Balance of Power in International Relations
- Edmarverson A. Santos
- 3 hours ago
- 18 min read
Introduction
The balance of power in international relations describes both the distribution of capabilities among states and the strategies used to prevent one state or coalition from attaining overwhelming predominance. It is among the most persistent ideas in modern international politics, but the term has never had a single settled meaning. It may describe a condition of the international system, a foreign-policy objective, a process of counterbalancing, or a theoretical explanation of state behavior (Sheehan, 1996).
A balance does not generally require mathematical equality. In systems containing several important powers, different combinations of states may offset an otherwise dominant actor even when their individual capabilities are unequal. Approximate equality becomes more significant in a simple bipolar relationship, where fewer opportunities exist to compensate for disparities through coalition formation. The relevant question is usually whether predominance can be checked, not whether every participant possesses equivalent resources.
That question immediately raises a second difficulty: power itself cannot be measured through military strength alone. Economic resources, industrial capacity, technology, geography, population, political cohesion, and mobilization potential can all affect a state's strategic position. Their significance also depends on the relationship and issue under consideration. Resources that generate substantial influence in one setting may prove far less effective in another, making power inherently relational as well as material (Baldwin, 2013).
Realist theories place these problems near the center of international politics. Classical realist accounts commonly emphasize deliberate statecraft, with governments using diplomacy, armaments, and alliances to restrain rivals and prevent hegemony. Structural realism shifts the emphasis toward the international system. For Kenneth Waltz, international anarchy and the distribution of capabilities create systemic pressures that can encourage states to counter concentrations of power, without determining the response of every state in every circumstance (Waltz, 1979).
States can respond to power and threat in different ways. They may strengthen domestic military and economic capabilities, seek allies, deepen defense cooperation, or combine these measures. They may also align with stronger actors or avoid firm alignment when resistance appears too costly or uncertain. Alliance membership consequently does not establish, by itself, that a state is balancing. Threat perception, proximity, expected gains, intentions, and available partners can alter alignment choices (Walt, 1987).
Historical balance-of-power politics has also taken markedly different forms. The anti-hegemonic calculations associated with the Peace of Utrecht differed from the great-power management that developed after the Congress of Vienna, while Cold War bipolarity operated under conditions dominated by two superpowers and their alliance systems. Nuclear weapons transformed strategic calculations further by making survivable retaliatory capability central to deterrence alongside conventional military power (Sheehan, 1996).
Contemporary competition in the Indo-Pacific has renewed debate over balancing without producing a single regional pattern. Australia and Japan have continued to strengthen defense capabilities amid intensifying strategic competition, while other states combine security cooperation, economic engagement, diversification, and varying degrees of strategic autonomy. These differences make the region useful for testing the distinction between internal balancing, alliance-based external balancing, hedging, and broader security cooperation rather than assuming that every regional partnership belongs to one balancing coalition (Australian Department of Defence, 2026; Japan Ministry of Defense, 2026).
Balance of power must also be distinguished from international law. It has influenced diplomatic settlements, alliance formation, and conceptions of international order, but it is not an independent legal rule requiring states to preserve a particular distribution of capabilities. International law separately governs treaty obligations and, under the United Nations Charter, the threat or use of force, collective security, and individual and collective self-defense (United Nations, 1945). Balance-of-power theory remains an analytical framework for explaining patterns of interstate competition, not a source of legal authority.
1. Balance of Power in International Relations: Meaning
Balance of power has never referred to a single, universally accepted condition of international politics. The term has been used to describe a distribution of capabilities, a policy intended to restrain a rival, a process of counterbalancing, and a pattern attributed to the international system. These meanings overlap, but they make different claims about how power operates and how states respond to its concentration (Sheehan, 1996).
The most useful starting point is predominance rather than numerical equality. In a multipolar system, several states may collectively offset a stronger actor even when their individual capabilities differ considerably. Approximate equality becomes more important in a simple bipolar relationship, where additional powers are unavailable to compensate for a large disparity. What defines the problem is the possibility of effective counterweight, not identical military or economic resources.
