How does collective security differ from the balance of power? By Katie Calvo

Hello everyone, my name is Katie calvo and today I

will be answering the question, how does collective security differ

from the balance of power?

I will first start off by breaking down this question

and defining each term to get a better understanding of

what is being asked here.

So I decided to flip the question around and first

establish what is the meaning of balance of power similarly

to the book, which first defines balance of power and

then goes into defining and explaining collective security.

So balance of power can be defined as the strategy

by which states counterbalance to ensure that no single state

dominates the system or an outcome that establishes a rough

equilibrium among states.

According to the realist perspective, the best states can do

then is to pursue and balance power in balancing power.

It does not matter what the rising States intentions are.

For example, many would say that the United States does

not seek to dominate the world.

However, european states, Russia or china may have a reason

for concern.

From the realist perspective, they cannot worry about America's intentions,

they have to worry about America's power.

The balance of power's main focus is on the formation

of alliances and it requires States to align against the

greatest power regardless of what that power is and ultimately

the greatest power is the state that can threaten another

state survival.

So it does not matter if that great power is

a former former ally or fellow democracy, the smaller state

must align with others against that power.

Hence States aligned not against the greatest threat determined by

a state institutions and values, but against the greatest power

determined by a state's capabilities, whatever its institutions and values.

This points us to the second part of the definition

of balance of power, which is or an outcome, that

establishes a rough equilibrium among states.

So as an outcome, the balance of power may involve

equilibrium or hegemony dominance of one state over others.

Defensive realists argue that states seek equilibrium or power balancing.

They see danger when one state moves away from the

equilibrium towards hegemony, dominating other states.

On the other hand, offensive realists argue that states seek

empire or hegemony because more power is always better than

less and other powers have no chance of defeating the

dominant power.

From this point of view, equilibrium is not stabilizing but

destabilizing. Now that we have a better understanding of what

balance of power means.

We can go towards the next part of the question,

which is collective security, which can be defined as the

establishment of common institutions and rules among states to settle

disputes peacefully and to enforce agreements by a preponderance, not

a balance of power.

Collective security collects military power together in a single global

institutions such as the United Nations, that provides peace and

security for all countries at the international level.

Just as national governments do for all cities at the

domestic level, this global institution sets up rules that states

must follow to resolve disagreements and then creates a preponderance

power appalling of the military power of all nations.

To punish aggressors who violate the rules.

Because the global institution monopolizes military power, it can reduce

military weaponry to a minimum arms control and disarmament play

a big role in the liberal perspective.

Just as the opposite dynamics of mutual armament and competitive

arms race play a key role in the realist perspective,

collective security becomes an alternative way to organize and discipline

the balance of power.

So the balance of power differs from the collective security

because first of all, it's a realist perspective.

Second of all states focus on aligning events the greatest

power, regardless of who that power is.

And lastly, balance of power establishes a rough equilibrium to

avoid another state from becoming ahead of money and dominating

other states.

On the other hand, collective Security collects military power in

a single global institution to provide peace and security for

all countries at an international level, this global institution sets

up rules that states must follow to resolve disagreements and

this creates preponderance of power or pulling of military power

for all nations.

I hope that my breakdown of this question and the

terms has been helpful to all of you and I

look forward to watching all your videos answering your questions

as well.

Take care

How does collective security differ from the balance of power? By Katie Calvo

Chapters

Audio TranscriptAuto-generated