Patterns of BALANCE of POWER after world-war II
,
Balance Of Power:
The balance of power is considered one of the core principles of
international relations.
Although the theory doesn’t have one, exact meaning, it is best
understood as referring to a state of international order where power
is balanced in such a way that nations avoid aggression out of fear of
forceful retaliation.
Balance of power has meant three things, namely,
Equality or equilibrium of power among states resulting in balance.

A distribution of power in which some states are stronger than
 These colonies became center of politics during cold war.
others, and
Any distribution of power among states.
 who in the past had been objects of the policies of
“The alliances Francis concluded with Henry VIII and the Turks to
prevent Charles V of Ha Hapsburg from stabilizing and expanding his
empire are the first modern example on a grand scale of the balance
of power.” [Morgenthau]
Factors/patterns causing Balance of Power:
After the war the balance of power became inflexible for
the first time since 1648.
1. The reduction in the number of powers:
In the 19th century there were five major powers in the
world:
Great Britain, France, Prussia, Russia and Austria.
All were European.
And after WW-II three powers rose to super power status:
US, USSR, UK.
The greater the number of super powers in International
politics BoP is flexible consequently.
2. Bipolar world order:
The multi-polar system before war(US, UK, USSR, Germany
and Japan) become bipolar (US & USSR)
Decisions of other countries to join one side or the other
were not capable of transforming victory into defeat; only
the position of the two really mattered.
3. The creation of the two-bloc system
Between 1949-1989, neither the United States nor the
Soviet Union had to fear the defection of an ally as nations
did during World War II.
West Germany and Czechoslovakia or implacable allies like
Charles de Gaulle of France was toward the United States.
Nicolae Ceausescu was toward the Soviet Union.
The US, with its allies, formed NATO, SEATO CENTO, etc.
and the USSR countered them with the Warsaw Pact.
4. Great Britain’s role as balancer of power disappeared
As late as World War II, the neutrality of Great Britain or its
decision to join Germany, Japan and Italy instead of the
United States and the Soviet Union might have made the
difference between victory or defeat.
But UK neutrality during cold war would not have affected
outcome of war b/w US and USSR.
5. The destruction of colonialism
After the unification of Germany and Italy, there was little
room in Europe for expansion and the European
powers turned to Africa and Asia for expansion,
establishing colonies and spheres of influence
By the late 1960s and the early 1970s, one billion people in
the former colonial nations plus one billion Chinese
other nations entered the world scene as
participants.
The superpowers feared that such a development could
shift the balance of power away from themselves
and end the bipolar system.
To counter this threat USSR invaded Afghanistan in 1979.
6. Role of Pakistan to help US counter USSR communism:
Pakistan along with KSA and UAE supported talibans to
emerge against communist USSR that eventually
lead to withdrawal of USSR troops.
7. US GWOT with invasions in Afghanistan and Iraq.
8. Rise of china since 2005-2008 under Deng reforms.
9. US alliances to counter rising china influence:
QUAD, TPP, G-7, AUKUS.
To counter china OBOR.
10. New patterns of balance of power in 21st century:
Trade wars, high tarrifs, IMF SAPs, 5-G war, narratives war,
climate change, nuclear weapon states,
international bindings.
“A hostile Asian bloc combining the most populous nations
of the world and vast resources with some of the
most industrious peoples would be incompatible
with the American national interest. For this
reason, America must retain a presence in Asia,
and its geopolitical objective must remain to
prevent Asia’s coalescence into an unfriendly bloc.”
[Henry Kissinger]
“In the end, peace can be achieved only by hegemony or
by balance of power.” [kissinger]
 Nationality vs. citizenship
I) Introduction:
Nationality and citizenship may sound like synonyms
to each other, but actually, these words are quite
different.
• The Nationality is a term use to say particular
person's ethnicity or country of birth,
• where as Citizenship is a legal term we acquire as
result of legal procedures
• One is acquired by birth, inheritance or
naturalization and the other is acquired by law.
“If you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a
citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what the
very word ‘citizenship’ means.” [Theresa May]
II) Concept of nationality:
Nationality is the legal status, which represents the
country from which an individual belongs.
The status is acquired by birth, inheritance,
naturalization, marriage or decent (the specifics vary
from country to country).
On the basis of constitutional provisions, every state
sets the criteria which determine who can be the
nationals of the country.
It provides the country, rights over the person.
Further, it provides the person, protection of the
nation from other nations.
Based on international conventions, every sovereign
state is entitled to determine its nationals, as per
nationality law.
One has the right to enter or return to the country
they came from.
In general, to be a national is to be a member of a
state.
Having a nationality is crucial for receiving full
recognition under international law.
Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights declares that:
"Everyone has the right to a nationality"
“No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality
nor denied the right to change his Nationality"
i. Principles of nationality:
The state, through constitutional and statutory
provisions, sets the criteria for determining who shall
be its nationals.
The right of a state to confer its nationality is,
however, not unlimited, for otherwise it might
impinge upon other states' rights to determine what
persons shall be their nationals.
ii. 2 rules of nationality:
By one rule of international customary law, a person
who is born within a state's territory and subject to
its jurisdiction acquires that state's nationality by the
fact of such birth.
By another rule, one has a nationality as an
inheritance from one or both of one's parents. States
vary in the use of the two principles.
iii. Acquisition of nationality:
When one state cedes territory to another,
inhabitants of the region that is ceded commonly have
an opportunity to acquire that state's nationality.
Practice, however, supports the idea that the
individuals concerned should be allowed a free choice.
Another method of acquiring nationality is through
the process of naturalization.
It is the process by which a non-national of a country
may acquire nationality of that country. It may be
done by a statute or it may involve an application,
motion and approval by legal authorities.
III) Concept of citizenship:
Citizenship is a status acquired by becoming a
registered member of the state by law. Any person
can become a member of the state by satisfying the
legal requirements of the respective country. In
simple terms, the virtue of being the citizen of the
country is called citizenship.

