http://www.yourarticlelibrary.

co
m/international-politics/balanceof-power-meaning-naturemethods-and-relevance/48482/

Balance of Power: Meaning,

Nature, Methods and Relevance
by Dinesh International Politics

Advertisements:

Whenever the term Balance of Power is used without qualification, it refers to

an actual state of affairs in which power is distributed among nations with
approximately equality Hans. J. Morgenthau.
Unmanaged struggle for power can be a source of war in international
relations.
Such a realization stands universally recognized and it has led to the
development of certain devices of power management. One such device has
been Balance of Power.

In fact, Balance of Power has been traditionally an important fact of

international relations. It has been guiding the decisions and policies of
nations. Since the 17th century Several scholars regard it as the best guide
for securing the goals of national interest without getting involved in war. Upto
the first half of twentieth century, Balance of Power was regarded as being the
only known modern device of international management of power.
Balance of Power is a nearly fundamental law of politics as it is possible to
find. Martin Wright
Palmer and Perkins also hold that balance of power principle has been a
basic principle of international relations.

What is Balance of Power?

It is indeed very difficult to define Balance of Power. It has been defined it
differently by different scholars.
The trouble with Balance of Power is not that it has no meaning, but that it
has too many meanings. Innis L. Claude Jr.
Some writers define it in terms of equilibrium where as others in terms of
preponderance or disequilibrium. Some define it as a principle of action
while others define it as a policy or system.
Some Popular Definitions of Balance of Power:
(1) Balance of Power is such a just equilibrium in power among the
members of the family of nations as will prevent any one of them from
becoming sufficiently strong to enforce its will upon others. Sidney B. Fay

(2) Balance of Power is an equilibrium or a certain amount of stability in

power relations that under favourable conditions is produced by an alliance of
states or by other devices. George Schwarzenberger
(3) Balance of Power is such a system in which some nations regulate their
power relations without any interference by any big power. As such it is a
decentralized system in which power and policies remain in the hands of
constituting units. Inis Claude
(4) Balance of Power means the maintenance of such a just equilibrium
between the members of the family of nations as should prevent any one of
them from becoming sufficiently strong to impose its will upon the rest. Lord
Castlereagh
(5) Whenever the term Balance of Power is used without qualification, it
refers to an actual state of affairs in which power is distributed among nations
with approximately equality. Hans. J. Morgenthau
All these definitions clearly reflect that Balance of Power is defined differently
by different scholars. It is very difficult to give or select a uniformly acceptable
definition. This difficultly makes it essential for us to study the features of
Balance of Power.

Nature of Balance of Power

Palmer and Perkins describe several major features of Balance of Power
(BOP):

1. Some Sort of Equilibrium in Power Relations:

The term Balance of Power suggests equilibrium which is subject to constant,

ceaseless change. In short, though it stands for equilibrium, it also involves
some disequilibrium. That is why scholars define it as a just equilibriums or
some sort of equilibrium in power relations.

2. Temporary and Unstable:

In practice a balance of power always proves to be temporary and unstable. A
particular balance of power survives only for a short time.

3. To be Actively Achieved:
The balance of power has to be achieved by the active intervention of men. It
is not a gift of God. States cannot afford to wait until it happens. They have
to secure it through their efforts.

4. Favours Status quo:

Balance of power favours status quo in power positions of major powers. It
seeks to maintain a balance in their power relations. However, in order to be
effective, a foreign policy of balance of power must be changing and dynamic.

5. The Test of BOP is War:

A real balance of power seldom exists. The only test of a balance is war and
when war breaks out the balance comes to an end. War is a situation which
balance of power seeks to prevent and when it breaks out, balance power
comes to an end.

6. Not a Device of Peace:

Balance of Power is not a primary device of peace because it admits war as a
means for maintaining balance.

7. Big Powers as Actors of BOP:

In a balance of power system, the big states or powerful states are the
players. The small states or less powerful states are either spectators or the
victims of the game.

8. Multiplicity of States as an Essential Condition:

Balance of Power system operates when there are present a number of major
powers, each of which is determined to maintain a particular balance or
equilibrium in their power relations.

9. National Interest is its Basis:

Balance of Power is a policy that can be adopted by any state. The real basis
that leads to this policy is national interest in a given environment.
The Golden Age of BOP:
The period of 1815-1914 was the golden age of Balance of Power. During this
period, it was regarded as a nearly fundamental law of international relations.
It broke down due the outbreak of First World War in 1914. It was tried to be
unsuccessfully revived during 1919- 1939. However, the attempt failed and
the world had to bear the Second World War.
The Second World War (1939-45) produced several structural changes in the
international system as well as in the balance of power system. Under the
impact of these changes, the Balance of Power system lost much of its
relevance as a device of power management. It is now lost much of its
relevance in international relations.

