Juris Law Academy

Concept of power
Since ancient time, social theorists tried to define the queries that people who lack economic
power consent to hierarchies of social and political power. They have used philosophy,
hegemony and discourse as main notion to explain the intersections between the social
production of knowledge and the continuation of power relations. The Marxist thought of
ideology explains how the dominant ideas within a given society reveal the interests of a
ruling economic class. Marx and others relate ideology to a vision of society dominated by
economic class as a field of social power. However, theorists of gender and “race” have
questioned the place of class as the locus of power.
Power:
Power is a multifaceted notion. Power is a vital element of human survival and it has signs
and manifestations in every aspect of social life, from interpersonal relations through
economic transactions, to spiritual and political disagreements (Frank Bealey, 1999). Power
is associated with politics, authority, and wealth. The idea of power is that of being able to
influence the actions or decisions of another, whether there will be through the use of soft-
power tactics or blatant force. Historically, power has been considered by such criteria as
population size and region, natural resources, economic strength, military force and social
constancy. It is documented that the notion of power is the most powerful in the arena of
Political Science. Many theorists like Socrates. Plato, Aristotle have affirmed the importance
of power in their own way. In India, Acharya Kautilya (Chanakya) gave importance of power
in his famous book Kautilya Arthsastra because it was the basis of whole human life (Frank
Bealey, 1999).
Many theorists explain the concept of power.
Cline (2012) defined as “the ability, whether personal or social, to get things done either to
enforce one’s own will or to enforce the collective will of some group over others. Power is
therefore an ability or potential of an individual or groups of individuals to influence and
compel action. Power can be force or influence of action whether accepted/recognised or
no.
Probably the best known description of power is Webber theoretical model who characterize
power as the chance of man or number of men to realize their own will in a communal action
even against the resistance of others who are participating in action (Frank Bealey, 1999).

Type of power

Coercion Authority

Charismatic Traditional Legal-rational

People obey because of the Those who exercise Those in authority give
People are forced
personal qualities of the authority to do so orders(and expect they will be
to do as they are
person doing the telling. Well because they obeyed) because their job
told under threat
known charismatic figures continue a tradition gives them the right to give
of punishment(
include Jesus Christ, Hitler, and support the orders. Anyone who fills the
for example, in a
Chairman Mao and so forth. preservation and same position has right to give
prison or a school
However, charismatic figures continuation of orders, which means this type
class room)
arise in any social grouping existing values and of authority is not based upon
Juris Law Academy

and such people assume social ties (for the personal qualities of the
positions of authority over example, The Royal individual. Orders are only to
others on the basis of Family). be obeyed if they are relevant
personal qualities of to the situation in which they
leadership perceived in that are given (for example, a
individual by other group teacher could reasonably
members. expect the order to “complete
your homework by Thursday”
to be obeyed by a student in
their class. The teacher could
not reasonably expect that
same order issued to the
student’s parent would be
obeyed. Similarly the order to
“Go down the street and get
me a newspaper” would not be
seen as a legitimate order for
the teacher to give his/her
student, hence student the
student would not feel
compelled to obey).
This form of power is the
typical form that exists in our
society and is sometimes
referred to as “bureaucratic”
power since it is based upon
status of an individual’s
position in social hierarchy,
rather than individual himself.
Russell said that power was the production of intended effect. Lukes argued that power is
being exercised by hegemonies whose interest was to maintain status quo by fashioning
people’s perception, belief, and values so that their stated preferences were contrary to their
interest (Frank Bealey, 1999).
According to Laswell and Kaplan, "The concept of power is perhaps the most fundamental in
the whole of Political Science, the political process is the shaping, distribution and exercise
of power (in a wider sense, of all the deference values or of influence in general)". H. J.
Margenthau stated that “power politics was rooted in lust for power which is common to all
men and for this reason was inseparable from social life itself." In the view of Erich Kaufman,
politics is inseparable from power. Slates and Government exist to exert power. In each
country and in the world at large there is either a balance of power, as unstable balance of
power, or no balance of power at all. But there is always power political power exists in the
world and will be used by those who have it." Herbert and Edward Shills defined power as
the ability to influence the behaviour of others in accordance with one's own ends. Catlin
adopts Mas Weber's description of politics as "the struggle of power or the influencing of
those in power."
