Balancing "unipolarity": Russian responses to American preeminence

• Autorzy: Miłosz Kucharski
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The end of the Cold War put a stop to a half-century long bipolar international order, which was commonly regarded as a period of stability and equilibrium. As the balance of power ended, many policy analysts predicted that the United States would soon be balanced against by the other powers. Yet, as of today, no great power balancing has emerged. In the absence of traditional balancing, scholars developed the notion of soft-balancing, defined as a non-military form of opposition, occurring when weaker states decide that the influence and actions of a stronger state are unacceptable. This concept started to replace hard-balancing in the discussion of international resistance to the preponderance of American power. Scholars of international relations have tried to explain balancing, or the lack thereof, in a variety of ways. Realists still wait for balancing, believing that the international system is characterized by an inherent tendency for balance and equilibrium. Liberal theorists typically argue that states need not engage in balancing behavior as long as the hyperpower is seen as legitimate and non-threatening for it is the hegemon's self-created image that determines whether other states fear its power and, therefore, have reason to balance against it. (fragment of text)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

International relations; International politics; International security; New international order

PL

Stosunki międzynarodowe; Polityka międzynarodowa; Bezpieczeństwo międzynarodowe; Nowy ład międzynarodowy

• Czasopismo: Stosunki Międzynarodowe
• Rocznik: 2011
• Tom: 43
• Numer: nr 1/2
• Strony: 257--283

Twórcy

autor

Miłosz Kucharski

• University of California, Davis, USA, doktorant

Bibliografia

• R. Pape, Soft Balancing Against the United States, "International Security" 2005, No. 30
• The Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation, 2000, http://www.scrf.gov.ru/Documents/Decree/2000/706-1.html (03.07.2007).
• O. Lowenheim, Predators and Parasites: Persistent Agents of Transnational Harm and Great Power Authority, Ann Arbor 2007
• A.L. George, A. Bennett, Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences, Cambridge, MA 2005.
• S. Cross, Russia and NATO Toward the 21st Century: Conflicts and Peacekeeping in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo, "NATO/Academic Affairs 1999-2001" 2001
• P. J. Kubicek, Russian Foreign Policy and the West, "Political Science Quarterly" 1999-2000, No. 114
• E. Sullivan, Bosnian Serbs Are Villains - But Not The Only Ones, "Desert News" April 23, 1994.
• M. Raś, Ewolucja polityki zagranicznej Rosji wobec Stanów Zjednoczonych i Europy Zachodniej w latach 1991-2001, Warszawa 2005
• K. Malak, Rosja wobec NATO, in: A. Głowacki, A. Stępień-Kuczyńska (ed.), Rosja między współczesnością a historią, Łódź 2004
• S. Gardocki, Wewnętrzne uwarunkowania polityki zagranicznej Rosji, in: S. Bieleń (ed.), Historia, Stosunki Międzynarodowe, Amerykanistyka, Warszawa 2001
• D.Y. Ball, How Kosovo Empowers the Russian Military, "PONARS Policy Memo" 1999, No. 61
• P.A. Saunders, Primakov Returns to Russia, "The Nixon Center Reality Check" 1999, No. 24.
• J. Sherr, A jednak wielkomocarstwowa... Ewolucja rosyjskiej polityki zagranicznej, "Eurazja" 1996.
• M. Kaczmarski, Polityka zagraniczna Putina - chwilowy kryzys czy obnażenie braku strategii?, "Międzynarodowy Przegląd Polityczny" 2005
• M. Kaczmarski, Rosja na rozdrożu, Warszawa 2006
• http://www.dziennik.plopinie/article146333/Nie_damy_NATO_stanac_u_granic_Rosji.html
• Meeting with NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hop Scheffer, April 8, 2004, http://www.ln.mid.ru (17.03.2008).