaka Ishowo 22/27MPS/008

2. Faniran Sunday Oladele 22/27MPA/005
3. Hanafi Abdulgafar Dare 22/27MPA/012
4. Abdulsalam Sherifat Shola 22/27MPA/007

1
Chapter six of this book by Chris Brown and Kirsten Ainley, which focuses
on balance of power and war, provides excellent insights into the limitations
of the state-centric notion of international relations; noting that war is a
necessary prerequisite to the effectiveness of balance of power.
In its introductory part, the book opined that the realist’s state-centric
view of the world paints a picture of insecurity and fear in an anarchic
international system. Portrays state as a selfish entity concerned about its own
security at the expense of others. This anarchic structure notwithstanding,
there is degree of order in the international system as preserved by two key
institutions – balance of power and war. The authors however noted that
while the idea that balance of power generates order may be plausible
enough, the notion that war is a source of order is counter intuitive and
implausible. Yet without war, balance of power could not operate as a
functioning institution of an international system or society; hence, war and
balance of power fall together.
It is opined that the notion of balance of power is inescapable in the discourse
of international relations, as it dated back to about four centuries ago as
reflected in the writings of statesmen, diplomats, historians and lawyers. And
by twentieth century, it had become invoked at one time or another by all the
major international actors.
It was also pointed out that there exists no clear definition of the term
‘balance of power’; as it meant different things to different scholars. For
instance, Hans Morghenthau shifts back and forth between several different
meanings in his chapter on the subject in ‘Politics among Nations’, a chapter
explicitly designed to clear up confusions. This confusion probably made
Claude to refer to balance of power as a term given to a system based on
sovereignty and the absence of world government. In this, the chapter finds a
root idea that only force can counteract the effect of force in an unstable
world struggling for equilibrium.

2
To achieve equilibrium, the classical balance of power theorists say that the
ideal number of states in a balance is five because this allows for three versus
two formations which can be adapted as becomes appropriate, as opposed to
a bipolar systems which are inherently inflexible. But Kenneth Waltz argues
that power management is easier in a bipolar system as two parties can
negotiate their way to stability more easily than is the case with any larger
number. With bipolarity however, the tendency of eventually running to a
unipolar system is quite high.
However, balance of power is a necessity as an alternative to it in the
international system is ‘bandwagoning’—that is to line up behind a state that
is rising in power. For instance, the US and the bandwagon effects that
characterize the international politics to achieve a balance. However, if
preservation of balance of power was in order to preserve international order,
the outbreak of war in 1914 means that the system failed; but on the other
hand, it could be a vindication of balance of power. As war plays an
important role in balance of power. Balance of power is therefore about
stability, equilibrium, prevention of change, but sometimes, change comes
through war. Therefore, war does not indicate failure of conflicts resolution
but a means of conflict resolution.
The chapter opines that war in the twentieth century, to commonsense
view, is a pathological phenomenon that represents a breakdown of
international system or a sign of immaturity of a people or civilization. But to
understand the role of war in a balance of power system, one must realize that
it is a normal feature in international relations and not pathological. This
would be better understood by simply realizing causes of wars among nations
of the world.
One of the causes of war according to the chapter is human nature. Man is
prone to violence and that explains why he was cast out of the Garden of
Eden. Man possesses thanatos, wishing deaths all the time because he does
not possess inhibitor to prevent him killing his kinds. This may be true but