In the modern time, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Treitschke and Neitzche have emphasised the
significance of power. Other famous theorists, Catlin, Charles Marriam, Harold Laswell, H.J.
Morgenthau etc. have established power as one of the fundamental concept. According to
Catlin, concept of power is basic in Political Science. MacIver is of the view that everything
Juris Law Academy
that is happening around us is in some way or the other concerned with power. It is power
which vests the state with order and peace.
Power is related with prosperity and its use to gain social importance through bribe, cajole,
support or block various forces in person’s own interest. The theory of power is also closely
associated to that of realism. Since power provides a sense of security in holding with the
logic that nobody can hurt/influence people when they have the ability to hurt/influence
them. Therefore, each party should try to maximize and combine its power. Power is one of
the most essential and yet difficult concepts in international relations. “Few problems in
political science are more confusing than the problem of social power. Despite extensive use,
power remains a slippery and challenging notion.
There are some dispute upon basic definitions, individual theorists proposing their own more
or less characteristic terminology, and unexpectedly little consideration of the implications
of alternative usages. That some people have more power than others is one of the most
blatant facts of human existence.
In Western traditional thought, Power is major concepts about political phenomena. In
general, power is a” Disappointing concept”. According to H. Carr and Hans Morgenthau,
power has been an important (some would say too important) variable in international
political theorizing. Although some may regard power analysis as traditional and redundant,
current modification in social science philosophy about power propose the possibility of
invigorating this approach to understanding international relations.
Sources of Power:
Power comes from numerous sources, each of which has different effects on the targets of
that power. Some originate from individual characteristics; others draw on aspects of an
organization's structure. There are six types of power that include legitimate, referent, expert,
reward, coercive, and informational.
Legitimate Power: It is also known as "positional power". This is the power individuals have
from their role and status within an organization. Legitimate power usually involves formal
authority delegated to the holder of the position.
Referent Power: Referent power originates from the ability of individuals to attract others
and build their faithfulness. It is based on the personality and interpersonal skills of the power
holder. A person may be admired because of a specific personal mannerism, such as charisma
or likability, and these positive feelings become the basis for interpersonal influence.
Expert Power: Expert power draws from a person's ability and knowledge and is especially
strong when an organization has a high need for them. Narrower than most sources of power,
the power of an expert typically applies only in the specific area of the person's expertise and
credibility.
Reward Power: Reward power comes from the ability to bestow valued material rewards or
create other positive incentives. It refers to the extent to which the individual can provide
external motivation to others through benefits or gifts.
Coercive Power: Coercive power is the menace and application of sanctions and other
negative outcomes. These can include direct punishment or the withholding of desired
resources or rewards. Coercive power relies on fear to induce compliance.
Informational Power: Informational power derives from access to facts and knowledge that
others find helpful or valuable. That access can signify relationships with other power holders
and convey status that creates a positive impression. Informational power has numerous
benefits in building credibility and rational persuasion. It may also serve as the basis for
beneficial exchanges with others who seek that information.
Juris Law Academy
Power has various forms, and characteristics. It can be exercised with different degrees of
intensity, with force and aggression or, on the contrary, with kindness and politeness. Nye
distinguished the power (1990).
One form of power is hard power. In general, Nye defined power as the “ability to affect
others to get the outcomes one wants” and command or hard power as coercive power
wielded through inducements or threats (2009). Hard power is based on military interference,
coercive diplomacy and economic sanctions (Wilson, 2008) and relies on tangible power
resources such as armed forces or economic means (Gallarotti, 2011). The efficacy of any
power resource depends on context. Professor Joseph Nye, Machiavelli said that for a Prince
it was safer to be feared than to be loved. Nye squabbled that it is better to be both.
