Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T01:16:00.624Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Balance of Power in International Law: A History of an Idea

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Extract

The existence of a significant relationship between the concept of the balance of power and international law would be regarded as improbable by most modern international lawyers. They would think of the balance as a wholly obsolete conception and, in any case, as a part of international policy, or worse, part of cynical Realpolitik rather than of law. Earlier generations of jurists, however, did see international equilibrium either as an integral part of the system of rules of the law of nations or at least as a necessary precondition to the existence of such a law. Such a view of the interrelationship was never unanimous; indeed, there were in the past many legal observers who saw the balance of power as an obstacle to the development of an international legal order based on something more moral than force alone. This article is devoted to a study of the relationships between those two concepts as seen by the publicists who created the corpus of international law, principally during the period from the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 to the outbreak of World War I in 1914. It is not a study of the balance of power at large—a topic to which volumes might be dedicated—but only of that idea’s relationship with law.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For histories of the balance of power idea in general, see the bibliography in Guuck, E., Europe’s Classical Balance of Power (1955)Google Scholar. Perhaps the most extensive single review of the legal writers is in Stieglitz, A., De l’Equilibre Politique, de Légitimisme et du Principe des Nationalités (1893)Google Scholar. A briefer lawyer’s review appears in Nys, , La Théorie de l’Equilibre Européen , 25 Rev. Droit Int’l et Légis. Comp. 34 (Ire, sér., 1893)Google Scholar.

2 On Westphalia, see Gross, , The Peace of Westphalia 1648-1948 , 42 AJIL 20, 27 (1948)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On Utrecht see the text of the Treaty of Friendship between Great Britain and Spain, 13 July 1713, 28 Consol. TS 295, 325-26, and the references to balance and equilibrium in the renunciations by the French and Spanish Bourbons, 1 Major Peace Treaties in Modern History, 1648-1967, at 183, 187, 195, 196, 197, 200 (F. Israel ed. 1967). On the post-Napoleonic settlement, see in general E. Gulick, supra note 1. Balance of power language appears in the first Peace of Paris (separate and secret art. I ) , 63 Consol. TS 191. It also appears in various of the alliances against Napoleon. 63 Consol. TS 83, 84, 91 (Chaumont, 1 March 1814); 62 Consol. TS 416, 420 (Teplitz, 3 Oct. 1813); 62 Consol. TS 307 (Reichenbach, 16 June 1813). For other early treaty references, see K. G. Guenther, 1 Europäisches Völkerrecht in Friedenszeiten 346-57 (1787).

3 See Anderson, , Eighteenth Century Theories of the Balance of Power in Hatton, R. & Anderson, M., Studies in Diplomatic History 183, 191 (1970)Google Scholar, citing a 1685 tract published in Cologne; Jessup, P., A Modern Law of Nations 150 (1948)Google Scholar: “For political treaties and for the invocation of political changes in the balance of power, the doctrine [rebus sic stantibus] is pernicious”; McNair, A., The Law of Treaties 682 (1961)Google Scholar:

[British Governments] do not recognize the doctrine that changes in the balance of power, or in the relative strength and influence of the contracting parties, or in other circumstances of this nature, can be advanced either as a ground of the discharge of a treaty ipso facto, or as entitling one party to terminate or modify a treaty without the consent of the other.

4 See p. 579 infra.

5 Claude, I., Power and International Relations 12-39 (1962)Google Scholar. See also Pollard, , The Balance of Power , 2 J. Brit. Int’l Aff. 51, 55 (1923)CrossRefGoogle Scholar:

[I]f we turn to the Oxford English Dictionary, we find that “balance” itself is a word whose various meanings are collected under twenty different heads. The word “of has sixty-three similar headings, and “power” eighteen. I leave it to mathematicians to calculate how many different meanings can by permutation and combination be extracted from the three words together. . . .

6 See, e.g., Thompson, , Toynbee and the Theory of International Politics , 71 Pol. Sci. Q. 365 (1956) and pp. 572-73 Google Scholar infra.

7 On the transition from medieval to post-medieval international law and relations, see generally G. Mattingly, Renaissance Diplomacy (1971); W. Schiffer, The Legal Community of Mankind 16-29 (1954).

8 Vagts, A., The Balance of Power: Growth of an Idea , 1 World Pol. 82, 89-92 (1948)Google Scholar.

9 G. Matttngly, supra note 7.

10 Guicciardini, F., History of Italy from the Year 1492 to the Year 1532, at 89-87 (Grayson, C. trans. 1964)Google Scholar, quoted in Nys, supra note 1, at 36-37. The English lawyer Phillimore refers to the balance as “first worked out by the scheming Italian politicians of the middle ages.” Phillimore, R., 1 Commentaries on International Law 481 (2d ed. 1871)Google Scholar.

