Political Science Experts - I need help...

[GCsurfishingirl]

I have a final exam in Political Science: International Relations course. This is going to be one of the essays. Any ideas?

What are the main differences between an international system based on Balance of Power and a system based on collective security?

Thanks for any input!:D

Brittany

[Newsjeff]

I'm not familiar with the term collective security. So, please take what I say with a grain of salt.

But isn't a balance of power needed to maintain global (collective?) security?

The only way a nation-state is secure is the threat of retaliation against an aggressor, right?

The only way to maintain a somewhat secure global community is to have the balance, right?

The best defense is a good offense, so to speak.

Think of how violent the world would be without mutually assured destruction. :rolleyes:

Thank god for nuclear weapons, huh?

[GCsurfishingirl]

Thanks for the input newsjeff.

Collective Security: a security regime created by a group of allied states that set rules for keeping peace, guided by the principle that an act of aggression against any member will be met by a collective response from the rest.

Balance of Power: the theory that peace and stability are most likely to be maintained when military power is distributed to prevent a single hegemon or bloc from controlling the world.

Those are the textbook definitions.

My guess is that with collective security would be like China, Japan and the US have an alliance. North Korea threatens Japan, so the US and China respond in defense of China.

Balance of Power would be if China, Japan, US, and North Korea all have equal military strength. Now that NK has nukes, we don't have a balance of power.

Think this is on the right track?

Britt

[sprtsracer]

Thanks for the input newsjeff.

Collective Security: a security regime created by a group of allied states that set rules for keeping peace, guided by the principle that an act of aggression against any member will be met by a collective response from the rest.

Balance of Power: the theory that peace and stability are most likely to be maintained when military power is distributed to prevent a single hegemon or bloc from controlling the world.

Those are the textbook definitions.

My guess is that with collective security would be like China, Japan and the US have an alliance. North Korea threatens Japan, so the US and China respond in defense of China.

Balance of Power would be if China, Japan, US, and North Korea all have equal military strength. Now that NK has nukes, we don't have a balance of power.

Think this is on the right track?

Britt

You're on the right track, yes. Problem is, during the cold war, the balance of power (i.e. Soviet Union and U.S. both with nukes...termed "Mutually Assured Destruction") led to nuclear proliferation and now, there is no accountability for the nuclear arsenals of the former Soviet Republics. That being said, collective security hasn't always worked either. I suppose, in a way, the UN was a "form" of collective security...witness the Korean War and other UN Police actions that haven't worked. The jury is still out on NATO, but it did play a large part in ending the cold war, and is now involved in Afghanistan. You could probably take it back much further to ancient times as well, and to our early history regarding the Native Americans. Several tribes banded together to form collective security agreements during the "westward expansion" of this country. Good luck.

[Big Rad]

found in tribal africa and the sects in Europe. The majority of folks will examine the big picture and present rehashed views of the same thing. You will be presenting from a little know section of reality and one more prone to violent examples to prove and substantiate your platform.......Just think...ethnic cleansing.......and primtive scorched earth methodology.....:eek:

I got great grades for myself and others by working outside the box.....;) :D ;) :D

[Fly Wacko]

Always remember that a Nation State is only secure when all others are afraid to attack it.

Fw (BA,MA)

[ASK4Fish]

you could always compare NATO to the UN...they are good examples of the two types of "Global Security" nets...Nato being collective and the UN being about the balance of world power...i used this on my own U.S. Political Science and Government paper and recieved very good remarks...

[sand flea]

They're both very similar notions in their aims, in that they try to prevent the outbreak of war.

Collective security is all about a group of friends sticking together, agreeing that an attack on one is an attack on all. Think NATO or the UN (though the UN has little enforcement authority). It's a newer concept than balance of power, largely traced to the presidency of Woodrow Wilson and the aftermath of WWI.

Balance of power sort of leaves the whole thing up to market forces, so to speak. The idea there is that alliances remain more fluid, preventing any one actor from gaining the upper hand and becoming a hegemon.

If you're writing a pro/con paper, your prof will likely want to see you defending CS. If you need concrete examples from specific wars: BoP=WWI and WWII. CS=Desert Storm or the Falklands.

[GCsurfishingirl]

Thanks for the input! I emailed my professor an outline of my answer and here is how he responded.


"Brittany,
You are on the right track, but Balance of Power is really more Russia and
China linking up to stop the USA or what was true of alliances before WWI.
NATO and the UN are really more about collective security. You are right that
Collective Security was a failure with the League of Natons, because no one
felt directly threatened when China and Ethiopia were attacked, so they didn't
intervene even though treaty obligations should have made them. Great outlines, refer to the text if you need more substance.
Good Luck,
Will"


Thanks again! I might have to post these questions on here more often!:D :D

Britt

[uncdub13]

damn, i just finished sweatin through a 10 page single-spaced marketing paper for the last few days. all i had to do was ask yall!!;)

[SeaSalt]

damn, i just finished sweatin through a 10 page single-spaced marketing paper for the last few days. all i had to do was ask yall!!;)

no pictures or diagrams? man, i remember my papers back in the day. Lots of pictures and diagrams to make it long, that is if I can get away with it. :D

[Smoothbore54]

I suspect the truth plays a very minor role in this hypothetical question.

If you're bold enough to step past the PC rhetoric, you might point out to your professor that it is, and has always been Survival of the Fittest. :eek:

[Fly Wacko]

Make that survival of the strongest and meanest.

Attitude can win many battles...

FW

[Big Rad]

as you can see there are the very obvious, easily comparable, and cut and dried examples.

Just think...you could have used this......Balance of power thing.....

There was/is the example of the "Red Terror" which took place in Ethiopia. There was the Soviet backed regime which supported "The Butcher" who ousted Selassie. He was deposed by rebels, backed by guess who. His asylum in a neighboring company was then brokered by the US and Canada:D A gigantic game of risk/stratego with human pieces moved by "superpowers".....:D :) :eek:

I gurantee you that this would have been outside the box and some primo examples ..........

[sprtsracer]

And here you thought we were just a bunch of fishermen. :cool:

[GCsurfishingirl]

And here you thought we were just a bunch of fishermen. :cool:



No way - I knew better than that!!! That's why I posted it!

Britt:D

[outfishin28]

I have a final exam in Political Science: International Relations course. This is going to be one of the essays. Any ideas?

What are the main differences between an international system based on Balance of Power and a system based on collective security?

Thanks for any input!:D

Brittany


don't feel bad, my last exam is tomorrow morning at eight and it is on the Cultural business practices of Malasyia, my professor just e-mailed me the topic, she said she would give us just tonight for research, what a bitch.:mad: