Examining Kenneth Waltz’s Balancing Assumption: Case Studies of Three Conflicts in the Persian Gulf
Author: Wen-sheng Chen
Abstract / Chinese PDF Download
The balancing assumption is the hard core of Kenneth N. Waltz’s explanationof how systemic balances of power form recurrently. Although the internationalpolitical system has become unipolar since the end of the Cold War, great powerbalancing against US’s unbalanced power has yet to occur. This paper investigatesthree Persian Gulf conflicts and finds that great powers did not engage in balancingagainst US during the two Persian Gulf conflicts that broke out after the end of theCold War. The paper analyzes why balancing behavior was absent, and suggeststhat this phenomenon is insufficient to falsify Waltz’s theory mainly because theconflicts occurred at the regional subsystem level as opposed at Waltz’s structurallevel of analysis. Furthermore, this article examines Waltz’s arguments aboutbalancing behavior and balanced outcomes in order to gain a clearer understandingof his parsimonious theory. The paper also discusses other neorealist explanationsof balancing behavior, especially the theories of offense-defense balance, balance ofinterests, and balance of threats, and evaluates whether they could complementWaltz’s theory.