Hedley Bull’s paradox of the balance of power: a philosophical inquiry

Abstract

This essay examines the complex relationship between international law and the balance of power which Hedley Bull claims is paradoxical. Bull argues that the balance of power is an ‘essential condition’ of international law and that the actions required to preserve the balance ‘often involve’ violation of international law. It is shown that what seems to be a paradox is not a paradox but essentially a normative problem related to the difficulties in regulating power within international society, and that the perceived paradox does more to obscure than to clarify the fundamental normative problem to be dealt with.

The poverty of exceptionalism in international theory

“…But the fact that institutions sometimes are able to circumscribe power politics in ways detrimental to the upholding of law and order occasionally call for exceptional actions on behalf of the great powers. There ought to be no question that international rules might on some occasions be overruled (Hjorth, 2007). However, according to ‘Schmittian realism’, there would be no moral arguments to support such actions.…”

“…However, the problem of discriminating between legitimate and illegitimate interventions can be handled once the focus is placed on the reasons for intervention and non-intervention (Vincent, 1974: 388–389). When focusing on reasons, the fear of moral anarchy, that is, the situation where interventions are at the same time permitted and prohibited, will not appear as problematic and can be dealt with (Hjorth, 2007). This is precisely what is attempted by authors who strive to develop the just war tradition so as to involve reasons for humanitarian intervention.…”