Table of Contents

In international relations, BOP is defined as the distribution of equal powers among the nations. When the power is more or less equally distributed, then no state can eliminate others and no state feels threatened.

Meaning of Balance of Power

Balance of Power as described by some eminent personalities:

  • Sidney Fay describes it as just equilibrium so that none of the states become strong enough to exert its will or force on another state.
  • Inis Claude explains it as, “a system in which nations regulate their power relations without any interference by any big power.

The logic behind BOP theory is that there is no world government. And each state has to rely on its own resources and strategies to prevent being attacked from another. So, when a nation faces threat from a powerful country, it either mobilises its own resources or gets into alliance with other states, so as to balance power.

Nature of Balance of Power

Following are some points describing nature of Balance of Power:

  1. Temporary and Unstable – BOP is shot lived and countries constantly change their alliances and allegiances to serve their national interest.
  2. Requires active intervention – BOP is not a gift of nature. It is to be built and maintained with active intervention from political leaders.
  3. War tests the efficacy of BOP – BOP prevents the outbreak of war and if a war happens, BOP is broken.
  4. Not a device of peace – BOP happens because of the volatile international situation. It is no guarantee of peace.
  5. Big powers are the main players – Strong powers are the main players in creating and maintaining BOP, whereas small powers are either allied parties or spectators, or victims in the play.
  6. Requires multiple states – For BOP to happen, it requires multiple states to maintain power relations.
  7. National interest is the priority – It can be adopted by any state and national interest is the basis for deciding it.

Methods of Balance of Power

There are various methods of Balance of Power. Some are as follows:

  1. Compensation – It is mainly territorial compensation. A state gets divided or annexed if it is considered dangerous for the balance. Colonial powers used their methods to divide the territories amongst themselves if there was a threat to their colonial possessions and to balance among them. Prior to World War – I, European imperial powers divided and caved out new borders of small states, especially in the Eastern Europe and the Balkans.
  2. Alliances and Counter Alliances – A group of nations enter into alliance to counter the threat and secure their position, and enhance their power in international system. Usually, a formation of an alliance leads to counter alliance. During cold war, USA formed NATO, SEATO, CENTO and Soviet Union formed Warsaw pact.
  3. Intervention and Non – intervention - It’s a dictatorial method and carried out to change or maintain as desired situation in a country. USSR’s intervention in Afghanistan, American intervention in Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, Iraq are few examples.
  4. Divide and Rule – It’s a diverse measure to control and weaken the opponent. For example: China has been trying to breach or beak the unity among the ASEAN nations, so that they do not stand united against its aggressive moves in the South China Sea.
  5. Buffer Zones – These are neutral areas that separate two big powers which are generally adversaries. Each superpower then tries to exert influence on the buffer zone and take its control leading to struggle between the two big powers in the neutral zone.
  6. Armaments and Disarmaments – To secure themselves in the international system, countries compete in arms race by accumulating weapons for their defence. This can be dangerous to world peace and security, and can lead to war. Currently, disarmament has gained traction where countries are asked to reduce and gradually eliminate the use of weapons as defence and offense mechanism. Treaties like Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, asks for banning weapons.
  7. Balancer – This concept is used less frequently now, given the unipolarity or mutli-polarity syndrome in the world order. But earlier, Britain played the role of a balancer in Europe. A balancer plays a neutral role and is not allied to any of the contending party. It negotiates and mediates between the two, so as to keep balance.

Arguments in Favour of BOP

Arguments in favour of usefulness of BOP as a tool to maintain international peace and stability:

  1. BOP is a source of stability in the international system - Fredric Geniz remarked, “BOP has many a times prevented war. War breaks out only when any state assumes excessive power.” It is a device of active power management and peace.
  2. It suits the real nature of international relations – Balance of Power is in terms with the dynamic nature of International Relations. It aids in adjustments and readjustments, so as to prevent the outbreak of war.
  3. Ensures multiplicity of states – Multiple states participate to maintain the status quo and it often leads to bipolarity or multi-polarity in the international system.
  4. Guarantees freedom of small states – Small states enjoy the public good such as law and order, internal peace, security being offered in the balance of power system.
  5. BOP discourages war – Usually a counter alliance exists to counter the threat of hegemonic alliance. A strong opposition limits the excessive power of either party.
  6. BOP is a source of peace in international relations – It is a source of peace and world order. Between 1815 to 1914, it successfully prevented war.

Arguments against BOP

  1. BOP lot its relevance - In the 1990s as the world became unipolar. In military terms, the world remains unipolar and USA became the hegemony. No group of countries can balance US for a long period of time.
  2. BOP cannot ensure peace – During its golden days, BOP failed to prevent the domination of small states by the big states. It was not successful in preserving the security of small states. For e.g.: during cold war, small states like India and Pakistan were insecure.
  3. 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.
  4. Uncertainty of Balance of Power – Morgenthau criticises balance of power for its uncertainty. No nation can afford dependency on the system of 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.