Underlying Principal Assumptions and Postulates of

Balance of Power:

The Balance of Power rests upon several fundamental postulates and

assumptions.

(a) Five Principal Assumptions:

(1) Firstly, Balance of Power assumes that states are determined to protect
their vital rights and interests by all means, including war.
(2) Secondly, vital interests of the states are threatened.
(3) The relative power position of states can be measured with a degree of
accuracy.
(4) Balance of Power assumes that balance will either deter the threatening
state from launching an attack or permit the victim to avoid defeat if an attack
should occur.
(5) The statesmen can, and they do make foreign policy decisions intelligently
on basis of power considerations.

(b) Major Postulates of Balance of Power:

(1) A nation following balance of power is prepared to change its alliances or
treaties if the circumstances may so demand.
(2) When a nation finds that a particular preponderance of power is increasing
menacingly, it gets prepared to go to war for maintaining the balance.
(3) Balance of Power postulates that no nation is to be totally eliminated in
war. War is aimed only at the weakening of power of the violator of the
balance. After war a new balance of power system is achieved. The basic
principle of Balance of Power is that excessive power anywhere in the system

is a threat to the existence of others and that the most effective antidote to
power is power.
From the above discussion of the features, assumptions, postulates and
purposes of Balance of Power, it becomes clear that Balance of power is a
device of power management which is used by several major powers for
maintaining a balance in their power relations.
In this process they maintain a sort of equilibrium in their power relations and
do not permit any state to violate the Balance. In case any state tries to
disturb or violate the balance of power, the other states individually or
collectively or is a group can take action, including war, for weakening the
power of the violator as well as for restoring the balance.

Methods of Balance of Power:

Balance of Power is not automatic; it has to be secured by the states following
this policy. In fact, there are several methods by which states try to secure and
maintain balance of power. Balance of Power is a game which is played by
actors with the help of several devices.
Major Methods of Balance of Power:

I. Compensation:
It is also known as territorial compensation. It usually entails the annexation or
division of the territory of the state whose power is considered dangerous for
the balance. In the 17th and 18th centuries this device was regularly used for
maintaining a balance of power which used to get disturbed by the territorial
acquisitions of any nation.

For examples the three partitions of Poland in 1772, 1793 and 1795 were
based upon the principle of compensation. Austria, Prussia and Russia
agreed to divide Polish territory in such a way that the distribution of power
among them would be approximately the same.
In the latter part of the 19th century, and after each of the two world wars of
the 20th century, territorial compensation was used as a device for weakening
the powers of the states whose actions had led to a violation of the balance. It
was applied by the colonial powers for justifying their actions aimed at
maintaining their imperial possessions.

II. Alliances and Counter Alliances:

Alliance-making are regarded as a principal method of balance of power.
Alliance is a device by which a combination of nations creates a favourable
balance of power by entering into military or security pacts aimed at
augmenting their own strength vis-a-vis the power of their opponents.
However, an alliance among a group of nations, almost always, leads to the
establishment of a counter alliance by the opponents. History is full of
examples of such alliances and counter alliances.
Whenever any nation threatened the balance of Europe, other states formed
alliances against it and were usually able to curb the power of the overambitious state. After the Triple Alliance of 1882, a rival allianceThe Triple
Entente, was slowly formed through bilateral agreements over a period of 17
years (1891-1907).
In post-1945 period, alliances like NATO, SEATO, Warsaw Pact emerged as
devices of Balance of Power. The first two were established by the USA and

the third one was organised by the erstwhile USSR for strengthening their
respective power positions in the era of cold war.

III. Intervention and Non-intervention:

Intervention is a dictatorial interference in the internal affairs of another
state/states with a view to change or maintain a particular desired situation
which is considered to be harmful or useful to the competing opponents.
Some times during a war between two states no attempt is made by other
states to intervene. This is done for making the two warring states weaker.
As such intervention and non-intervention are used as devices of Balance of
Power. Mostly it is used by a major power for regaining an old ally or for
picking up a new ally or for imposing a desired situation on other states.
British intervention in Greece, the US intervention is Grenada, Nicaragua,
Cuba, Korea, Vietnam, and (Erstwhile) USSRs interventions in Poland,
Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Afghanistan can be quoted as examples of
interventions carried out by the big powers.

