Imbangan kuasa (hubungan antarabangsa)
Teori keseimbangan kuasa dalam hubungan antarabangsa mencadangkan bahawa negara boleh menjamin kemandirian sesebuah negara untuk menghalang negara-negara lain daripada menggunakan kuasa ketenteraan untuk menguasai sesebuah negara yang lain.[1] Jika sesebuah negara itu mempunyai kuasa ketenteraan yang kuat, teori ini meramalkan bahawa negara yang kuat tersebut akan mengambil kesempatan terhadap negara-negara jiran yang lebih lemah. Keadaan ini mendesak negara yang lebih lemah untuk menjalinkan hubungan antarabangsa iaitu melalui pendekatan bilateralisme (dua-hala) dan multilateralisme (pelbagai-hala). Sesetengah cendekiawan realis berpendapat bahawa sistem keseimbangan kuasa akan membawa kepada kestabilan berbanding sistem dominasi, kerana peperangan hanya akan memberi impak negatif kepada aktor-aktor terlibat apabila terdapat sistem keseimbangan kuasa antara negara-negara yang berada dalam hubungan yang tegang.[1]
Apabila diancam, negara boleh mendapatkan keselamatan dengan pengimbangan kuasa, melalui pembentukan pakatan dengan negara lain terhadap ancaman yang berlaku. bersekutu dengan orang lain terhadap ancaman yang berlaku; atau "bandwagoning", iaitu negara-negara melibatkan diri mereka terhadap kuasa yang mengancam negara yang berada di dalam pakatan mereka.[2] Taktik pakatan yang lain termasuk buck-passing[3] dan chain-ganging. Cendekiawan realis telah lama berbahas bagaimana sistem polariti[4] memberi kesan kepada pilihan taktik,[5] walau bagaimanapun secara umumnya dipersetujui bahawa dalam sistem bipolar, setiap kuasa besar tidak mempunyai pilihan selain untuk berhadapan secara langsung dengan yang lain.[5] Bersama-sama dengan perdebatan antara realis tentang kelaziman pengimbangan dalam corak pakatan, cendekiawan dalam teori hubungan antarabangsa yang lain, seperti konstruktivis, juga mengkritik teori imbangan kuasa, iaitu dengan mempertikaikan andaian realis utama mengenai sistem antarabangsa dan tingkah laku negara.[6]
Rujukan[sunting | sunting sumber]
Bibliografi[sunting | sunting sumber]
- Ghervas, Stella (2017), "Balance of Power vs Perpetual Peace: Paradigms of European Order from Utrecht to Vienna, 1713-1815", The International History Review, 39 (3): 404–425, doi:10.1080/07075332.2016.1214613, S2CID 157658557
- Christensen, Thomas J.; Snyder, Jack (1990), "Chain Gangs and Passed Bucks: Predicting Alliance Patterns in Multipolarity", International Organization, 44 (2): 138–140, doi:10.1017/s0020818300035232, S2CID 18700052
- Gilbert, Felix (1949). "Bernardo Rucellai and the Orti Oricellari: A Study on the Origin of Modern Political Thought". Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes. Warburg Institute. 12: 101–131. doi:10.2307/750259. JSTOR 750259. S2CID 152959005.