A distribution dominated by one state is not transformed into a balance simply because several other states remain present. Nor does the existence of multiple powerful actors demonstrate that they are actively balancing. Keeping the distribution of capabilities separate from state behavior is essential to using the concept precisely.
1.1 Balance as Condition, Strategy, and Process
A balance as a condition describes the relative position of important actors at a particular time. Balancing describes behavior intended to strengthen a state's position against a concentration of power. Governments may increase military capabilities, seek allies, or modify diplomatic alignments even when no equilibrium exists and no stable balance ultimately results.
Balance-of-power policy is more explicitly connected to statecraft. Governments may deliberately seek to prevent predominance, preserve independence, or improve their strategic position. Their actions can contribute to a wider balance without being coordinated around a common objective.
Modern realist balance-of-power theory often makes a broader explanatory claim. It asks why concentrations of power generate pressures for countervailing behavior and under what conditions those responses become effective. This systemic proposition must be distinguished from a particular government's balancing policy and from an observed distribution that may have arisen without deliberate coordination (Sheehan, 1996).
2. Power, Capabilities, and Measurement
Any account of balance depends on an account of power. Military capability has traditionally occupied a central position because armed strength affects deterrence, territorial defense, coercion, and the capacity to prevail in conflict. Yet military resources alone cannot establish how much influence a state can exercise in every political relationship.
Economic capacity, population, industrial resources, technology, geography, infrastructure, and political cohesion can all affect strategic position. Their significance changes according to the actors, objectives, and policy area involved. A resource that produces substantial leverage in one relationship may have limited value in another, which makes power relational rather than a fixed property possessed in the same form across every context (Baldwin, 2013).
2.1 Capabilities, Influence, and Relational Power
Capabilities are resources that may enable a state to affect other actors. Influence concerns the outcomes that those resources can actually produce. Large armed forces, national wealth, or technological superiority may create important advantages, but none guarantees that another government will change its behavior.
The conversion of resources into effective influence depends on circumstances. Military superiority may have reduced utility against an adversary protected by geography, nuclear deterrence, or external support. Economic asymmetry may generate less bargaining leverage when both states face substantial costs from disrupting the relationship. Domestic political cohesion can likewise affect whether material resources can be mobilized and sustained.
Aggregate indicators remain useful because assessments of balance require some comparison of relative capabilities. They are better understood as evidence of potential power than as direct measurements of control over political outcomes. The analytical question is not simply which state possesses more resources, but what those resources enable it to accomplish against particular actors and under particular conditions (Baldwin, 2013).
2.2 Latent Power and the Problem of Measurement
Some resources are immediately available in the form of existing military capabilities. Others provide the basis from which greater military power can be developed. In Mearsheimer's formulation, latent power rests principally on population and wealth, which supply the demographic and economic resources from which military capability can be constructed (Mearsheimer, 2001).
Industrial capacity and technological development affect how efficiently those underlying resources can be converted into usable capability. Two states with comparable armed forces at a given moment may possess very different capacities to replace equipment, finance mobilization, expand production, or sustain prolonged strategic competition.
No single numerical indicator resolves the measurement problem. Defense expenditure, gross domestic product, population, force size, weapons inventories, and technological measures capture different aspects of state capability. Their strategic significance varies by context. Balance-of-power analysis requires comparison, but an aggregate score should not be mistaken for power itself.
3. Realism and Balance of Power Theory
Balance of power occupies a central position in realist theories of international relations because realism gives particular weight to power, security, competition, and the constraints facing sovereign states. The realist tradition is not theoretically uniform. Its different strands disagree about why balancing occurs, how much power states seek, and how much explanatory weight should be assigned to political judgment or systemic structure.
Classical and structural realism illustrate this divide. Both operate from a decentralized international setting, but they explain its consequences differently. Classical realism places greater emphasis on political judgment, national interest, and the struggle for power, while structural realism derives its central expectations from the organization of the international system.
