This research discusses the logic of the balance of power in the field of International Relations. It focuses on the structural-systemic version of the theory because of its centrality to the realist research program within the field. The paper examines the conventional wisdom, which argues that balances of power, in a self-help system, will form regardless of the state’s motives (or intentions); It emerges as an unintended recurring consequence of the interaction of units in anarchy, which primarily seeks superior, not an equal power. This logic assumes that hegemony does not form (or fail) in a multi-state system, because its threats (actual or perceived) to the system instill fear and provoke counterbalancing behavior by other states. The paper contrasts this logic with another one that does not accept that balancing is the normal state of international systems and believes that this argument reflects an ignorance of non-western history. In contrast, it argues in favor of expansionist policies and hegemony in the international system. It assumes a succession of "hegemonies", not "balances", because hierarchy systems, such as anarchy, are solid and continuous structures. The paper concludes that balancing has a strong logic, but it is contested among the realist scholars in International Relations discipline.