11 For an analysis of the Spanish school, see Nussbaum, A., Concise History of the Law of Nations 72-74, 79-93 (rev. ed. 1954)Google Scholar. Some writers of the Spanish school did give some credit to heathen princes, emphasizing the judgment of the prince in determining a “just cause” and recognizing a good faith error as justification. Brownile, I., International Law and the Use of Force by States 9-13 (1963)Google Scholar.

12 Gentili, A., De Iure Belli Libri Tres 38 (Carnegie Classics of International Law, trans. Rolfe, J. C. 1933)Google Scholar. See comments in I. Brownlie, supra note 11, at 11-12 (1963).

13 A. Gentili, supra note 12, at 65-66.

14 Quoted in Nys, supra note 1, at 44.

15 In his Considerations touching a War with Spain, Bacon gave as one of the reasons justifying the quarrel (in 1624), that a just fear is a good cause for a just, preventive war. He refers with approval to the “good days of Italy” in which princes kept an “eye on one another, that none of them should overtop,” and at another point recalls that the watchfulness of monarchs would make them react to any taking of territory so as to “set the balance of Europe upright again.” 2 Works of Francis Bacon 199, 205 (Montague, B. ed. 1859)Google Scholar.

16 Grottos, H., 2 De Jure Belli ac Pacis Libri Tres 18 (Carnegie Classics of International Law, trans. Kelsey, F. W. 1925)Google Scholar. See also id. at 173-75. Quite similar views were expressed by Samuel, Pufendorf, 2 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo 1295-96 (Carnegie Classics of International Law, ed. C. & Oldfather, W., 1934)Google Scholar, although he grants that in the presence of “just cause” it might be wise to take into account “an unusual increase in a neighbor’s power.”

17 Gross, supra note 2, at 20.

18 See note 2 supra.

19 The balance of power phrase in the statute was first included in 1726 (13 Geo. 1, at 287). We last find it in 30 Vict. c. 13 (1867). It is omitted in 31 Vict. c. 14 (1868) and thereafter.

20 For references to the literature of this epoch, see Kaebeh, E., Die Idee des Europäischen Gleichgewichts in Der Publizistichen Literatur Vom 16. bis zur Mitte des 18. Jahrhunderts (1907)Google Scholar.

21 Gundling, N. H., Ausführlicher Discours über Das Natur-und Völcker-Recht 112-13 (1734)Google Scholar. An apologist for the next king of Prussia, Frederick the Great, was Justi, who argued that the balance of power represented envy and formed no stable basis for peace. Die Chimäre des Gleichgewichts von Europa (1758). See E. Kaeber, supra note 20, at 114-24.

22 Wolff, C., 2 Jus Gentium Methodo Scientifica Pertractatum 330 (Carnegie Classics of International Law, trans. Drake, J. H. 1934)Google Scholar.

23 Id. at 332.

24 Id. at 335.

25 Vattel, E., 3 Le Droit des Gens 246, 248-49, 251 (Carnegie Classics of International Law, trans. Fenwick, G. 1916)Google Scholar.

26 Id. at 249.

27 Grund-Sätze, des Jetzt üblichen Europäischen Völker-Rechts In Friedenszeiten 58-60 (1763)Google Scholar; for an appraisal of Moser, see A. Nussbaum, supra note 11, at 175-79.

28 Martens, G. F., 1 The Law of Nations 123-27 (Cobbett, W. trans. 1829)Google Scholar.

29 For a review of writers advocating international solutions transcending the balance of power, see 2 Lange, C. & Scheu, A., Histoire de l’Internationalisme (1954)Google Scholar.

30 Kant, I., The Natural Principle of Political Order considered in connection with the Idea of a Universal Cosmopolitical History (1784)Google Scholar and The Principle of Progress considered in connection with the Relation of Theory to Practice in International Law (1793), in Eternal Peace and Other International Essays 14-15, 65 (Hastie, W. trans. 1914)Google Scholar.

31 Id. at 65.

32 K. G. Guenther, supra note 2, at Vol. 1, ch. V. The problem of judging the danger to the balance is discussed at p. 331.

33 See note 2 supra.

34 See, e.g., E. Gulick, supra note 1, and von Elbe, Die Wiederherstellung der Gleichgewichtsordnung in Europa durch den Wiener Kongress, 4 Z. für Ausländisches Öffentliches Recht und Völkerhecht 226 (1934).