3.1 Classical Realism and Deliberate Statecraft
Classical realist accounts give substantial weight to foreign-policy choice. Hans Morgenthau treated international politics as a struggle for power in which governments seek to preserve their interests without relying on a superior political authority to secure them. Balance-of-power policies could involve armaments, alliances, and territorial or other forms of compensation designed to alter relative positions (Morgenthau, 1978).
Such policies do not require governments to seek exact equality. States may prefer a margin of superiority because capabilities are difficult to assess and because underestimating a rival can carry severe consequences. The pursuit of individual advantage can consequently coexist uneasily with a broader system in which no state is expected to become predominant (Sheehan, 1996).
Political judgment remains central to this account. Governments can misjudge capabilities, exaggerate threats, choose unsuitable allies, or pursue advantages that provoke countervailing coalitions. Balance is not simply produced by the existence of several states; it is also shaped by the policies through which they respond to changes in relative power.
3.2 Structural Realism and Systemic Balancing
Structural realism relocates much of the explanation from statecraft to the international system. In Kenneth Waltz's theory, states operate under anarchy, meaning the absence of a central authority above them, while differences in their capabilities determine their relative positions within the system. Changes in the distribution of capabilities alter the constraints and opportunities facing states (Waltz, 1979).
Balancing can emerge without governments sharing a collective intention to create equilibrium. States concerned with maintaining their position may strengthen their own capabilities or seek external support when shifts in relative power increase another state's preponderance. A balance can consequently arise as an unintended systemic outcome rather than as the product of coordinated diplomatic design.
Structural realism predicts recurrent pressures toward balancing at the systemic level; it does not determine the timing or precise foreign policy adopted by every state. Subsequent realist scholarship has examined how geography, alliance opportunities, domestic capacity, and other factors can affect individual responses to systemic pressures.
Later realist theories also disagree about the amount of power states seek. Defensive realism generally argues that excessive expansion can become self-defeating by provoking counterbalancing and reducing security (Taliaferro, 2000). Offensive realism assigns stronger incentives to maximizing relative power and holds that great powers will seek opportunities to increase their position when the expected costs do not outweigh the gains (Mearsheimer, 2001).
Balance-of-power theory occupies a central place in realism, but the wider balance-of-power tradition is not confined to realist theory. Its historical uses include diplomatic practice, descriptions of international order, and political arguments that predate the distinctions developed by twentieth-century realist scholarship (Sheehan, 1996).
4. Balancing, Bandwagoning, and Military Alliances
States facing shifts in relative power or perceived threat can strengthen their own capabilities, seek external support, align with a stronger actor, or preserve strategic flexibility. These responses depend on material capabilities, threat perceptions, geography, alliance options, and the expected costs and benefits of alignment.
Military alliances are major instruments of balancing, but alliance membership alone does not establish a balancing purpose. Alliances may also serve deterrence, political reassurance, regional access, or other strategic objectives.
4.1 Internal and External Balancing
Internal balancing strengthens a state's own capacity through measures such as military expansion, technological development, defense-industrial investment, and economic mobilization directed toward strategic competition. Economic resilience belongs in this category only when it forms part of a response intended to reduce vulnerability or improve relative capabilities.
External balancing relies on cooperation with other states, commonly through alliances and defense partnerships. Combining capabilities can strengthen deterrence and improve access to intelligence, bases, technology, or military support. Alliances also create problems of credibility, burden sharing, dependence, abandonment, and entrapment, because partners may disagree about commitments or the risks they are prepared to accept (Snyder, 1997).
States frequently combine both forms. A government may increase national military capacity while simultaneously strengthening alliances, rather than choosing exclusively between domestic and external responses (Waltz, 1979).
4.2 Balancing and Bandwagoning
Balancing involves opposing or offsetting a concentration of power or threat. In Stephen Walt's formulation, bandwagoning occurs when a state aligns with the principal source of threat rather than joining others against it. His balance-of-threat theory argues that alignment depends not simply on aggregate power but on how threatening that power appears (Walt, 1987).