IV. Divide and Rule:

The policy of divide and rule has also been a method of balance of power. It
has been a time honored policy of weakening the opponents. It is resorted to
be all such nations who try to make or keep their competitors weak by keeping
them divided or by dividing them.
The French policy towards Germany and the British policy towards the
European continent can be cited as the outstanding examples. The rich and
powerful states now do not refrain from using divide and rule for controlling
the policies of the new states of Asia, Africa and Latin America.

V. Buffer States or Zones:

Another method of balance of power is to set up a buffer state between two
rivals or opponents. Buffers, observes V.V. Dyke, are areas which are weak,
which possess considerable strategic importance to two or more strong
powers, Buffer is a small state created or maintained as a separating state i.e.
as a buffer state for keeping two competing states physically separate each
stronger power then tries to bring the buffer within its sphere of influence but
regards it as important, if not vital, that no other strong power be permitted to
do so.
The major function of a buffer is to keep the two powerful nations apart and
thus minimise the chances of clash and hence to help the maintenance of
balance.

VI. Armaments and Disarmaments:

All nations, particularly very powerful nations, place great emphasis on
armaments as the means for maintaining or securing a favourable position in
power relations in the world. It is also used as a means to keep away a
possible aggressor or enemy.
However, armament race between two competitors or opponents can lead to a
highly dangerous situation which cans accidently cause a war. In this way
armament race can act as a danger to world peace and security.
Consequently, now-a-days, Disarmaments and Arms Control are regarded as
better devices for maintaining and strengthening world peace and security. A
comprehensive disarmament plan/exercise involving nuclear disarmament
can go a long way in strengthening the balance (peace) that exists in
international relations.

VII. The Holder of the Balance or the Balancer:

The system of balance of power may consist of two scales plus a third
element holder of the balance or the balancer. The balancer is a nation or a
group of nations, which remains aloof from the policies of the two rivals or
opponents and plays the role of, the laughing third party.
It poses temptations to both parties to the balance, and each contending party
tries to win over the support of the laughing third partythe balancer.
Normally, the balancer remains away from both the parties but if any party to
the balance becomes unduly weak resulting into a threat to the balance, the
balancer joins it and helps the restoration of balance.
After that the balancer again becomes aloof. Traditionally Britain used to play
the role of a balancer in Europe. However in the era cold war no state could
perform the role of a balancer in international relations.
The rise of unipolarity after 1991, involving the presence of only one super
power has now further reduced the chances for the emergence of a balancer
in international relations. These are the seven major methods or devices of
Balance of Power. These have been traditionally used by nations pursuing the
policy of a balance of power.

Critical Evaluation of Balance of Power:

Balance of Power has been strongly praised as well as severely criticized.
Some Scholars observe:
Balance of Power is nearly a fundamental law of politics as is possible to
find, Martin Wright

Balance of Power is a basic principle of international relations. Palmer and

Perkins
As against this several others like Richard Cobden criticize it as unreal,
inadequate and uncertain system. They hold that Balance of Power admits
war in the have balance and makes the nations power hungry. The supporters
of Balance of Power advance a number of arguments in favour and give
example of the 1815-1914 period of history to prove the effectiveness of
balance of power as a device of power management.

Balance of Power: Arguments in Favour:

(1) A Source of Stability in International Relations:
Balance of Power provides stability to international relations. It is a device of
effective power management and peace. During the past 400 years it was
successful, at most of the times, in preserving peace.
Balance of Power has many a times prevented war. War breaks out only
when any state assumes excessive power. Fredric Geniz
(2) It suits the real nature of International Relations:
Balance of Power is in tune with the dynamic nature of international relations.
It helps continuous adjustments and readjustments in relations without any
grave risk of war among states.
(3) Ensures Multiplicity of States:
Since Balance of Power postulates the presence of a number of major
international actors (7 or 8 even more), it ensures multiplicity of nations and
their active participation in preserving balance in international relations.

(4) Guarantees the Freedom of Small States:

Balance of Power ensures the preservation of small and weak states. Its rule
that no nation is to be completely eliminated, favors the continued existence of
all states. Each state feels secure about its security in the balance of power
system.
(5) Balance of Power Discourages War:
Balance of Power discourages war because each state knows that any
attempt to become unduly powerful shall invoke an action, even war, by all
other states and hence, it keeps its ambitions under control.
(6) A Source of Peace in International Relations:
Finally, Balance of Power is always a source of peace and order in
international relations. It supports status quo in relations. Between 1815-1914
it successfully prevented war.

