Introduction
An idea which in a historical sense refers to a distribution of power between states so that no single state or alliance has an overwhelming or preponderant amount of power.
Is it that easy to define?
There has been much historical debate as to what the term means in practice. We need to begin by considering power as the capacity of an individual or an organisation to achieve its objectives. It may take many forms: political, economic and military. In a basic historical definition the balance of power is linked to the nation-state.
A problem is that the balance of power can often actually just mean the distribution of power at a given time. For example as enshrined in the Treaty of Vienna in 1815. This is slightly different to there actually being a genuine balance. But what it does indicate is that the balance of power is a shifting phenomenon. This is quite clear post cold war with the USA left as the only world superpower whilst other powers such as the EU and the United Nations attempt to create a more stable international system.
There have been many ways outlined to classify the balance of power. Dougherty and Pfaltzgraff (1990) see four key tenets:
- Nation-states are the key actors in an international system composed of independent sovereign states.
- Domestic and foreign policy are clearly separated areas of national policy
- International politics is a struggle for power in an anarchic international environment
- States have different capabilities to achieve goals and defend interests
A few 19th definitions of the Balance of Power
Fenelon in 1835 defined it as: “action by the state to keep its neighbours from becoming too strong… because the aggrandisement of one nation beyond a certain limit changes the general system of all the other neighbours… attention to the maintenance of a kind of equality and equilibrium between neighbouring states.”
In 1886 Stubbs stated: “The Balance of Power, however it be defined, that is, whatever the powers were between which it was necessary to maintain such equilibrium, that the weaker should not be crushed by the union of the stronger, is the principle which gives unity to the political plot of modern European history.”
So where does this get us?
What one can see from this is the significance of the idea of a balance of power for international politics. Further one can also see the possible problems that can occur when an attempt is made to challenge that balance, for example World War I or World War II. One also needs to bear in mind the problems that can be caused by an artificial balance of power such as that prior to World War 2. A balance does not mean no change at all, rather it reflects an ordered change which is consented to by the major and lesser powers at a particular time. But in reality in often means lesser powers accepting the decisions made by greater powers, for example the Munich Agreement which saw Adolf Hitler and Germany being given Czechoslovakia. It is often just a means of expressing power politics.