Later scholarship broadened the analysis. Schweller argued that states may align with stronger powers not because they fear them, but because joining the ascendant side offers political, territorial, economic, or strategic gains. Bandwagoning can consequently reflect opportunity as well as vulnerability (Schweller, 1994).
The difference between balancing and bandwagoning cannot be inferred from relative capabilities alone. States facing similar distributions of power may make different choices because they assess intentions, alliance credibility, expected gains, and the costs of resistance differently.
4.3 Threat Perception and Alternative Alignment Strategies
Balance-of-threat theory identifies four principal components of perceived threat: aggregate power, geographic proximity, offensive capability, and perceived aggressive intentions. A distant great power may possess greater aggregate capabilities yet appear less dangerous than a geographically close state with offensive forces and hostile intentions (Walt, 1987).
Soft balancing describes attempts to constrain a stronger state through diplomatic, institutional, economic, or limited strategic coordination without constructing a conventional military counterweight. Its analytical status remains disputed. Proponents identify such measures as meaningful responses to predominance, while critics argue that many alleged examples are indistinguishable from ordinary diplomatic opposition or bargaining (Pape, 2005; Brooks and Wohlforth, 2005).
Hedging is likewise contested. It generally describes policies that combine engagement with measures intended to limit strategic exposure and preserve alternatives under uncertainty. Scholars disagree over the criteria required to distinguish hedging from limited alignment, balancing, neutrality, or simple policy inconsistency, so the term should not be treated as a residual category for every ambiguous foreign policy (Kuik, 2008; Haacke, 2019).
5. Polarity, Deterrence, and Power Equilibrium
Polarity concerns the number of states possessing the capabilities required to occupy the leading positions in the international system. Unipolar, bipolar, and multipolar structures affect alliance options, strategic calculations, and the possibilities for countering concentrations of power.
They do not guarantee equilibrium. Significant asymmetries can persist when potential balancers lack sufficient resources, compatible interests, or incentives to organize an effective counterweight.
5.1 Multipolarity and Bipolarity
In Waltz's structural account, multipolar systems contain several major powers and permit more possible alignments. This flexibility can facilitate coalition formation, but it can also increase uncertainty about commitments, relative capabilities, and the composition of opposing coalitions.
Bipolar systems concentrate the principal distribution of capabilities around two leading states. Waltz argued that this reduces some uncertainty because each pole can focus primarily on the other rather than continuously calculating shifts among several great-power combinations (Waltz, 1979). Bipolarity can still produce prolonged rivalry and intense military competition.
5.2 Nuclear Deterrence and the Cold War Balance
Nuclear weapons transformed strategic balance as the United States and Soviet Union developed increasingly survivable second-strike capabilities. The ability to retaliate after absorbing an attack became central to deterrence because a first strike could not reliably eliminate the possibility of catastrophic retaliation.
Cold War strategy consequently combined conventional balancing, alliance systems, arms competition, and nuclear deterrence. NATO, established in 1949, and the Warsaw Pact, created in 1955, institutionalized opposing military alignments in Europe. Nuclear forces did not eliminate balance-of-power politics; they altered the risks under which it operated and introduced the possibility of catastrophic escalation on a scale absent from earlier European balancing systems (Sheehan, 1996).
5.3 Unipolarity and Limited Counterbalancing
The post-Cold War unipolar period posed a challenge to theories expecting concentrated power to generate rapid counterbalancing. The United States emerged after the Soviet collapse with an exceptional aggregate advantage, yet no equivalent opposing military coalition formed immediately.
Explanations include collective-action problems, geography, existing alliance relationships, economic benefits associated with the prevailing order, and differing assessments of American intentions. These remain competing explanations rather than universal laws of unipolar systems. Nor should post-Cold War unipolarity be treated as an uncontested description of the international distribution of power in 2026, when the effects of China's rise and other changes in relative capabilities remain subject to substantial debate.