Soft power is the ability to create a centre of attention of people to one side without
compulsion. Theorist defined that soft power is the capacity to persuade others to do what
one wants (Wilson, 2008). According to Nye, persuasive power is based on attraction and
emulation and “associated with intangible power resources such as culture, ideology, and
institutions” (2009). Cooper emphasised the importance of legitimacy for the concept of soft
power (2004). State activities need to be perceived as legitimate in order to enhance soft
power.
Legitimacy is therefore central to soft power. If a people or a nation believes objectives to be
legitimate, then leaders are more likely to persuade them to follow their lead without using
threats and bribes. In other words, militaries are well suited to defeating states, but they are
often poor instruments to fight ideas. According to Nye, “victory” depends on attracting
foreign populations to our side and helping them to build capable, democratic states. Soft
power is vital to gaining peace. It can be analysed that it is easier to attract people to
democracy rather than to coerce them to be democratic.
The effectiveness of hard and soft power approaches depends on the accessibility of power
resources (Heywood, 2011).
Another important feature of the hard-soft-power scale is time. It appears that generating
hard power requires much less time as its resources are tangible. On the contrary, soft power
takes comparatively long to build as its intangible resources develop over a long period of
time. Similarly, the temporal dimension of the gain of hard power and soft power strategies
differs. While military or economic coercion tends to result in an immediate but short-
duration outcome, attraction and persuasion have the tendency to cause long-term change.
Another type of power is smart power. It is “the ability to merge hard and soft power into a
winning strategy”. It involves the “strategic use of diplomacy persuasion, capacity building,
and the projection of power and influence in ways that are cost-effective and have political
and social legitimacy”. Smart power means developing an incorporated strategy, resource
base, and tool kit to achieve some key objectives, drawing on both hard and soft power. It is
an approach that not only emphasizes the necessity for a strong military, force but also
invests heavily in alliances, affiliation, and institutions at all levels to spread influence and
establish legality.
To summarize, power is the capability to influence or control the behaviour of people. The
term "authority" is often used for power perceived as legitimate by the social structure.
Power can be seen as sinful or unjust, but the exercise of power is accepted as endemic to
humans as social beings.
Hegemony:
The notion of hegemony is especially difficult to enumerate both in concrete political terms
and in a less tangible philosophical manner. It is the political, economic, or military
predominance or control of one state over others. In Ancient Greece (8th century BCE - 6th
Juris Law Academy
century CE), hegemony signified the politico-military supremacy of a city-state over other
city-states. The dominant state is known as the hegemon.
In the 19th century, hegemony represented the "Social or cultural predominance or
ascendancy; predominance by one group within a society or milieu". Afterwards, it could be
used to mean "a group or regime which exerts undue influence within a society." Also, it could
be used for the geopolitical and the cultural preponderance of one country over others, from
which was derived hegemonism. It means that the Great Powers meant to establish European
hegemony over Asia and Africa. In theoretical viewpoint, hegemony is the expression of
society's ruling classes over the majority of the nation or state over whom they propose to
rule. Gramsci (1971) describes hegemony as, “a conception of the world that is implicitly
manifest in art, in law, in economic activity and in all manifestations of individual and
collective life.”
Five dimensions of the concept of hegemony:
There are five basic dimensions of hegemony that range from obvious to more subtle. These
are explained as under:
1. Military: The hegemon has the strongest military in the world, considerably stronger
than any of its rivals. Its military alliance system is significantly stronger than any
rival military blocs.
2. Economic: The hegemon has the biggest and most technologically advanced
economy in the world. It is a major trading partner of most of the nations of the
world, including most of the major powers.
3. Political: The hegemon has array of political allies, and friendly relations with most
nations and major powers.
4. Institutional: The hegemon, working with its associates, makes most of the rules that
govern global political and economic relations. The hegemon, along with its allies,
usually controls most of the international institutions. Thus, most of the policies of
the international institutions favour the hegemon and its partners.
5. Ideological: The hegemon mainly determines the terms of discourse in international
relations. Marx wrote, "The ruling ideas of any age are the ideas of the ruling class."
Currently, the predominant ideas about globalization are the ideas of hegemon.