Balance of Power: Arguments Against:

(1) Balance of Power cannot ensure Peace:
Balance of Power does not necessarily bring peace. Even during its golden
days, it failed to prevent the domination of small states by the big states. It
was not successful in preserving the security of small states. In fact, in the
past, wars have been fought in the name of preservation of Balance of Power.
The three periods of stabilityone starting from 1648, the second from 1815
and the third from Treaty of Versailles (1918), were preceded by continuous
warfare and by the wholesale elimination of small states starting with the
destruction of Poland, and followed by a large number of isolated acts of a
similar nature. The tragedy is that all these acts were accomplished in the

name of balance of power. Balance of Power cannot really secure peace and
freedom of the nations.
(2) States are not Static Units:
Each state always tries to secure more and more national power. It does not
really belong to any balance of power system. Another point that must be
raised about the balance of power is that nations are not static units.
They increase their power through military aggressions, seizure of territory
and alliances. They can change their power from within by improving social
organisation, by industrializing and by mobilizing internal resources. So the
traditional mechanism of the balance of power is not the only cause
responsible for an increase of power.
(3) Preponderance of One State in the world can also secure Peace:
A preponderance of power in the hands of one state or group of states does
not necessarily threaten world peace or the independence of any nation. The
unipolarism resulting from the collapse of one super power (USSR) and the
continued presence of the other super power (USA) has not in any way
disturbed international peace and security or power balance. In contemporary
times the preponderance of one state is a reality and yet there is peace and
peaceful coexistence.
(4) Narrow Basis:
The concept of Balance of Power is based upon a narrow view of international
relations. It regards power-relations as the whole of international relations. It
gives near total importance to preservation of self and national-interest as the
motives of all state actions. It fails to give proper weight age to other ends

social, economic, cultural and moral, that provide strong motives to

international relations.
(5) A Mechanical view of Peace:
Balance of Power wrongly takes a mechanistic view of world peace as a
situation of balance or equilibrium in power relations. Peace does not depend
upon balance in power relations. It really depends upon international
consciousness and morality.
(6) Equality of a number of States is a Myth:
Balance of Power presupposes the existence of a number of equally powerful
states. In practice no two states have or can have equal power. It involves the
conception of equilibrium which is in fact disequilibrium and is subject to
continuous change.
(7) Nations are not free to break Alliances:
The theory of the balance of power can also be criticized on the ground that it
wrongly assumes that nations are free to make or break alliances as and
when they may desire for the main consideration of balance of power.
(8) Uncertainty of Balance of Power:
Morgenthau criticizes Balance of Power for its uncertainty. Balance of Power
is uncertain because its operation depends upon an evaluation of power of
various nations. In practice it is not possible to have an absolutely correct
evaluation of power of a state.
(9) Balance of Power is Unreal:
Since the evaluation of the national power of a nation is always uncertain, no
nation can afford dependence upon the balance of power. Each nation always

keeps a secret about its power. Since all nations keep safe margins, the
balance of power at a particular time is always unreal.
(10) Inadequacy of Balance of Power:
Balance of Power in itself is an inadequate device of international peace and
security. It even accepts war as a means for maintaining a balance. Fear
cannot be a real basis of international relations.
(11) Balance of Power has now lost its Relevance:
Finally, the critics argue that now Balance of Power it is not a relevant
principle of international relations. The big changes in the international system
as well as in the balance of power system have made it almost an obsolete
system. On the basis of above arguments, the critics of Balance of Power
advocate its total rejection.
Undoubtedly, in contemporary times the balance of power has lost its utility
and much of its importance due to changes in the international system.
However it cannot be denied that it continues to be an important factor in the
regional power relations among the states of a region. It is used by nations for
assessing the nature of power relations at the regional level.

Role and Relevance of Balance of Power in

International Relations:
As long as the nation-state system is the prevailing pattern of international
society, balance of power policies will be followed in practice, and in all
probability, they will continue to operate, even if effective supranational
groupings on a regional or world level are formed Palmer and Perkins.