3
fails to explain war. It goes beyond bodily harm or murder or acts of violence
among individuals, war is an institution which requires social explanation.
The second factor focuses on the nature of societies rather than human
beings. From autocracies and monarchies to democracy; from capitalists to
communists societies. But on the contrary, war has nothing to do with kinds
of society, most societies that have regular contacts with one another had
experienced wars. Even those democracies that do not fight other
democracies fight non-democratic systems. However, the only exemption to
the ubiquity of war is where extreme climatic conditions make war
impossible for such societies. Again, this second factor equally fails to
provide general explanations to the causes of wars.
This leads us to the third factor that focuses on the nature of
international system as being the cause of war. States have interests which
may clash at any point in time. When this happens, there may be no other
alternative to war in an anarchical system to resolve the clash of interests;
war is the ultimate resort of states.
Bringing together the three stated causes of war will enable us to make a
clear distinction between civil and international war. A civil war is a
pathological condition, representing a breakdown of normality. Unlike
international system, states have methods of conflicts resolution which
forbids the use of force; except where the mechanisms fail to curtail the
problem. International wars between or among states is the ultimate
mechanism for the resolution of conflict. War is an act of violence to compel
our opponent to submit to our will.
In the nineteenth century, the view that war was a legitimate act of the state
was accepted as long as procedures are followed. The situation has however
changed with the Covenant of the League of Nations in 1919, the Pact of
Paris in 1928, the United Nations Charter of 1945 and the London Charter of
1945 which established the War Crimes Tribunal; legitimizing war in two

4
circumstances – as self-defense or as an act of law enforcement to assist
others in defending themselves.
In the twentieth century, the cost of war rose dramatically, while the benefit
either remained same or more often fell. The rise in destructiveness of war
has been exponential, as revealed by post 1914 and 1945 experiences of the
first and second world war and the threat of nuclear annihilation of a potential
Third World War.
With the brutal consequences of wars, one would expect fewer wars to
emerge in the twentieth century than in the nineteenth, but reverse was the
case as the former appears to be a century of warfare.
The concluding part of the chapter reveals that power as a concept is
easy to understand. However, the concept of balance of power is a bit
confusing because there is no equilibrium of power. That is; BOP of power is
an idea of feeling which crumbles when logic is introduced. For instance both
the US and Russia is powerful, but how does one measure the power of the
two power blocks? (The two states do not possess the same strength)
In this chapter, the importance and role of war is being explained. The
Clausewitz view of war is that it is an essential requirement for balance of
power to operate in a way that they depend on each other (systemic). The two
permits society to operate. The initial premise that that we live in an
anarchical world in which states are major actors whose action is motivated
by rational egoism then neorealist world is unavoidable (the state cannot be
certain of other states intentions and their security, hence, there is need for
power politics i.e. competition). If we live in a world which is not
characterized by this type of international relations, which seems to be the
case, then there’s possibility that something is wrong with these assumptions.
The chapter makes reference to chapter 1 of the book stating that serious
attention must be given to the implication of the view that knowledge is
constructed and not found that it rest on social foundation and not open to the
bedrock of certainty. If this position is then to be acknowledge “international

5
anarchy” can be said to be a construction of state therefore “anarchy is what
states make of it” this will make it possible to be logical and ask question of
whose interest it’s to serve.
As customary of academic reviews, some weaknesses have been noted
in the chapter. For instance, the chapter placed too much emphases on war,
thereby creating fears and tension which is detriment to the existing peace
and other important aspects of life such education and economy. While the
idea that balance of power generates order may be plausible enough, the
notion that war is a source of order is counter intuitive and implausible. Yet
without war, balance of power could not operate as a functioning institution
of an international system or society; hence, war and balance of power fall
together.
Again, the notion that balance of power itself is meant to preserve war
and serve as a peace ensuring mechanism; this is the danger of mutually
assured destruction that we have today amongst state that possesses nuclear
power. If the balance of power was that effective why did First World War
occur in the first place? not to talk of the prolonged nature of the war –1914-
1918 and its consequential destructions?
The chapter’s position on balance of power and war as tools to secure
equilibrium is neither here nor there as the authors end up confusing readers
with their persistent emphasis on the anarchical nature of international system
even in the face of power balancing. Between a Unipolar and bipolar state,
under which can balance of power be ensured? What is the ideal number of
states in a balance? Five or two? Even the chapter is not sure.

Finally, the chapter failed to resolve on how to measure power in order

to determine the level of equilibrium. Hence, there is no equilibrium of power
anywhere. How for instance does one measure the power of the US as against
that of Russia? Perhaps, the term “balance” shouldn’t be used” the strive
towards achieving an equal level of distribution of power cannot be met and
6
the struggle continues. In reality, states would rather have bandwagon than
having an equal level of power.