35 Gentz, F., Fragments aus der neusten Geschichte des Politischen Gleichgewichts in Europa (1806)Google Scholar.

36 H. Gagern, Critik des Voelkerrechts, ch. X (1840).

37 Rotteck, K., 9 Allgemeine Geschichte vom Anfang der Histohischen Kenntniss bis auf unsere Zeiten 429 (14th ed. 1840)Google Scholar.

38 Id. at 183.

39 Oppenheim, H. B., System des Völkerrechts 27-33, 42, 272-76 (1845)Google Scholar.

40 Klueber, J., Droit des Gens Moderne de l’Europe, §§6, 42 (Ott, M. ed., 2d ed. 1874)Google Scholar (footnotes omitted).

41 Kaltenborn, K., Kritik des Völkerrechts 193 (1847)Google Scholar. One might add to this list August Wilhelm Heffter, quite frequently cited as a supporter of balance of power thinking. Heffter, a teacher of criminal law and legal history, saw his Das europäische Völkerrecht der Gegenwart go through many German editions from 1844 on, and into several foreign languages.

42 Lange, , Histoire de la Doctrine Pacifique , 13 Recueil des Cours 175, 222 (1926 III)Google Scholar: “the world catastrophe of 1914 was at bottom only the logical result of the policy of equilibrium.”

43 For a discussion of the relation of Austinian jurisprudence to international law, see H. Hart, The Concept of Law, ch. X (1961).

44 Quoted in King, P., Fear of Power 99 (1967)Google Scholar.

45 Handbook of Political Fallacies 166 (1824, Larrabee, E. ed. 1952)Google Scholar.

46 Bentham’s Plan for a Universal and Perpetual Peace was found among his papers and is assumed to have been written between 1786 and 1789. An edition by C. Colombos appeared in 1927.

47 R. Phillimore, supra note 10, at 481.

48 Id. at 489. See also pp. 490.-505.

49 Bernard, M., Four Lectures on Subjects Connected With Diplomacy 97-99 (1868)Google Scholar (footnote omitted).

50 Oppenheim, L., 1 International Law 193 (2d ed. 1912)Google Scholar. (See also p. 80.) He adds the qualification that the balance is a principle of politics and not of law. The comment vanishes from later editions, as is noted in Mohgenthau, H., Politics Among Nations 266 n.3 (4th ed. 1967)Google Scholar. It is echoed in the Balance of Power article by Walter, Alison Philips in 3 Encyclopaedia Britannica 235 (11th ed. 1910)Google Scholar:

An equilibrium between the various powers which form the family of nations is, in fact—as Professor L. Oppenheim (Internat. Law i 73) justly points out— essential to the existence of any international law. In the absence of any central authority, the only sanction behind the code of rules established by custom or defined in treaties, known as “international law” is the capacity of the powers to hold each other in check. Were this to fail, nothing could prevent any state sufficiently powerful from ignoring the law and acting solely according to its convenience and its interests.

51 Bluntschli, J., Das Moderne Völkerrecht der Civilisirten Staten, §§ 95-100 (2d ed. 1872)Google Scholar; Bluntschli, J. & Brater, K., 4 Deutsches Staatswörterbuch, Art. Gleichgewicht 350, 352 (1859)Google Scholar.

52 Strauch, H., Zur Interventions-Lehre 10-13 (1879)Google Scholar.

53 Treitschke, H., 2 Politics 570, 588, 593 (Dugdale, B. & DeBille, T. trans., 1916)Google Scholar. The author adds that the balance “became a doctrine, as mechanical as it was the fashion of that age to make it, which is often represented by the image of Europe as a great pair of scales. . . . The whole idea is crude, and as thoroughly unpolitical as the notion of an eternal peace.”

54 Ortolan, E., Des Moyens D’acquérir Domaine Internationale (1851)Google Scholar. Note that the 1849 edition, an academic dissertation, did not contain the balance of power material. See also his article, Balance of Power, in 1 Cyclopedia of Political Science, Political Economy and of the Political History of the United States 187 (Lalor, J. J. ed. 1886)Google Scholar.

55 Donnadieu, L., Essai sur la Théorie d’Équilebre, at xix-xx (1900)Google Scholar. Triepel, H., Die Hegemonie: Ein Buch von Fuehrenden Staaten 213 n.38 (1938)Google Scholar, regards Donnadieu as arguing “very energetically” for the legal nature of the principle.

56 L. Donnadieu, supra note 55, at 9-10.

57 Id. at 7.

58 Id. at 237-38.

59 Pillet, A., Recherches sur les droits Fondamentaux des États 52 (1899)Google Scholar.

60 E. Ortolan, supra note 54, at 133.

61 Dupuis, C., Le Principe de L’Equilibre 92-93 (1909)Google Scholar.

62 Id. at 104.

63 Martens, F., 1 Traité de Droit International 143-44, 163-65 (Leo, A. trans. 1883)Google Scholar. See also Novicow, J., La Politique Internationale 338-39 (1886)Google Scholar; Danevski, P., Sistemi Politicheskogo Ravnoviesha I Legitimizma (1882)Google Scholar.

