There are two ideas on the balance of power as a system that deserve attention. First, the balance
of power is a “fallback system” of international relations; in a multistate system, unless analternate system is established for the management of power, it is natural for states to take care of their own security. Put differently, “the balance system is the natural international system in the sense that it does not have to be contrived. In the absence of a different system, states fall back on this one” (Claude, 1990: 35). Secondly, “the contemporary balance of power system is by no means a mere duplicate of systems which have existed in the past” (Claude, 1962: 281). The classical balance system of the earlier centuries has been modified by two major developments in this century; first, the establishment of general international organizations and, second, by institutionalized alliances such as NATO. Then, the system that we have had for the management of power since the establishment of the League of Nations may be called a “modified balance of power system.”

The precise objectives of balance of power system have been a controversy among the scholars of international relations. Objectives of (or benefits of, or the results to be expected from) a successfully operating balance of power system have been argued to be either peace, order, stability, moderation, preserving the independence of states, preserving the integrity of the multistate system, or some combination of these.

Some scholars, however, have thought that not an equilibrium but a preponderance of power would achieve statesmen’s objectives in the system.