6. Balance of Power Examples Across Strategic Systems
Balance-of-power examples are most useful when they reveal different mechanisms rather than reproduce a single historical model. Utrecht, the post-Napoleonic European order, Cold War bipolarity, and contemporary Indo-Pacific competition arose under different distributions of capabilities, alliance structures, and strategic technologies.
6.1 The Peace of Utrecht and Anti-Hegemonic Balance
The War of the Spanish Succession was driven partly by fears that the Bourbon succession in Spain could produce an excessive concentration of French and Spanish power. The wider Peace of Utrecht in 1713 included arrangements and dynastic renunciations intended to prevent union of the French and Spanish crowns and gave balance-of-power reasoning unusually explicit diplomatic expression (Sheehan, 1996).
Utrecht did not create balancing as a practice. European efforts to restrain concentrations of power preceded the settlement, and the Peace of Westphalia should not be treated as the moment when a fully developed balance-of-power system suddenly emerged.
6.2 Vienna and the Concert of Europe
The Congress of Vienna met in 1814–1815 following the Napoleonic Wars, and its Final Act was signed on June 9, 1815. The settlement sought to reconstruct a European order in which renewed domination by a single power would be difficult.
The subsequent Concert of Europe went beyond competitive balancing. Great-power consultation, territorial adjustment, and ideas of political legitimacy became part of a system for managing European crises. France later returned to the circle of great-power diplomacy, demonstrating that the post-Vienna order combined balance with continuing diplomatic management rather than relying solely on fixed opposing coalitions (González Hauck, 2024).
6.3 The Cold War Bipolar Balance
After 1945, the United States and Soviet Union emerged as the two principal centers of military power. Their competing alliance structures, conventional forces, overseas commitments, and nuclear arsenals produced a markedly different form of balance from the flexible coalition politics of earlier European multipolar systems.
As second-strike capabilities matured, direct superpower conflict carried the risk of nuclear escalation. Strategic competition continued through alliances, military deployments, arms development, proxy conflicts, and competition for political influence, while nuclear deterrence constrained the conditions under which the two superpowers could confront one another directly (Sheehan, 1996).
6.4 The Indo-Pacific as a Contested Test Case
Contemporary Indo-Pacific politics does not conform to a single balancing model. Australia's 2026 National Defence Strategy combines stronger national capabilities with deeper regional partnerships and expressly seeks a favorable regional strategic balance, while avoiding the formal designation of a specific adversary (Australian Department of Defence, 2026).
Japan has likewise continued strengthening its defense capabilities and cooperation with the United States and other partners amid concern about changes in the regional security environment and distribution of power (Japan Ministry of Defense, 2026).
Regional cooperation nevertheless does not constitute one military bloc. The Quad—Australia, India, Japan, and the United States—remained a diplomatic partnership in its July 2026 ministerial diplomacy, with cooperation covering maritime security, economic security, technology, resilience, and support for a free and open Indo-Pacific rather than a collective-defense commitment (Quad Foreign Ministers, 2026).
The region consequently combines internal military strengthening, formal alliances, minilateral cooperation, selective alignment, and efforts to preserve diplomatic autonomy. Treating all of these policies as components of a single anti-China balancing coalition would obscure important differences in the interests, commitments, and risk calculations of the states involved.
7. Why Balancing Does Not Guarantee Peace
Balance-of-power arguments are often associated with stability because countervailing power can raise the costs of expansion or coercion. That claim is narrower than saying that balanced systems are inherently peaceful. Efforts to prevent predominance may preserve state autonomy while also intensifying military competition and strategic uncertainty (Sheehan, 1996).
7.1 Security Dilemmas and Arms Competition
The security dilemma describes how measures adopted for defensive purposes can appear threatening to other states when intentions are uncertain. Military expansion by one state may encourage others to strengthen their own forces, potentially leaving both sides more heavily armed without a corresponding improvement in security (Jervis, 1978).