64 A. Stieglitz, De l’Equilibre Politique, supra note 1. The treatment of Poland appears in 1 id. at 243, that of the Middle East at 254-422.

65 Fiore, P., 1 Nouveau Droit International Public 400 (2d ed. Antoine, 1885)Google Scholar. The French translator, driven by the nationalism of his time, replies to Fiore’s remark that balance of power politics hurt small countries, e.g., Italy through the loss of Nice and Savoy, by saying that “the Italians have bad grace, after, by our intervention on their behalf in 1859, we made possible their unity,” to make this remark. Id. at 397 n.1.

66 Carnazza Amari, G., 1 Traité de Droit International Public en temps de Paix, §11, ch. IV, at 436 (Montanari trans. 1880)Google Scholar.

67 Id. at 441-47, 453.

68 In his Elements of International Law (Carnegie Classics of International Law, ed. Wilson, G. 1936)Google Scholar, Wheaton was critical of forcible interference based on “a supposed contingent danger to the safety of others . . . or the disturbance of what has been called the balance of power” (p. 76). Such questions, he found, “belong rather to the science of politics than of public law.” Reviewing examples of interferences designed to restore the balance, Wheaton concluded that they “can hardly be referred to any fixed and definite principle of international law, or furnish a general rule fit to be observed in other apparently analogous cases” (p. 78).

69 E.g., Lawrence, T. J., Principles of International Law 130 (3d ed. 1900)Google Scholar, crediting President Monroe with keeping balance of power politics away from this hemisphere.

70 Davis, G. B., The Elements of International Law 110 n.1 (3d ed. 1908)Google Scholar.

For an outsider’s view, see Khaus, H., Die Monhoedoktrin in Ihren Beziehuncen zur Amerikanischen Diplomatie und zum Völkerhecht 384-88 (1913)Google Scholar.

71 Calvo, C., 1 Le Droit International Théorique et Pratique, §$185, 204 (5th ed. 1896)Google Scholar. While condemning foreign interventions in Latin America, including that in Mexico—partly justified by France in balance of power terms—Calvo recognized that some 19th-century interventions in Europe had been salutary.

72 Moreno Quintana, L., 1 Tratado de Derecho Internacional 204-22 (1963)Google Scholar.

73 Smith, F. E., International Law 100 (5th ed. Phillipson 1918)Google Scholar (footnote omitted).

74 For the views of Woodrow Wilson, who as President called for “not a balance of power, but a community of power,” see E. H. Buehrig, Woodrow Wilson and The balance of Power 260 (1955); for other American publicists, see Spencer, , The Organization of International Force , 9 AJIL 45, 63-66 (1915)Google Scholar; Brown, , The Theory of Independence and Equality of States , 9 AJIL 305, 333-34 (1915)Google Scholar. See generally, I. Claude, supra note 5, at 80-87.

75 Kirchenheim, , Politisches Gleichgewicht , Deutsche Rev., Dec. 1915, at 308 Google Scholar.

76 94 LNTS 57 et seq.

77 Fenwick, C., International Law 31 (1924)Google Scholar.

78 Fauchille, P., 1 Traité de Droit International Public 423, 426 (8th ed. 1922)Google Scholar.

79 Thus von Elbe, supra note 34, contrasts the Vienna settlement favorably with that of Versailles.

80 Freytag-loringhoven, A., Deutschlands Aussenpolitik 180, 219 (3d ed. 1939)Google Scholar. Freytag-Loringhoven was a professor of law, Reichstag member and Prussian Staatsrat.

81 Vietsch, E., Das Europäische Gleichgewicht 9 (1942)Google Scholar.

82 Wright, , International Law and the Balance of Power , 37 AJIL 97, 102-03 (1943)Google Scholar.

83 Bulmerincq, A., Praxis, Theorie und Codification des Völkerrechts 48-49 (1874)Google Scholar.

84 One who has not abandoned the term is Prof. Hans Morgenthau. He continues also to make the point that balance of power is a prerequisite of international law. Politics Among Nations 266 (4th ed. 1967). Another is I. Claude, supra note 5, at 278-85.

85 Kaplan, M. & Katzenbach, N., The Political Foundations of International Law 30-41 (1961)Google Scholar. Among the areas of international law in which they find the influence of the balance of power are the law of neutrality (pp. 218-19), recognition (pp. 114-19), and sovereign immunity (p. 191).