Which of the following thinkers argued that peace prevails once one state establishes primacy. The hegemonic state lacks the need to fight and other states lack the ability?

Question

Accepted Answer

The correct option is 1:

[Detailed explanation of why it is correct — include conceptual, or contextual depth.]

The correct option is **A. F. K. Organski**. The statement presented in the question perfectly encapsulates the core argument of Organski’s **Power Transition Theory (PTT)**. Organski, writing in the 1950s and 60s, challenged the traditional balance-of-power theory, arguing that world peace is best maintained not through equilibrium, but through the existence of a single, dominant state—a **hegemon**—that holds primacy in the international system. In PTT, the international system is structured hierarchically, with a dominant state at the top. When this dominant state is overwhelmingly powerful, it has the capacity to enforce the rules and norms of the international order (the "hegemonic system") and, crucially, lacks the *need* to fight to secure its interests. Simultaneously, other states in the system, especially secondary powers, lack the necessary *ability* or capability to challenge the hegemon successfully, thus preventing them from initiating large-scale conflict. This power disparity leads to a period of hegemonic stability or peace. War, according to Organski, is most likely when a rising challenger nears the power of the dominant state, creating a dangerous period of transition rather than a period of stable primacy.

The incorrect option is 2:

[Detailed explanation of why it is incorrect — include conceptual, or contextual depth.]

Robert Jervis is a highly influential neorealist scholar known primarily for his work on the **Security Dilemma** and the role of perception, misperception, and psychological factors in international relations. While Jervis is concerned with the conditions under which peace and stability can be achieved, his focus is generally on how the interactions between states, particularly issues of offense-defense balance and information asymmetry, lead to conflict or cooperation. He did not propose that peace is sustained simply by the overwhelming primacy of one state (hegemon) lacking the need to fight, but rather explored how states react to the anarchical nature of the system, often leading to unintended spirals of hostility even when they desire peace. His framework centers on the interaction effects of the security dilemma, not the sheer stabilizing force of a single dominant power.

The incorrect option is 3:

[Detailed explanation of why it is incorrect — include conceptual, or contextual depth.]

Joseph Joffe is a contemporary political analyst and scholar of international security and European politics, frequently focusing on US foreign policy, international order, and the future of great power relations. His work, such as *The Limited Partnership: Europe, the United States and the Burdens of Alliance*, is often concerned with the complexities and friction within alliances and the burdens of American leadership. While Joffe writes extensively about the global power structure and the role of the United States, he is not credited with originating the fundamental theoretical premise that peace is secured by a hegemon lacking the need to fight and secondary states lacking the ability to challenge, as this specific theory belongs to the established tradition of Power Transition Theory.

The incorrect option is 4:

[Detailed explanation of why it is incorrect — include conceptual, or contextual depth.]

John Mearsheimer is a leading proponent of **Offensive Realism**, a structural theory of international relations. Mearsheimer argues that states are constantly compelled to maximize their relative power—their goal is not simply security, but *hegemony*, as regional hegemony is the best way to ensure survival. However, Mearsheimer’s view of the international system is fundamentally pessimistic: even under a potential hegemon, stability is fragile, and states will always engage in intense security competition driven by fear and uncertainty. While his theory features the concept of a hegemon (specifically, a *regional* hegemon), his primary argument is that the desire to maximize relative power makes conflict and war likely. This contradicts the premise of the question, which posits that primacy leads to a durable peace where the hegemon *lacks the need to fight* and other states *lack the ability* to challenge, a view more consistent with Organski’s PTT framework.