Dezyderat czy warunek? Formułowanie teoretycznych podstaw „równowagi sił” czasów nowożytnych
MetadataShow full item record
International relations including the principle of balance of power had not been a subject of considerations among the modern time thinkers. That was due to several reasons from among one seems to be the most important: understanding of a state as politically friendless entity surrounded by enemies. a state which had to have at his disposal all the means necessary to defend his sovereignty. In the opinion of that time statesman and philosophers a state could fulfill their role only acting according to the principle of "Reasons of State", understood as the high test state interest warranting security and prosperity of their citizens. It seemed to be a reliable approach during religion and succession wars period in the modern time. However brought into international relations, "reason of state" implicated leading of an aggressive and invasive politic which, regardless of reasons of the others, reduced the mutual state relations to a simple bilateral affaires. At this stage any need to establish a supranational organization supposed to regulate the multilateral relations had been felt. It could be considered as a major omission in the world of permanent and still increasing conflicts, the more so as the authority of Church, a symbol of Christian unity in the Middle Age who used to arbitrate international litigation, was impaired. One of the direct implication of this political approach was a primary status of "reasons of state" face to balance of power, the attitude spread among the modem times European powers which in their foreign policy considered it only as a one of the means to realize a state's objectives and not as a potential regulator of international relation as it was the case of Great Britain in the turn of 17th century. That understanding of the balance of power persisted till Vienna Congress where five European experience of French Revolution and Napoleonic wars persuaded the politicians that the international relations were an independent field of activity and could not be that moment only from the point of view of a single state interests. Till that moment only the utopians were ready to think that the international scene could be potentially a domain of correct interstate relations. They were convicted that the peace is only possible when a supranational organization would be able to regulate the relations between nations. However a pragmatic politicians defending their state's interests were rather interested in solving a specific legal matters with rarely more then regional impact, the principle of balance of forces was then too general to attract their interest and improve the understanding of international law. Thus a possible emancipation of the balance of power from the supremacy of "reasons of state" seemed very unlike for the most of the modern thinkers, from M. Machiavelli to J. J. Rousseau and E. Kant, Even E. de Vatlel, follower of Ch. Wolff who first defined the term of balance of power close to our understanding, could not overcome considering the international relations as more than bilateral affaire.