The Marxist theory of cultural hegemony, related particularly with Antonio Gramsci. It is the
idea that the ruling class can influence the value system and customs of a society, so that
their view becomes the world view (Weltanschauung). According to Terry Eagleton, "Gramsci
normally uses the word hegemony to mean the ways in which a governing power wins
consent to its rule from those it subjugates". Contrasting to authoritarian rule, cultural
hegemony "is hegemonic only if those affected by it also consent to and struggle over its
common sense". Gramsci defines cultural hegemony, which was of particular significance
when he was writing in the 1930's, in a world that was dominated by ideological concerns.
This kind of hegemony and cultural control is a persistent political reality that has been a
feature of culture and society since the first recorded migrations of man.
Athenians made hegemony an everyday feature of the ancient world, whereby people were
defined through their status within the broader Greek political and cultural hierarchy. The
Greeks emphasised their cultural ideal of hegemony with language and politics, especially the
concept of citizenship, which is the major feature in the study of political and cultural
hegemony. The United States uses its visa system, for example, to distinguish between alien
visitors from within the wider plates of the hegemony that it has created.
In the ancient world, Plato and Aristotle categorized the several types of hegemony together
to form 'civilisation'. Therefore, to be an Athenian Greek was to be a civilised member of the
Juris Law Academy
hegemony of the emerging nation state; to be a 'barbarian' was to be an uncivilised member
of the outposts of society, the parts where hegemony had previously failed to infiltrate as a
paradigm and as a cultural and economic force. This phenomenon has since been reflected in
the twenty first century with President Bush's 'with us or against us' stance to global
terrorism, where hegemony was once again used as the primary force in the continuation of
the dominant military, political and economic power of the period.
It becomes obvious that hegemony must co-exist with the comprehensive notion of empire,
which is itself constructed upon the concrete foundations of economic dynamism harvested
through the procurement of resources. The notion of empire changed irreversibly during the
beginning of modern history where industrialisation proved to be the catalyst for the
significant, seismic shift in the view of hegemony as cultural, economic and political
benchmark. The nineteenth century was certainly a crisis in terms of the redrawing of the
conceptual limitations of hegemony. The Victorian period observed the traditional European
empires of France, Belgium, Britain and Germany use their vast military and economic
superiority to carve up the undeveloped world amongst each other with the procurement of
raw materials and economic resources utilised as the main motivation for extra territorial
action.
Ideology:
Ideology has been the subject that caught great attention during the last half of the twentieth
century. Ideology has recurred as an important theme of inquiry among social, personality,
and political psychologists. Ideology is one of few terms to have originated in political science,
having apparently been developed by Count Antoine Destutt de Tracy, who survived the
revolution to publish Elements d’Ideologie in 1817 (Hart 2002; Head 1985). The term has
been contentious almost from its inception (Sartori 1969).
In fundamental term, an ideology is a belief or a set of beliefs, especially the political beliefs
on which people, parties, or countries base their actions. It is a plan of action for applying
these ideas.
In wider perspective, ideology can be explained as the way a system a single individual or
even a whole society rationalizes itself. Ideologies may be idiosyncratic (Lane 1962),
impractical, or even delusional, but they still share the features of coherence and temporal
stability. In the view of Erikson & Tedin (2003), ideology is a “set of beliefs about the proper
order of society and how it can be achieved”.
Napoleon used “ideologue” as a nickname to indicate irrational dedication to democratic
principle. By the mid-nineteenth century, the main principle of the ideologues popular
sovereignty was attacked from both the right (divine right) and the left (dictatorship of the
proletariat). Marxist theory used the concept of ideology to define the process through which
the dominant ideas within a given society reflect the interests of a ruling economic class.
However, ideology has established a problematic notion, as many of its advocates have
treated it as a relatively stable body of knowledge that the ruling class transmits wholesale
to its subordinate classes. Marx confronted liberal democratic ideology, criticising it as a
rationale for class oppression. The negative implication of ideology was reinforced by Karl
Mannheim, who contended that ideology was inherently conservative because it derived its
ideal model of society from the past and who contrasted it with utopian thinking, which he
defined as future-oriented (Geoghegan 2004). David McLellan (1995) stated that ‘Ideology is
the most elusive concept in the whole of the social sciences.’