Balancing and deterrence can discourage aggression when an opponent expects the costs of attack to exceed the likely gains. The same preparations may also fuel arms competition when offensive and defensive capabilities are difficult to distinguish or when governments interpret uncertainty pessimistically. Deterrence depends on perceptions of capability, resolve, and expected retaliation rather than on military strength alone (Schelling, 1966).
7.2 Alliances, Misperception, and Escalation
Alliances can strengthen deterrence by increasing the capabilities available against an aggressor, but they also create strategic dilemmas. Governments may fear abandonment if they refuse to support an ally or entrapment if a partner pursues risks they would prefer to avoid (Snyder, 1997).
Pre-1914 Europe shows why alliance politics cannot be separated from crisis decision-making. Mobilization schedules, expectations about allied behavior, military planning, threat assessments, nationalism, domestic pressures, and diplomatic choices all contributed to the July Crisis. The First World War cannot be reduced to a failure of balance-of-power politics or to the alliance system alone (Clark, 2012).
7.3 Great Powers and the Agency of Smaller States
Traditional balance-of-power analysis concentrates heavily on great powers because they possess the greatest capacity to alter the overall distribution of capabilities. Smaller states nevertheless retain strategic agency and can affect the way regional alignments develop.
Institutional participation, coalition-building, diplomatic specialization, and selective alignment can allow smaller states to preserve autonomy or exercise influence beyond what aggregate material capabilities alone would suggest. Their choices may affect alliance cohesion and regional competition even when they cannot independently reshape the wider distribution of power (Keohane, 1969; Ingebritsen et al., 2006).
8. Balance of Power and the International Legal Order
Balance of power belongs primarily to the analysis and practice of international politics. It has influenced diplomatic settlements, alliance structures, and treaty arrangements, but it is not itself among the conventional sources of international law identified in Article 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice.
A strategic shift in relative power is not, by itself, an internationally wrongful act. Nor does a perceived threat to an equilibrium create a general legal entitlement to intervene, alter territory, or use force. Political assessments of desirable distributions of power must be distinguished from the legal rules governing state conduct.
8.1 A Political Principle Rather Than a General Legal Rule
Historical European diplomacy sometimes incorporated balance-of-power objectives into treaty settlements. The Utrecht settlement provides a prominent example: balance language and concrete dynastic arrangements were used to prevent an excessive concentration of power associated with possible union of the French and Spanish crowns (Janžekovič, 2023).
The legal force of such arrangements arose from the treaties through which states accepted specific obligations. Historical reliance on balance-of-power reasoning did not create an unrestricted general rule authorizing states to restore an equilibrium whenever they considered it disturbed. Contemporary questions of intervention, territorial change, or force must instead be assessed under the applicable rules of international law.
8.2 Alliances, Self-Defense, and Collective Security
The United Nations Charter places contemporary security strategies within a legal framework governing interstate force. Article 2(4) requires UN members to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations (United Nations, 1945).
Article 51 preserves the inherent right of individual and collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a UN member, pending the Security Council's taking the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken in self-defense must be reported to the Council (United Nations, 1945).
A defense alliance does not create an independent entitlement to use force outside those rules. Collective self-defense remains subject to the legal conditions governing assistance to a state that has suffered an armed attack; the existence of an alliance treaty alone is insufficient to establish the lawfulness of force (ICJ, 1986).
Collective security is legally distinct from alliance-based balancing and collective self-defense. Under Chapter VII of the Charter, the Security Council may determine the existence of a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and adopt measures for the maintenance or restoration of international peace and security. Implementation still depends heavily on member states, but the authority exercised derives from the Charter rather than from decentralized calculations of strategic equilibrium.
Also read
Conclusion
Balance-of-power analysis is strongest as a framework for examining how states respond to unequal concentrations of capabilities. It can clarify patterns of military preparation, alliance formation, deterrence, and alignment, but it cannot by itself predict which states will balance, how quickly they will respond, or whether the resulting distribution will be stable.
