Empire, Great Power Hegemony, Balance of Power, Concert of Power Essay Example

the international system. In this essay, I will discuss which system provides the best conditions for advancing peace, prosperity, and civilization.

The different concepts that are discussed are empire, great power hegemony, balance of power, and concerts of power. According to the British school theory of international relations, the study of history is crucial as it forms the foundation of the present. Empire is defined as a state that holds dominion over culturally and ethnically distinct areas and populations from the center of power. This definition implies a central nation with power over peripheral nations, leading to a disharmony of interest between them. Consequently, a dominant state governs subordinate states directly or indirectly. In Western history, the Athenians realized that an empire can only succeed if the ruling power carefully considers its method of rule, instead of merely exploiting and subjugating once free peoples. Conversely, the Spartans were unable to establish an empire due to their limited skill set focused solely on warfare. The Roman Empire expanded by either disguising control through fictitious alliances or gradually influencing Greek society in the East.

Despite the potential absence of violence, it is undeniable that Empire, as described by Eric Hobsbawm, entails the domination of the "backward" by the "advanced". The implementation of empire invariably carries political ramifications domestically, creating further obstacles in ensuring inclusive governance that includes impoverished citizens. Furthermore, prolonged warfare serves to strengthen both the immediate influence and moral jurisdiction of the Senate.

Despite its remarkable nature, the expansion of territory also brought about drawbacks such as the extension of Roman rule over Italy. In British imperial history, it is understood that domination encompasses more than just physical

or economic coercion; it also exists in the minds of both the dominated and those who dominate them. Dominance can be manifested through hierarchical structures based on assumptions of "higher" and "lower" races, which are separated by unchangeable physiological differences, or beliefs about different stages of human progress. Some peoples are considered to have achieved "civilization," while others are seen as being stuck in "barbarism" or "savagery," requiring outside intervention for salvation. Such assumptions reinforced the rulers' sense of superiority and their mission for change, while ideally convincing the ruled of their place within this system. For instance, when the British government attempted to impose a small revenue tariff in India in 1853-54 and later in 1890, the British textile industry ensured that an equivalent excise tax was imposed on the emerging Indian textile manufacturing sector. In terms of culture, India naturally rejected aspects of British thinking that openly assigned them to an inferior position.

While willingly embracing British politics and culture, they incorporated them into their own. They also integrated British political and cultural norms, often modifying them based on British teachings. On the other hand, in the East, the Chinese empire had its distinct system governed by the tribute system. This structured world facilitated foreign political, economic, and cultural interactions. Although Emperors ruled China, it operated under a dominant great power system.

Antonio Gramsci, an Italian (1891-1937) and a well-known Marxist thinker, coined the term "hegemony" to explain the dominance of one social class over others (e.g., bourgeois hegemony). This encompasses political and economic control, as well as the ability of the dominant class to impose its worldview on those it subordinates, leading them to

accept it as "common sense" and "natural". Both great power hegemony and empire share a similar notion of asserting universal legitimacy that is typically resistant to any challenges. According to Marc Mancall, a Harvard University Professor specializing in South Asian history and religions, instead of integrating societies influenced by or peripheral to China along with its main Confucian society and tradition, the Chinese tribute system interconnected Central, East, and Southeast Asian societies.

The author argues that the intermeshing of China's economy, politics, and culture was crucial for its stability. During the early T'ang period, several regions including Vietnam, Central Asia, Korea, and Japan acknowledged Chinese suzerainty through tribute. Additionally, Tibet, Japan, and the Silla kingdom in Korea adopted the T'ang dynasty as a model for their culture and government. The success of T'ang hegemony relied on its secure foundation, allowing for cultural and economic exchange without excessive taxation or purely governmental control. This led to increased wealth and cultural exchange among the people. The tribute system further consolidated T'ang political authority. However, the Ming dynasty introduced reforms to the tribute system, influenced by both domestic politics and foreign manipulation, ultimately leading to its decline.

The downfall of the Ming dynasty can be attributed to their decision to restrict foreign trade and contact, implementing regulations that limited trade to official tributary ships or licensed ones. This policy faced strong opposition from the Japanese, who saw it as China's attempt to monopolize profitable Chinese trade rather than a sign of loyalty. The decline of China's hegemonic system was due in part to the lack of belief in its authority and the superiority of its systems. Successful hegemony requires a

nation to demonstrate cultural, political, and military superiority over neighboring countries. In today's world, America is often seen as a hegemonic state; however, non-state networking powers have emerged, transforming international relations.

The 9/11 attack demonstrated the power to challenge a superpower and reduce it to reacting rather than controlling international security. This event proves that the hegemonic system is not the best approach for promoting peace, prosperity, and civilization. According to Kissinger, domestic order relies on dominant power while international order relies on balance of forces and equilibrium. The balance of power system aims to maintain international order by preventing any single state from achieving absolute control and dominance over others.

The exercise of power is always relative and never absolute. The balance of power policy, which aims to restrict the expansion of states, believes that there is greater security in maintaining a balance of power rather than relying solely on good intentions. To maintain this equilibrium, action must be taken against both powerful neighboring states and distant ones. During the 18th century, the balance of power system was utilized to prevent excessive warfare and guarantee that no state came out of conflict without preserving its prestige, territory, or diplomatic position. This policy played a crucial role in upholding peace and prosperity in Europe throughout the 19th century.

Germany's aspirations for territorial expansion and Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck's longing for increased status were hindered in Europe due to the absence of a balance of power. Each state possessed equal influence, preventing any single entity from obtaining dominance. To counter the potential takeover by a superpower, alliances among neighboring states were formed. Richard Nixon emphasized during the early stages

of the 1972 elections that long stretches of peace have historically been attained only when there exists a equilibrium in power.

