Soft balancing in the Americas: Latin American opposition to U.S. intervention, 1898–1936

In the aftermath of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, scholars of international relations debated how to best characterize the rising tide of global opposition. The concept of “soft balancing” emerged as an influential, though contested, explanation of a new phenomenon in a unipolar world: states seeking to constrain the ability of the United States to deploy military force by using multinational organizations, international law, and coalition building. Soft balancing can also be observed in regional unipolar systems. Multinational archival research reveals how Argentina, Mexico, and other Latin American countries responded to expanding U.S. power and military assertiveness in the early twentieth century through coordinated diplomatic maneuvering that provides a strong example of soft balancing. Examination of this earlier case makes an empirical contribution to the emerging soft-balancing literature and suggests that soft balancing need not lead to hard balancing or open conflict.

Business

This main argument of the chapter is that the explanation of the slow pace of business action requires a socio-cultural theory that transcends the narrow premises of dominant corporate social responsibility (CRS) and business management approaches. I assert that only a critical political economy approach which captures the complex interplay between cultural ideas, power, politics, and economic interests can provide basis for explaining the prospects and limits of corporate climate governance. My argument, which draws from similar existing works (Levy and Egan 2003, Levy and Newell 2005, Okereke et al. 2009) is focused on carbon-intensive multinational companies (MNCs) whose activities are generally considered crucial in shaping societal response to climate change (McKibben 2012).