lOMoARcPSD|38655626
Balance of Power: Meaning, Nature, Methods and Relevance
What is Balance of Power?
It is indeed very difficult to define Balance of Power. It has been defined it
differently by different scholars.
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
Hans Morgenthau explained, “The aspiration for power on the part of several nations, each trying
either to maintain or overthrow the status quo, leads of necessity, to a configuration that is called the
balance of power and to policies that aim at preserving it.
Kenneth Waltz declared, “As nature abhors a vacuum, so international politics
abhors unbalanced power.”
lOMoARcPSD|38655626
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:
lOMoARcPSD|38655626
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
lOMoARcPSD|38655626
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
lOMoARcPSD|38655626
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.
lOMoARcPSD|38655626
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 over-
ambitious state. After the Triple Alliance of 1882, a rival alliance—The 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) USSR’s 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
lOMoARcPSD|38655626
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
lOMoARcPSD|38655626
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 party—the 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.
Balance of Power: Arguments in Favour:
(1) A Source of Stability in International Relations:
lOMoARcPSD|38655626
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
lOMoARcPSD|38655626
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 stability—one 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.
lOMoARcPSD|38655626
(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:
lOMoARcPSD|38655626
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
lOMoARcPSD|38655626
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 devices- Propaganda 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 power-politics
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
lOMoARcPSD|38655626
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.
TYPES OF BALANCE OF POWER
There are three types of balance of power
lOMoARcPSD|38655626
1. Simple balance of power vs. Complex balance of power- A simple balance of
power is one in which the balance is aimed at ensuring the safety of the world's
nationalities. On the other hand, in the aftermath of two militant nations' warring
positions, the complex balance of power focuses on the preservation of peace.
2. Local balance of power, regional balance of power, and global balance of power-
The balance of power can be local, regional, or global, depending on the area of
operation. It is considered local if the balance of power seeks to checkmate only one
power or state that appears to threaten the freedom of other neighbouring states.
Regional balance of power is defined as a balance of power that aims to maintain
balance in a specific geographical or political region. If the balance of power affects
more than one region, it is referred to as a global balance of power.
3. Rigid and flexible balances of power- A rigid balance of power exists when two
groups of states are unwilling to deviate from their respective positions. During the
Cold War, the rigid stand taken by the United States of America as the Western Bloc's
leader and the Soviet Union as the Eastern Bloc's leader is an example of this type of
power balance. A flexible balance of power, on the other hand, is visible when member
states change their alignment and seek new alliances as a result of changing
circumstances.
Merits
1. Balance of power creates stability in IP. In the absence of any concrete
international law, balance of power has maintained peace for a long time by
preventing war among nations..By providing equilibrium, it discouraged nations
from going to war.
2. Balance of power has preserved the independence of states especially the
smaller states that are unable to do so on their own. 3. Since balance of power
involves many states, it ensures greater participation of nations in international
politics.
Demerits
1. Balance of power does not necessarily bring peace. On the other hand, it is
accused of encouraging wars because nations resorted to war in the name of
preserving a balance of power.
2. Balance of power wrongly assumes that every nation acts in a manner solely
Downloaded by Brinda Sharma ([email protected])
lOMoARcPSD|38655626
to enhance its power while neglecting other aspects of a nation’s interests that
maybe cultural and economic. No doubt, power is one such goals but not the
sole one.
3. Balance of power presupposes the existence of a number of equally powerful
states for its operation, but in actual practice, no two states are equal. Moreover
the power of a nation keeps changing and it becomes uncertain to evaluate the
power of nations.
4. Balance of power is based on an assumption that disputes and conflicts could
be settled through the use of force against each other. It neglected peaceful
methods in this regard.
5. Balance of power has also been criticised on grounds that instead of
preserving peace it has further resulted in serious power struggle among the
states.