In my opinion, it is preferable for the United States, Europe, Soviet Union, China, and Japan to possess equal and strong power in order to maintain a balance rather than being set against each other. Numerous individuals believe that the idea of a balance of power is the most efficient method for promoting peace, prosperity, and civilization compared to alternative systems. It also aids in establishing consensus on the international order excluding smaller nations that cannot be unilaterally toppled. Personally, I mostly concur that it is the most effective system for advancing peace, prosperity, and civilization.

The Cold War did not have the goal of promoting peace, prosperity, and civilization. Instead, it stemmed from the clash between communism and capitalism – two conflicting ideologies. It began after World War II at the Yalta Conference when Great Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and the United States divided Germany into four occupied zones. Additionally, Berlin was split into four sections because there was no agreement on German reunification. The conflict escalated when the USSR became unhappy with America's secret development of nuclear weapons and their subsequent use of an atomic bomb on Japan.

The Cold War, which lasted from the mid-1940s to the early 1990s, resulted from conflict, tension, and competition between the United States, the Soviet Union, and their allies. Dissatisfaction with Stalin's previous agreement on border treaties with Poland by Churchill, Truman, and Britain's Atlee contributed to this period of rivalry in military alliances, ideology, psychology, and espionage. This rivalry also extended to advancements in military technology

such as the space race and costly defense spending. Additionally, there was a significant arms race involving both conventional and nuclear weapons alongside various proxy wars. The balance of power system failed to promote peace as it triggered an escalating arms race whenever one side felt superior to the other. Moreover, this system did not automatically stabilize power dynamics.

The rise of the world war was caused by difficulties nations faced in responding credibly to an aggressor state under a balancing system. Although the balancing system aimed to restrain conflict, it did not have full control over the aggressive policies of major nations. The Concert of Power, according to Amitav Acharya, a professor who supported ASEAN's informal style of multilateral diplomacy until the economic crisis in 1997, is based on four principles: reliance on multilateral consultations among great powers, the requirement for great power approval for territorial changes, commitment to protect "essential" members of the states system, and recognition that all great powers should have equal status without humiliation. In the 19th century, this system maintained peace in Europe as the great powers agreed to act together in maintaining the balance of power known as the European arrangement.

The text highlights the need for agreement on territorial status quo, defining specific spheres of influence, and conducting regular meetings among diplomats of all great powers to make necessary adjustments. This system, similar to the balance of power concept, aims to maintain a balance of powers and effectively manage conflicts between states. It also strives to resolve major disputes among the great powers themselves and among third parties which may potentially involve the great powers. Benjamin Miller argues that

the concert represents a middle ground between the idealistic collective security approach and extreme forms of balance of power. The Concert of Europe, functioning from 1815 to 1822, allowed Napoleonic France to join Britain, Russia, Austria, and Prussia, leading to a period of direction in domestic and foreign affairs. However, it gradually declined and eventually collapsed after the Crimean War of 1854 due to each member's focus on their own national matters and territories.

After 1825, the concert of power no longer controlled national policies but did settle disputes and facilitate compromise. Between 1854 and 1871, there were five wars of international significance, but it was only after the first war that the concert had a significant influence in creating conditions for peace. From 1871 to 1890, the concert only functioned once as a multilateral instrument when it met as the Congress of Berlin in 1878. Otherwise, alliances and alignments of European states increasingly replaced the Concert. The rise of nationalism among European countries led to the end of the Concert of Power in Europe and its inability to prevent Germany and Italy's unification and subsequent war. However, going back to an older time period, trade between China, Kushan, Persia, and Rome existed from 90 A.D. to at least 166 A.D.

One possible interpretation of the concept of a concert of power is that it represents a peaceful and extended trade between nations, allowing for the protection and development of mutual interests. This collective alignment can bring legitimacy to the international order, particularly when nations share common interests. In Asia, there has been discussion of a "Concert of Asia" as an alternative to relying solely on multilateral

diplomacy. This idea is inspired by the Concert of Europe, which was in effect from 1815 to 1854.

Conceived after the fall of Napoleon, the concert was a coercive diplomatic-security institution in which Britain, Austria, Russia, Prussia, and later France managed the European order in a manner consistent with their perceived interests in upholding the internal stability and territorial integrity of the continental state system. In recent years, the concert has attracted the attention of numerous observers.

Professor Amitav Acharya has recently proposed the concert model for contemporary Asia. Writing in the Autumn 1999 edition of Survival, published by the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London, he noted that the recent occurrence of bilateral summitry between the region’s four “great powers”: the United States, China, Japan, and Russia, could, like the Concert of Europe, be formalized into a system that is able to contain rivalry, maintain order, and preserve the peace.

ConclusionIn my point of view, considering which system provides the best condition for advancing peace, prosperity and civilization has no austere verdict. It depends on many factors such as time, situation ideological and political background, geography and so on. For the empire system, both Europe and Asia experience succession of empires.

The Roman Empire in the west and Chinese empires in the east had long lives but never experienced sustained peace, order, or intactness. Ultimately, the Roman Empire collapsed due to pressure from barbarians, and China was conquered multiple times by barbarians. In the case of the great power hegemony system, it appears that this system succeeds when the hegemonic state is more culturally, politically, and militarily advanced than its neighbors. According to James N. Rosenau's book

"Turbulence in World Politics," a professor at The Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University, a multi-centric world has been introduced. This multi-centric world consists of diverse "sovereignty-free" actors who continually face an "autonomy" dilemma that differs significantly from the "security" dilemma faced by states.

Currently, political activities are not exclusive to a particular group.