Stuart Hall (1992) appraised several moments of theoretical “interruption” in cultural theories
of ideology. These include the discourse theories of post-structuralism and postmodernism,
on one hand; and the impact of feminist and critical “race” scholarship, on the other. The
Juris Law Academy
disruption of post-structuralism is important for foregrounding the salience of language as a
medium of social power. In contrast, feminist theory contributes a notion of the personal
dimensions of political power and highlights questions about gender. Similarly, critical “race”
theory focuses on racialized patterns of power and destabilizes the class subject of ideology
theory.
In the start of the twentieth century, the term ideology was rarely employed beyond limited
references concerning political philosophy. This obscurity was apparent in the pages of the
Review.
Basically, a political ideology is a belief system that provides a perspective on various political
issues, such as the proper role of elected officials and the types of public policies that should
be prioritized.
Legitimacy:
In political science, legitimacy is the widespread acceptance of an authority, usually a
governing law or a regime. Political legitimacy is considered a rudimentary condition for
governing, without which a government will suffer legislative impasse and collapse. In
political systems where this is not the case, unpopular regimes survive because they are
considered legitimate by a small, influential choice. In Chinese political philosophy, during the
historical period of the Zhou Dynasty (1046–256 BC), the political legitimacy of a leader and
government was derived from the Mandate of Heaven, and unjust rulers who lost said
mandate therefore lost the right to rule the people.
Types of legitimacy:
Legitimacy is "a value whereby something or someone is acknowledged and accepted as right
and proper". In political science, legitimacy generally is understood as the popular acceptance
and recognition by the public of the authority of a governing regime, whereby authority has
political power through consent and mutual understandings, not pressure. German
sociologist Max Weber explained the three types of political legitimacy
1. Traditional
2. Charismatic
3. Rational-legal
Traditional legitimacy derives from societal custom and habit that highlight the history of the
authority of tradition. Traditionalists understand this form of rule as historically accepted,
hence its continuity, because it is the way society has always been. Therefore, the institutions
of traditional government usually are historically continuous, as in monarchy and tribalism.
Charismatic legitimacy originates from the ideas and personal magnetism of the leader, a
person whose authoritative persona charms and psychologically dominates the people of the
society to agreement with the government's regime and rule. A charismatic government
usually features feeble political and administrative institutions, because they derive authority
from the persona of the leader, and usually disappear without the leader in power. However,
if the charismatic leader has a successor, a government derived from charismatic legitimacy
might continue.
Rational-legal legitimacy evolves from a system of institutional procedure, wherein
government institutions establish and enforce law and order in the public interest. Therefore,
it is through public trust that the government will abide the law that confers rational-legal
legitimacy (O'Neil, Patrick H., 2010).
Significance of legitimacy:
Legitimacy is significant for all regimes. Legitimacy sustains political constancy as it
establishes the reasonableness of a regime, or says, provide reason for the regime to exist.
Weber point out that regime must arouse legitimacy belief of the people if they tend to
Juris Law Academy
maintain their rule. Election, a significant element of democracy, is very important in the
process of legitimization. Authoritarian regimes also tend to continue election, even non-
competitive election. It is because election contributes to provide justification for the
existence of a regime, thus consolidates its legitimacy (Heywood, 2002).
Another device for regime to get legitimacy is constitution. Being a set of rules which lays
down a framework in which government and political activity are conducted, its legitimization
function can be analysed on two ways. First, constitution is almost a prerequisite for a state
to be recognized by other states, where the external legitimacy comes from. On the other
hand, constitution can be used to promote respect and compliance among the domestic
population, thus building up internal legitimacy.
According to Samuel Huntington, a regime with strong legitimacy must have three kinds of
legitimacy (1993).
1. First is ideological legitimacy, that is, the value proposition of regime must be
generally, voluntarily recognized by the people. Enforced ideological indoctrination
is difficult to sustain such kind of legitimacy.
