2005
DOI: 10.1162/0162288054894634
| View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: The development of the concept of soft balancing is an attempt to stretch balance of power theory to encompass an international system in which traditional counterbalancing among the major powers is absent. There are two fundamental faws, however, in current treatments of soft balancing: the failure to consider alternative explanations for state actions that have the effect of constraining the United States, and the absence of empirical analysis of the phenomenon. A comparison of soft balancing and four altern… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
65
0
2

Year Published

2009
2009
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
4
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 221 publications
(67 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
65
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…4 See also Layne (2006), Pape (2005), Paul (2004), and Paul (2005). For a critique of soft balancing see Brooks and Wohlforth (2005), Lieber and Alexander (2005), and Pape (2005). 5 See also Schweller (1994).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…4 See also Layne (2006), Pape (2005), Paul (2004), and Paul (2005). For a critique of soft balancing see Brooks and Wohlforth (2005), Lieber and Alexander (2005), and Pape (2005). 5 See also Schweller (1994).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, some of the behaviors originate as responses to domestic politics. 12 This article takes care to consider the critiques and alternative explanations offered by Brooks and Wohlforth. To begin, it reviews the literature on soft balancing with an eye to spelling out the crucial elements of a distinct concept of soft balancing that avoids risks of "conceptual stretching."…”
Section: The Debate Over Soft Balancingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Second, many EU countries, including the UK, believe that their 'special relationship' with the USA is more advantageous than collective action (Shapiro and Witney 2009). Despite occasional talk of 'soft balancing', most realists acknowledge that European states will continue to prefer to bandwagon with the US hegemon (Brooks and Wohlforth 2005). The diversity of strategic cultures, notably between pacifist and interventionist states, and between nuclear powers and neutral states, will also continue to hinder EU collective action inside the alliance (Meyer 2006).…”
Section: Scenario 3: Nato and European Security And Defense Policy (Ementioning
confidence: 99%