The concept of balance of power is fundamental in international relations. What does it mean? How meaningful can it be at the beginning of the twenty-first century, given the impact of globalization and modern warfare in which one's opponents may not be attached to any particular state? Is it possible that it requires redefinition? If so, what should it mean? If not, why not?
What will be an ideal response?
The ideal answer should include:
1. Provide a satisfactory explanation of how balance of power is crucial to international relations, employing the key terms military capabilities and dominance.
2. Explain how the complexities created by globalization and modern warfare impact the significance of balance of power, noting the fluidity of alliances and policies necessary when one's opponents may not be attached to any particular state, as well as the increasing emphasis on economic power over military power.
3. Describe the redefinition that such an evolving and evolved role of balance of power appears to demand, taking into account the details already touched upon, and perhaps those elements of future international relations that might require this redefinition.
4. If the concept of balance of power does not appear to require redefinition, a vigorous analysis of why not will be necessary.
5. Provide a concise summary and effective conclusion.
You might also like to view...
Random assignment
A) increases confidence that the groups are the same at the start of the study. B) is the best way to increase statistical power. C) is difficult to include in experimental designs. D) maximizes experimental variance.
John Stuart Mill in On Liberty argued in favor of diversity of opinion
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
Your authors classify the National Right to Life Committee and the National Rifle Association as public interest groups
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
Which of the following justices on the Roberts Court believes that constitutional interpretation must follow original intent in order to avoid judicial activism?
a. John Roberts b. Elena Kagan c. Ruth Bader Ginsburg d. Clarence Thomas