2. Second is procedure legitimacy. The formation, change and operation of regime
must be checked by citizen's vote. The ruling authority is limited and restricted by
constitution or legal procedures.
3. The third is performance legitimacy, which means that a regime supported by people
should have satisfied performance.
For a regime that only based on single legitimacy, if her performance is unsatisfied, people
may question the value and procedures which the regime based on, thus legitimacy crisis
would occur. Therefore, he stated that economic crisis is a political barrier that makes difficult
for authoritarian regimes to come across. It can be said that Political legitimacy is the people’s
recognition and acceptance of the validity of the rules of their entire political system and the
decisions of their rulers.

What is National Power Meaning Definition and

Elements
Meaning of National Power
Willian Ebenstein says, “National power is more than the sum total of population, raw-material and
quantitative factors. It includes its civil devotion, the flexibility of its institutions, its technical know-how, its
national character or quantitative elements that determine the total strength of a nation.”
Juris Law Academy
Like sovereignty and nationalism, national power is a vital and potent feature of the state system.
Power of some kind is the mean by that states implement their domestic as well as foreign policies. All
states possess power, but very different amounts of power. We must therefore approach an analysis of power
in international relations with the realization that we are dealing with a complex subject whatever the
ultimate aim of international politics. Power is always the immediate aim. The statesman usually describes
their goals in terms of religious, philosophic, economic or social ideal and may try to realize them through
non-political means. But whenever they try to achieve these goals by means of international politics, they do
so by restoring to power. Because power plays same role in the international politics as money plays in
market economy.
Definitions
Prof. Morgenthau defines national power as, “A psychological relation between those who exercise it and
those over whom it is exercised. It gives the former control over certain actions of the latter, through the
influence that the former exerts over the latter’s mind.”
According to George Shwarzen Berger, “The power is the capacity to, impose one’s will on other by
reliance on effective sanctions in the case of noncompliance.”
According to Organski, “Power is the ability to influence the behaviour of other in accordance with one’s
own end.”
According to Charles, “The ability to make a man to do what one’s wanted and not to do what one’s do
not want.”
Power may be defined as, “A relationship between two political actors in that actor “A” has the ability to
control the mind and actions of actor “B.”
“National power is a concept that denotes anything that establishes and maintain the control of state over
others states.”
Basic Elements of National Power
The elements of national power can be divided into two main categories i.e. tangible and intangible.
Tangible Elements
Tangible elements are those elements that can he felt and touched. Following are the important elements of
national power.
Geography
The importance of geography to a study of international relations has long been recognized. History has
often been characterized as geography in nation. Napoleon once said that, “The foreign policy of a country
is determined by its geography.” The importance of geography in the study of international relations cannot
be ignored, because all other elements of national power depend upon the geographical location of the state.
The importance of geography has been decreased to some extant due to technological development but one
cannot ignore its importance because USA is the superpower of the world just because of its geographical
location. Size: Size of the state as well as population greatly influence its national power i.e. the big
countries have great weightage in international affairs while small states have no impact on national power
but some time small state with rich natural resources have deep impact on its national power, like oily rich
countries of Middle East. The size of territory increases the power of a nation. A small state cannot become
powerful. England was powerful as long as she had colonies. A large state can accommodate a large
population and can also have large supply of natural resources on this account. In today’s world USA, China
and India are bound to play effective role in the world politics on account of their vast size.
Population
Population is tangible element of national power. It is assumed that populous nation state are always
powerful hut it is not true in developed nation-state a large number of population is a source of strength,
integration, development while in developing state a large number of population is sign of its weakness i.e.
unemployment, disintegration and corruption etc. population is one of the most important element of
national power. Because if population of a country is engaged in industrial activities then the country will be
stronger then the one, whose population is primarily engaged in agricultural activities.
Location
Another most important element of national power is location. It determines the country’s security and its
spatial relationship with outside world. England and Japan being Islands have been more secure. Similarly,
USA being separated from Europe and Asia could remain in isolation for long time, and emerge as a super
Juris Law Academy
power because of its location. Location is more important then size because it determine the climate and
influence the economic system. Location plays very significant role in national power, for example
Bangladesh separated from Pakistan just because of geographical location and weak- end the national power
of Pakistan.
