The end of the Cold War and the advent of the post–9/11 era altered the strategic context of international relations irrevocably. In the wake of these changes, it is useful to reexamine our traditional theoretical understandings of the system in order to determine the direction international relations scholarship should take. While theory should evolve independently from the empirical realities of world politics, periodically taking stock of where we are and where we should go is extremely helpful. This book is a welcome collection that takes on that task.

The book is divided into three segments. An introduction by T. V. Paul establishes the need to revaluate balance of power theory, given contemporary challenges in the international system. He describes the different strategies of balancing behavior and outlines the research questions for the volume. The first segment of the book, devoted to theories of balance of power and major powers, opens with a chapter by Jack S. Levy that summarizes balance of power theory, its predictions, and scope. Levy astutely argues that balance of power theory is Eurocentric and that it focuses too much on great power politics. The second chapter, by Douglas Lemke, persuasively argues that power transition theory provides a better explanation for contemporary politics than does balance of power theory, in the form of offensive realism. The final chapter in the first segment of the book, by Mark R. Brawley, addresses the political economy of balance of power theory. Brawley innovatively identifies the international economic policies associated with the strategies of external balancing, internal balancing, bandwagoning, buck passing, and appeasement. This chapter also calls the utility of balance of power theory into question. Brawley finds that, by and large, major powers in the system are not responding to American superiority and do not fear American dominance (p. 97), although this could change in time.

The second segment of the book addresses new security challenges and the balance of power. It begins with Christopher Layne's chapter about the war on terrorism and its meaning regarding the balance of power. Layne argues that the 9/11 attacks “changed virtually nothing” (p. 103). This chapter is more what one might expect from a book entitled Balance of Power. It is a forceful and cogently argued defense of offensive realism in the contemporary context. The chapter could not be more at odds with most of the other chapters in the book, especially with the one by Edward Rhodes, which comes later in the same segment. Rhodes argues very nearly the opposite of Layne, that in the contemporary era, “states do not face a logical imperative to balance each other's military forces” (p. 150). This is true, according to Rhodes, in light of the changing nature and construction of warfare, as witnessed by the 9/11 attacks, and the American campaign against terrorism (p. 151). James J. Wirtz's contribution to this segment of the book addresses the “the tendency of war to erupt during confrontations between weak and strong states—wars that strong states should strive to avoid and weak states cannot realistically expect to win” (p. 128). Wirtz appropriately notes that these conflicts offer “significant anomalies” to balance of power theory (p. 146).

The third segment addresses “regional subsystems and balance of power.” Robert J. Art writes about Europe, William C. Wohlforth about Central Eurasia, Benjamin Miller about the Middle East, Robert S. Ross about East Asia, and Raju G. C. Thomas about South Asia, and Michael Barletta and Harold Trinkunas address Latin America. Most of these authors seek departure from balance of power ideas—Art describes Europe mixing its strategy via hedging; Wohlforth finds that “the conclusion most charitable to balance of power theory is that it does not apply to this group of states at this time” (p. 235); Barletta and Trinkunas suggest a theory of “balance of identity,” in which regime type replaces power as the most important driving force of state strategy; while the Ross and Thomas contributions are more ambivalent about the balance of power applications to their respective regions. Only the Miller piece in this segment is an unapologetic application of balance of power theory. A concluding chapter to the volume by the three editors succinctly summarizes the contributors' arguments and draws them back to the theme of whither balance of power theory in the contemporary context.

The most significant weaknesses of the book are the inconsistencies in the application of balance of power theory and in the contradictory interpretation of events past and present (e.g., China's current status and behavior are represented in five different and conflicting ways). Since most of the contributors find balance of power theory to be problematic in the first place, the title and topic of the book is misleading. Most of the authors critiqued balance of power theory in order to promote their own competing views of international politics. This arrangement would have worked better had there been a consistent theme or theory that was advanced in balance of power theory's place, or had the book been entitled Future Directions for International Relations Research. The book is disappointing in regard to its lack of gender diversity as well.

Despite these shortcomings, most of the chapters are thoughtful, insightful, and interesting. The book offers a wealth of analytical gems and fruitful avenues for future international relations scholarship. The pairing of the theoretical enterprise with the subsystem regional applications is innovative, and the concluding chapter to the volume does an admirable job of tying together some of the disparate themes. The book is a valuable addition to the literature and worth examining for advanced international relations courses, provided the reader understands that most of the contributions are contra-realism.