Lucrecia GarcÃa Iommi
ISA 2005Annual Conference
2
China, and for some scholars Japan and also Russia (Layne, 1993, Mearsheimer, 1990, Art
1991 and Art 1998/99, Waltz 2000) – would seek to balance the hegemon. But this
perspective has lost some leverage since the late’90s, opening the discussion to the
uniqueness of this shift
On the other hand, many other scholars, and practitioners as well, see the present
configuration and US power are unique events that challenge previous experience and
theories. In particular they see an unprecedented concentration of power, in a country
geographically isolated from great powers (and great conflicts) that has exercised its power
in a fairly benign way so far, so the benefits of balancing US power appear unclear while
the costs are extraordinary (Wohlforth 1999, Joffe in Ikenberry 2002)
In any case, the present absence of challenges to American power and the stability of Cold
War arrangements overtly defy basic predictions of Realism, inviting speculation over the
future of the international system. The necessary starting point to think about the future,
though, is the past, and the fundamental questions it posed.
Still at the heart of the discipline, lies the question of the causes of war and the conditions
for peace. And, related to these, the questions that motivate this paper: Is it just a transition
period or are there inherent stabilizing factors to the current unipolar configuration? Have
the potential challengers actually engaged in balancing behavior against the US? Are all
potential challengers equally engaged in balancing? If not, what explains differences in the
balancing behavior towards the US?
The instability or stability of the current unipolar configuration affects the possibilities of
peace and war in the international system, as shifts in distribution of power have expressed
Convention