Types of Balancing Strategies in the Unipolar Order

Document Type : Research Paper


Associate Professor, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran



After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the distribution of power in the international system changed from bipolar—based on the principle of power balance between two poles— to unipolar. Since then, one of the most important questions raised by the main international relations theorists, particularly realist theorists, is why in this type of order, there is no effective military balance against the sole pole of the system (i.e., the U.S.), according to the balance of power theory. In response to this question, optimists and pessimists have expressed different opinions regarding the occurrence of equilibrium in the unipolar system. This article presents a conceptual model with a different and expanded view of the concept of balance of power by considering the balancing to be a state behavior and not a mechanical process and the result of international politics. Based on this notion and on the conceptual model presented in this article, we conclude that in the unipolar system, we can witness the balancing behavior of secondary powers, middle powers, and even small states. Therefore, the main questions of this research are as follows: 1. Why do states turn to balancing strategies in the unipolar system? 2. What are the different types of these strategies? 3. How do states resort to balancing strategies in this type of international system? 4. When do they do so? A qualitative approach is used in this research, and the method of conceptual analysis of different viewpoints of the prominent international relations theorists is selected for qualitative data collection and hypothesis testing.
Based on the conceptual model and considering the types of "positive and negative balancing", we are trying to reach a broader understanding of the concept of balance, in the sense that we assume the states balancing behaviors towards a unipole include different behavioral actions which are not be limited to strictly military balance emphasized by realist and neorealist theorists. "Negative balancing" refers to the attempts to undermine the relative power of the rival (unipole); while "positive balancing" involves the efforts to increase a state's own power. Each of these two strategies includes military and nonmilitary aspects. For example, military and nonmilitary positive balancing includes two types of “internal and external balancing”. Negative and positive military balancing also have different strategies such as buck passing, proxy balance, creation of hybrid threats, obliging, use of intertwined diplomacy, and so forth. Furthermore, the question of what type of balancing strategies each state considers in facing unipole is influenced by various variables, which encompass the following: the level and intensity of the threat of the unipolar state, the objective or subjective nature of the unipolar threat, "balance effectiveness" and "balance cost", the degree of economic interdependence between the unipolar state and other powers, the path to power of unipole and the nature of aims of the revisionist states.
The findings are that balancing is a completely voluntary behavior based on completely different strategies ranging from "positive balancing" to "non-military negative balancing". The decision about which types of balancing strategy a government in any given point in time adopts in order to deal with the issue of unipolarity, is influenced by various factors that are discussed in this research. Moreover, it is indicated that there are balancing behaviors of the non-unipolar states in the unipolar international system, in addition to such behaviors of the unipole. In general, the primary strategy of the unipole in the unipolar system is to manage the internal balancing through efforts aimed at increasing its military power (positive military balancing) as well as its economic and technological power (positive nonmilitary balancing) to confront security threats and safeguard its superior position. Furthermore, its secondary strategy is to maintain the external balancing (i.e., positive military balancing and positive nonmilitary balancing) through the formation of alliances and coalitions with allies to deal with rising powers or lesser powers that are revisionist states.