In contemporary times, Balance of Power has lost much of its utility due to
several changes in the international relations. The following changes in the
international relations as well as in the traditional balance of power system
have adversely affected the role and relevance of Balance of Power as a
device of power management in International politics.
(1) End of the era of European Domination and the dawn of era of Global
Politics:
The structure of international politics has undergone a radical change from the
classical period. From a narrow European dominated international system it
has come to be a truly global system in which Asian, African and Latin
American states enjoy a new and added importance. Today Europe is no
longer the centre of world politics. European politics constitutes only one small
segment of international politics. This changes has considerably reduced the
operation ability of balance of power.
(2) Changes in Psychological Environment:
The characteristic moral and intellectual consensus that characterised
European nations during the classical period of Balance of Power (1815-1914)
has ceased to exist. Each major power now seeks to protect its interests as
universal interests and hence tries to impose these upon others. The use of
propaganda and ideology as instruments of national policy has increased
manifold. This development has further checked the importance of balance of
power.
(3) Rise of Propaganda, Psychological and Political Warfare as
instruments of National Policy:

Previously, diplomacy and war used to be the chief means of conducting

foreign policies. The decline of diplomacy, rise of new diplomacy and the new
fear of war as a means, have brought into operation two new devicesPropaganda and Political warfare, as the instruments of national policy. These
have in turn reduced the popularity and role of balance of power principle in
international relations.
(4) Emergence of Ideology as a Factor of International Relations:
The new importance of ideology and other less tangible but, nevertheless,
important elements of national power have further created unfavorable
conditions for the operation of balance of power.
(5) Reduction in the Number of Major Powers:
The most obvious structural change that has seriously limited the role of
balance of power has been the numerical reduction of the players of powerpolitics game. For its operation, Balance of Power needs the presence of a
number of major power actors. The presence of two superpowers during
1945-91 discouraged the operation of balance of power and now there is
present only one super power in the world.
(6) The Bipolarity of Cold War period and the new era of Unipolarity:
The bipolarity (presence of two super powers and their blocs) that emerged in
the cold war period reduced the flexibility of the international system. It
reduced the chances of balance of power whose working requires the
existence of flexibility in power relations, alliances and treaties. Presently
unipolarity characterizes the international system.
(7) The End of the Era of Colonialism and Imperialism:

Another big change in the structure of balance of power has been the
disappearance of imperialism and colonialism: It has limited the scope for the
exercise of power by the European powers, who in the past always worked as
the key players of the principle Balance of Power.
(8) Disappearance of the Balancer:
The rise of two super powers the disappearance of the holder of balance or
the balancer considerably reduced the chances of balance of power politics
during 1945-91. Traditionally, Britain used to play such a role in Europe. The
sharp and big decline in the power of Britain in the post-war period compelled
it to abandon its role of balancer between the two super powers. No other
nation or even a group of nations was successful in acting as a balancer
between the USA and the (erstwhile) USSR. The absence of a balancer
further reduced the role of balance of power in post-war international relations.
(9) Change of Concept of War into Total War:
The emergence of nuclear weapons and other revolutionary developments in
war technology has produced a big in change the nature of war. The
replacement of war by Total War has made war the most dreaded situation in
international relations. This has forced nations to reject war as an instrument
of balance of power which rests upon the assumption that nations can even
go to war for preserving or restoring the balance.
(10) The Emergence of Global Actors:
The rise of the United Nations and several other international and regional
actors in international relations has given a new looked to the international
relations of our times. The presence of the UN has made a big change in the
structure and functioning of the international system. With a provision for

collective security of international peace and security, the United Nations

constitutes a better source of peace. Due to all these changes in international
relations, Balance of Power has come to suffer a big decline. It has definitely
lost much of its relevance.
In contemporary times, Balance of Power has ceased to be a fully relevant
and credible principle of international relations. However, it still retains a
presence in international relations, more particularly, in the sphere of regional
relations among states.
Some scholars observe:
The idea of balance of power is still the central theoretical concept in
international relation. Snyder
The Structural changes in international politics of post-war period have not
greatly affected the principle of Balance of Power. It still holds good in respect
of regional relations among nations. Arnold Wolfers
Although Balance of Power has lost must of its relevance as a global level
device of power management, it is still being used by the states of a region to
maintain a balance in their power positions.
Several scholars admit its continued presence:
As long as the nation-state system is the prevailing pattern of international
society, balance of power policies will be followed in practice, and in all
probability, they will continue to operate, even if effective supranational
groupings on a regional or world level are formed. Palmer and Perkins

Indeed the concept of Balance of Power is bound to continue so long as the

struggle for power among nations continues to characterize international
relations. Even the staunch critics of Balance of Power like, Martin Wright and
Friendrich admit that Balance of Power is still a basic element in international
relations. Balance of power is neither totally obsolete nor dead. Its role,
however, has changed from a global device to a regional device of power
management.