Every state grants some legal rights and privileges to

its citizens, and they are also bound to follow the rules
and regulations framed by the government of the
respective country.

Once the person becomes a citizen of the state, he

has the right to vote, work, reside, pay taxes and take
an active part in the country.

Every person is a citizen of the country where he/she

is born, but to become a citizen of some other
country, one needs to apply for it.

Citizenship is a narrower concept: it is a specific legal

relationship between a state and a person.

It gives that person certain rights and responsibilities.

Example: In some Latin American countries, for

example, such as Mexico, a person acquires
nationality at birth but receives citizenship only upon
turning 18. Mexican children, therefore, are nationals
but not citizens.

Oversees territories citizens.

Oversees nationals.
Oversees citizens.
Protected persons.
Citizens.
Subjects.

==============================================
=============================================
5 Different Kinds of
Sovereignty
The five different kinds of sovereignty are as follows:
(1) Nominal arid Real Sovereignty
(2) Legal Sovereignty
(3) Political Sovereignty
(4) Popular Sovereignty
(5) Deo Facto and De Jure Sovereignty.
(1) Nominal arid Real Sovereignty:
In ancient times many states had monarchies and their
rulers were monarchs. They wielded absolute power and
their senates and parliaments were quite powerless. At
that time they exercised real sovereignty. Therefore, they
are regarded as real sovereigns.
Example,
in England before fifteenth century glorius revolution
1688, Now the King is like a rubber- stamp all other
powers of the British king are wielded by his Ministers.
in U.S.S.R. before eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
and in France before 1789..
Lowell has summed up the position of the British
Sovereign in these words:
“According to the early history of the constitution, the
ministers were the counsellors of the king. It was for
them to advise and for him to decide. Now the parts are
almost reversed. The king is consulted but the ministers
decide”.
(2) Legal Sovereignty:
Legal sovereignty is that authority of the state which has
the legal power to issue final commands.
In every independent and ordered state there are some
laws which must be obeyed by the people and there
must be a power to issue and enforce these laws. The
power which has the legal authority to issue and enforce
these laws’ is legal sovereignty.
Example:
In England and all functional democracies, Parliament is
sovereign.
According to Dicey,
“The British Parliament is so omnipotent legally
speaking…. that it can adjudge an infant of full age, it
may attain a man of treason after death; it may
legitimize an illegitimate child or if it sees fit, make a man
a judge in his own case”.
The authority of the legal sovereign is absolute and law
is simply the will of the sovereign. The legal sovereign is,
thus, always definite and determinate.
(3) Political Sovereignty:
Dicey believes that “behind the sovereign which the
lawyer recognises, there is another sovereign to whom
the legal sovereign must bow.”
Such sovereign to whom the legal sovereign must bow is
called political sovereign. In every Ordered state the legal
sovereign has to pay due attention to the political
sovereign.
According to Professor Gilchrist, “The political sovereign  Oliver Cromwell
means the sum-total of influences in a State which lie  Napoleon
behind the law. In modern representative government  Franco in Spain
we might define it roughly as the power of the people”.  Mussolini in Italy
Example:  Hitler.
In other words by political sovereign in the  Stalin in USSR
representative democracies, we mean the whole mass of Examples of de jure sovereignties.
the people or the electorate or the public opinion, After the Second World War and before the Egyptian
propaganda, interest groups, NGOs. Revolution King Farouk was the legal sovereign.

(4) Popular Sovereignty:
Popular sovereignty roughly means the power of the
masses as contrasted with the Power of the individual
ruler of the class.
In popular sovereignty public is regarded as supreme. In
the ancient times many writers on Political Science used
popular sovereignty as a weapon to refute absolutism of
the monarchs.
It implies manhood, suffrage, with each individual having
only one vote and the control of the legislature by the
representatives of the people.
According to Dr. Garner, “Sovereignty of the people,
therefore, can mean nothing more than the power of the
majority of the electorate, in a country where a system of
approximate universal suffrage prevails, acting through
legally established channels to express their will and
make it prevail”.
(5) Deo Facto and De Jure Sovereignty:
Sometimes a distinction is made between the De Facto
(actual) sovereignty and De Jure (legal) sovereignty. A de
jure sovereign is the legal sovereign whereas a de facto
sovereign is a sovereign which is actually obeyed.
After the death of Nasser, Anwar al-Sadat succeeded
him. After the assassination, Hosni Mubarak became the
President of Egypt.
Similarly, Ayub became the de facto sovereign after he
had staged the military coup in Pakistan.
When Ayub was overthrown Yahya Khan Rose to power
with the help of the army and became the fe facto
sovereign.
De facto and dejure:
Bhutto was thrown in July, 1977 by Zia-ul-Haq, who first
of all became de facto and later on de jure sovereign.
In Soviet Union, the Communist Government became the
de facto government of the successful Bolshevik
Revolution of 1917. But in course of time, it became the
de jure government also.

In the words of Lord Bryce, de facto sovereign “is the

person or a body of persons who can make his or their
will prevail whether with the law or against the law; he
or they, is the de facto ruler, the person to whom
obedience is actually paid”.

The de facto sovereign may not be a legal sovereign or he

may be a usurping king, a dictator, a priest or a prophet,
in either case sovereignty rests upon physical power or
spiritual influence rather than legal right.
Examples:
History abounds in examples of de facto sovereignties.