- Howard, Sir Esme (May 1925), "British Policy and the Balance of Power", The American Political Science Review, 19 (2): 261–267, doi:10.2307/2938920, JSTOR 2938920, S2CID 146526607
- Kegley, Charles W.; Wittkopf, Eugene R. (2005), World Politics: Trends and Transformation (ed. 10th), m/s. 503
- Mearsheimer, John (2010), "Structural Realism" (PDF), dalam Dunne, Tim; Kurki, Milja; Smith, Steve (penyunting), International Relations Theories, New York: Oxford University Press, m/s. 79–85
- Mearsheimer, John (2001), The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, New York: Norton, m/s. 139–161
- Pirenne, J. (1963), The Tides of History: From the Expansion of Islam to the Treaties of Westphalia, II, London, m/s. 429
- Sheehan, Michael (2000), The Balance of Power: History & Theory, Routledge, m/s. 35
- Waltz, Kenneth N. (1979), Theory of International Politics, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, m/s. 118, 121
- Walt, Stephen M. (1987), The Origins of Alliances, New York: Cornell University Press, m/s. 5, 17–29
- Wendt, Alexander (1992), "Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of international Politics", International Organization, m/s. 397
- Wohlforth, W.C.; Little, R.; Kaufman, S.J.; dll. (2007), "Testing Balance-Of-Power Theory in World History", European Journal of International Relations, 13 (2): 155–185, doi:10.1177/1354066107076951, S2CID 145419574
- Attrition
- Rencana ini menggabungkan dan menterjemah teks dari penerbitan sekarang di domain awam: Phillips, Walter Alison (1911). "Balance of Power". Dalam Chisholm, Hugh (penyunting). Encyclopædia Britannica (dalam bahasa Inggeris). 3 (ed. ke-11). Cambridge University Press. m/s. 235.
Bacaan lanjut[sunting | sunting sumber]
- Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. New York: Random House. Waltz described IR in a systemic way, consisting of an anarchic structure and interacting units. His BOP-theory says that (smaller, weaker) states will balance the power or preponderance of more powerful ones to ensure that the latter do not become too powerful and dominate all other. For Waltz, a bipolar structure, as given in the Cold War, seems to be the best, i.e. the most peaceful one. Most relevant for his theory are Chapters 1 and 4–6.
- Walt, S. (1987). The Origins of Alliances. Walt puts the BOP-theory on a new basis and calls it balance-of-threat (BOT) theory, since some states do not balance each other, because they do not perceive one another as threats (e.g. the West in the Cold War, worked together against the Warsaw Pact, but didn't balance each other).
- Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W. W. Norton. Mearsheimer tries to mend BOP theory after it was unable to predict or explain the end of the Cold War. He describes himself as an "offensive realist" and believes that states do not simply balance, but because they want to survive in an anarchical system they get frequently aggressive. This is in contrast to Waltz, whom he describes as "defensive realist", who says that states primarily seek survival through balancing. Mearsheimer is an ardent critic of other IR theories (such as neoliberalism, constructivism etc.) and warns heavily of the Chinese rise in their relative power position.
- T. V. Paul, Michel Fortman, and James J. Wirtz. Balance of Power: Theory and Practice in the 21st Century. (Stanford University Press, 2004) ISBN 0-8047-5016-5. Balance of power theory has been severely criticized since the end of the Cold War. Regions where BOP dynamic would have been expected, Central Asia for example after the Soviet left, did not experience it. This book analysis the theoretical and historical criticisms of balance of power theory and test whether the theory is still valid in the 21st century.
- Virginia.edu – 'Balance of Power', Dictionary of the History of Ideas
- Hedley Bull, Anarchial Society (United States of America: Macmillan Ltd, 1977).
- John Lewis Gaddis, Surprise, Security and the American Experience (Harvard University Press, 2004).
- Lawrence Kaplan & William Kristol, The War Over Iraq (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2003).
- William Keylor, A World of Nations (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003).
- Little,Richard, The Balance of Power in International Relations. Metaphors, Myths and Models (Cambridge University Press, 2007)
- Hans Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations: The struggle for Power and Peace: Fourth Edition (New York: Knofp, 1967).
- Randall Schweller. 2016. "The Balance of Power in World Politics" in the Oxford Encyclopaedia of Politics.
- Paul W. Schroeder, "The Nineteenth century system: balance of power or political equilibrium?", Review of International Studies, 15, (1989), pp. 135–153. Schroeder argues that the BOP system is inherently unstable and conflict-prone because particular nations tend to have differing conceptions of what constitutes a "balance"; he contends that the equilibrium achieved in Europe between 1815 and 1854 rested not upon a BOP but upon a generally recognized system of British and Russian hegemonies.
- Michael Sheehan, The Balance of Power: History and Theory (Routledge, 2000).