Its limits are equally important. Counterbalancing can restrain predominance while generating arms competition, alliance dependence, or escalation. Strategic responses also operate within an international legal order that does not recognize the preservation of a preferred balance as an independent justification for coercion or force.
Balance of power remains useful because it directs attention to relative capabilities and the reactions they can provoke. Its analytical value depends on keeping the distribution of power, state strategy, and legal authority distinct rather than treating equilibrium as either an inevitable outcome of international politics or a legal requirement.
References
Australian Department of Defence (2026) 2026 National Defence Strategy Factsheet [online]. Available at: https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2026-04/2026%20NDS%20Overview_factsheet_WEB.pdf (Accessed: 12 August 2026).
Baldwin, D.A. (2013) ‘Power and international relations’, in Carlsnaes, W., Risse, T. and Simmons, B.A. (eds.) Handbook of International Relations. 2nd edn. London: SAGE Publications, pp. 273–297.
Brooks, S.G. and Wohlforth, W.C. (2005) ‘Hard times for soft balancing’, International Security, 30(1), pp. 72–108.
Clark, C. (2012) The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914. London: Allen Lane.
González Hauck, S. (2024) ‘History of international law’, in González Hauck, S., Kunz, R. and Milas, M. (eds.) Public International Law: A Multi-Perspective Approach. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 3–24.
Haacke, J. (2019) ‘The concept of hedging and its application to Southeast Asia: a critique and a proposal for a modified conceptual and methodological framework’, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 19(3), pp. 375–417.
Ingebritsen, C., Neumann, I.B., Gstöhl, S. and Beyer, J. (eds.) (2006) Small States in International Relations. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
International Court of Justice (1986) Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, 27 June 1986, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14.
Janžekovič, I. (2023) ‘The balance of power from the Thirty Years’ War and the Peace of Westphalia (1648) to the War of the Spanish Succession and the Peace of Utrecht (1713)’, History of European Ideas, 49(3), pp. 561–579.
Japan Ministry of Defense (2026) Defense of Japan 2026 [online]. Available at: https://www.mod.go.jp/j/press/wp/wp2026/pdf/DOJ2026_Digest_EN.pdf (Accessed: 12 August 2026).
Jervis, R. (1978) ‘Cooperation under the security dilemma’, World Politics, 30(2), pp. 167–214.
Keohane, R.O. (1969) ‘Lilliputians’ dilemmas: small states in international politics’, International Organization, 23(2), pp. 291–310.
Kuik, C.-C. (2008) ‘The essence of hedging: Malaysia and Singapore’s response to a rising China’, Contemporary Southeast Asia, 30(2), pp. 159–185.
Mearsheimer, J.J. (2001) The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Morgenthau, H.J. (1978) Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. 5th edn. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Pape, R.A. (2005) ‘Soft balancing against the United States’, International Security, 30(1), pp. 7–45.
Quad Foreign Ministers (2026) ‘Joint Statement on Cooperation with ASEAN by the Quad Foreign Ministers’, 22 July [online]. Available at: https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2026/07/joint-statement-on-cooperation-with-asean-by-the-quad-foreign-ministers/ (Accessed: 12 August 2026).
Schelling, T.C. (1966) Arms and Influence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Schweller, R.L. (1994) ‘Bandwagoning for profit: bringing the revisionist state back in’, International Security, 19(1), pp. 72–107.
Sheehan, M. (1996) The Balance of Power: History and Theory. London: Routledge.
Snyder, G.H. (1997) Alliance Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Statute of the International Court of Justice (1945) 26 June 1945, 1 UNTS XVI.
Taliaferro, J.W. (2001) ‘Security seeking under anarchy: defensive realism revisited’, International Security, 25(3), pp. 128–161.
United Nations (1945) Charter of the United Nations, adopted 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945, 1 UNTS XVI.
Walt, S.M. (1987) The Origins of Alliances. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Waltz, K.N. (1979) Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