    1. Balcaen, Pieter; and Cind Du Bois. (2021) “The Hybridization of Conflict: A Prospect Theoretic Analysis,” Games 12, 81: 1-15, <DOI:3390/g12040081>.
    2. Bock, Andreas M.; and Ingo Henneberg. (2013, October 24) "Why Balancing Fails: Theoretical Reflections on Stephen M. Walt's 'Balance of Threat' Theory," University of Cologne International Politics and Foreign Policy Working Paper 2/2013. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273699170 (Accessed 13 May 2022).
    3. Brooks, Stephen; and William C. Wohlforth. (2005, Summer) “Hard Times for Soft Balancing,” International Security 30, 1: 72-108. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4137459 (Accessed 9 May 2022).
    4. Claude, Inis. (1962) Power and International Relations. New York: Random House.
    5. Crawford, Timothy (2008) “Wedge Strategy, Balancing, and the Deviant Case of Spain,” Security Studies 17, 1: 1-38, <DOI:10. 1080/09636410801894126>.
    6. Edström, Håkan; and Jacob Westberg. (2022) “The Alignment Strategies of Great Powers: Managing Power Asymmetries and Structural Changes in the International System,” Comparative Strategy 41, 1: 97-119, .
    7. Elman, Colin. (2002) “Introduction: Appraising Balance of Power Theory,” in John Vasquez and Colin Elman, eds. Realism and the Balancing of Power. New York: Prentice Hall.
    8. Fettweis, Christopher J. (2004) “Evaluating IR’s Crystal Balls: How Predictions of the Future have Withstood Fourteen Years of Unipolarity,” International Studies Review 6, 1: 79-104. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3186540 (Accessed 17 May 2022).
    9. Güner, Serdar S. (2017) “An Evolutionary Game Analysis of Balancing and Bandwagoning in Unipolar Systems,” Journal of Game Theory6, 2: 21-37, .
    10. He, Kai. (2008) “Institutional Balancing and International Relations Theory: Economic Interdependence and Balance of Power Strategies in Southeast Asia,” European Journal of International Relations 14, 3: 489-518, <DOI: 1177/1354066108092310>.
    11. He, Kai. (2009) “Dynamic Balancing: China's Balancing Strategies towards the United States,” Journal of Contemporary China 18, 58: 113-136, <DOI:10.1080/10670560802431701>.
    12. He, Kai. (2012) “Undermining Adversaries: Unipolarity, Threat Perception, and Negative Balancing Strategies after the Cold War,” Security Studies 21, 2: 154-191, .
    13. He, Kai. (2017) “Explaining United States-China Relations: Neoclassical Realism and the Nexus of Threat–Interest Perceptions,” The Pacific Review 30, 2: 133-151, <DOI:10.1080/09512748.2016.1201130>.
    14. Ikenberry, John. (2001) After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    15. Kratochvil, Peter. (2004) “The Balance of Threat Reconsidered: Construction of Threat in Contemporary Russia,” Paper Presented at the Fifth Pan-European Conference Netherlands. Praha: Institute of International Relations.
    16. Labs, Eric J. (1992) “Do Weak States Band Wagon?” Security Studies 1, 3: 383-416, <DOI:1080/09636419209347476>.
    17. Layne, Christopher. (1993) “The Unipolar Illusion: Why New Great Powers will Rise,” International Security 17, 4: 5-51, <DOI:10.2307/2539020>.
    18. Levy, Jack S. (2004) “What do Great Powers Balance Against and When?” in T.V. Paul, James J. Wirtz and Michel Fortmann, eds. Balance of Power: Theory and Practice in the 21st Century. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 29-51.
    19. Little, Rechard. (2007) The Balance of Power in International Relations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    20. Mearsheimer, John. (2001) The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W.W. Norton.
    21. Mearsheimer, John J. (2018) “The Rise & Fall of the Liberal International Order,” Paper Prepared for Presentation at Notre Dame International Security Center, (nd.edu). Available at: https://ndisc.nd.edu/assets/288231/rise_ and_fall_of_the_liberal_international_order.september_11_2018.pdf (Accessed 14 May 2022).
    22. Midlarsky, Manus I. (2003) “The Impact of External Threat on States and Domestic Societies,” International Studies Review5, 4: 13-18. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3186390. (Accessed 17 July 2022).
    23. Monteiro, Nuno P. (2014) Theory of Unipolar Politics. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.
    24. Nexon, Daniel H. (2009) “The Balance of Power in the Balance,” World Politics 61, 2: 330-359. Available at: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Balance-of-Power-in-the-Balance-Nexon/6e2772c59b34c1f822d29689d11de4b 87b08108a (Accessed 11 May 2022).
    25. Pape, Robert A. (2005, Summer) “Soft Balancing against the United States,” International Security 30, 1: 7-45. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/ 4137457 (Accessed 11 May 2022).
    26. Paul, T. V. (2005) “Soft Balancing in the Age ofS. Primacy,” International Security 30, 1: 46-71. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4137458 (Accessed 11 May 2022).
    27. Rasooli Saniabadi, Elham. (2023) “China's Reaction to External Threats from the Perspective of Foreign Policy and International Politics Theories,” Geopolitics Quarterly 18, 4: 202-225, .
    28. Risse, Thomas. (2002) “U.S. Power in a Liberal Security Community,” in G. John Ikenberry, ed. America Unrivaled: The Future of the Balance of Power. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
    29. Rose, Gideon. (1998, October) “Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy,” World Politics 51, 1: 144-172. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/ stable/ 25054068 (Accessed 19 May 2022).
    30. Schroeder, Peter. (1994) “Historical Reality vs. Neo-realist Theory,” International Security 19, 1: 108-148, <DOI:10.2307/2539150>.
    31. Schweller, Randall L. (1994, Summer) “Bandwagoning for Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State Back In,” International Security 19, 1: 72-107, <DOI:10.2307/2539149>.
    32. Schweller, Randall L. (2004) “Unanswered Threats: A Neoclassical Realist Theory of Under Balancing,” International Security 29, 2: 159-201. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4137589 (Accessed 12 May 2022).
    33. Schweller, Randall. (2011) “Emerging Powers in an Age of Disorder,” Global Governance 17, 3: 285-297. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23033748 (Accessed 13 July 2022).
    34. Tierney, Dominic. (2018) “Accidental Primacy: Balancing and the Path to Power,” International Relations 32, 2: 127-148, <DOI:1177/ 0047117818763509>.
    35. Walt, Stephen M. (1985, Spring) “Alliance Formation and the Balance of World Power,” International Security 9, 4: 3-43, <DOI:2307/2538540>.
    36. Walt, Stephen M. (1987) The Origins of Alliances. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
    37. Walt, Stephen M. (1988) “Testing Theories of Alliance Formation: The Case of Southwest Asia,” International Organization42, 2: 275-316. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2706677 (Accessed 17 July 2022).
    38. Walt, Stephen M. (1997) “The Progressive Power of Realism,” The American Political Science Review 91, 4: 931-935, <DOI:2307/2952177>.
    39. Walt, Stephen M. (2009) “Alliances in a Unipolar World,” World Politics 61, 1: 86-120. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40060222 (Accessed 14 May 2022).
    40. Waltz, Kenneth. (1979) Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
    41. Waltz, Kenneth. (1993) “The Emerging Structure of International Politics,” International Security 18, 2: 44-79, <DOI:10.2307/2539097>.
    42. Waltz, Kenneth. (2002) “Structural Realism after the Cold War,” in G. John Ikenberry, ed. America Unrivaled: The Future of the Balance of Power. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
    43. Wang, Yuan-kang. (2020) “The Durability of a Unipolar System: Lessons from East Asian History,” Security Studies 29, 5: 832-863, .
    44. Wohlforth, William. (2002) “U.S. Strategy in a Unipolar World,” in G. John Ikenberry, ed. America Unrivaled: The Future of the Balance of Power. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.