Territory
It is an important tangible element of national power. Territory is an important element that determines the
power of a state. The territorial characteristics such as boundaries, climate. strategic location, nature of land
and waterways plays very important role in the enhancement of national power. For example, a mountainous
country is difficult to be overcome by enemy while plain one easy to be captured.
Natural resources
Natural resources may be defined as, “Gifts of nature of established utility.” They would include, for
example waterfall, fertility of soil, oil, iron, copper, gas and coal etc. Natural resources plays very significant
role in national power. For example, Kuwait is very small state but due to rich oil resources it plays very
vital role in international politics. Natural resources are the gifts of God and a raw material are the labour of
the individual. However, the natural resources do not by themselves create power. They have to be exploited
with the help of capital, technical know-how and skilled labours. For example, though Brazil had rich iron
deposits they did not contribute to her national power till they were exploited with the technical assistance
received from USA.
Technology
Technology is often defined as applied science. Technological change reflects the actual adoption of new
methods and products; it is the triumph of the new over the old in the test of the market and the budget.
Moreover, it involves a complex, social process including many elements science, education, research and
development under private and public auspices, management, technology, production facilities, workers and
labour organization.” It has already ushered in the age of computers, automation, and atomic and space
technology. Technology is also one of the most important elements of national power. For example, USA is
the global master due to advancement in technology. In recent years, technology has come to exercise
profound influence on the power base of a state as well as the course of international relations. Technology
at least in three sphere i.e. industrial, communication and military, has greatly influenced the power of the
state.
Economic development
Economic development means increase in national income or increase in per capita income or economic
development is the process that not only effect the economic relations of the states but social, political,
cultural and religious relation also. It is also an important and contributing factor in the increasing of
national power. USA emerged as a powerful state of the world because of industrial development. USA
pursues an independent foreign policy due to economic development.
Political structure
The mere possession of abundance of material and human resources and formation of a good foreign policy
would prove useless if the political structure or the government cannot play its role effectively. The
government is required to choose the objectives and methods of its foreign policy in the light of the power
available to support them with a maximum success.
Military advancement
Military advancement is the most apparent and tangible factor capable of supporting the foreign policy and
promoting national. interest. Military advancement plays very important role in international politics. For
example, during first phase of the World War I Germany gained superiority over British because of the use
of submarines.
Diplomacy
The national power of national state is greatly determined by the quality of diplomacy pursued by its
diplomats. According to Morgenthau “The quality of diplomacy of a state gives direction and weight to
other elements of power.” Diplomacy is an entire method of resolving international conflicts. Diplomacy can
serve the interest of a state by protecting its people abroad, by searching out new opportunities for trade, by
decumulating information about geography resources, techniques, cultural and military establishment.
Intangible Elements of National Power
Juris Law Academy
So, for we have been considering tangible and material factors of national power. Now we must turn to
factors that are no less important, although they are more difficult to isolate and define. These are the
elements of ideology, moral. and leadership.
Ideology
In the modern period the ideologies of socialism, communism, democracy, liberalism and nationalism have
an international appeal. Ideology is the most important element of national power because ideology creates
unity among nations and builds a sense of common interest to people. For example, the Soviet and Chinese
national power is associated with the ideology of communism. An ideology is a brunch of ideas about life,
society or government. USSR got the status of super power through the ideology of communism and
Pakistan came into being due to Islamic ideology.
Leadership
Leadership is interrelated with the other elements of national power because it is one of the measures of the
extant to that those elements are utilized. According to Palmer and Perline: “Without leadership people
cannot even constitute a state.”
A nation state cannot emerge without able leadership. Without it there can be no well-developed or
integrated technology and without it morale is totally useless, if indeed it can exist at all. Leadership plays
very important role in stimulating or discouraging governmental activities. People like Lenin, Stalin and
Churchill changed the fate of their people and countries. So, we can say that leadership plays very important
role in the enhancement of national power.
National Character and Morale
some writers list national character as one of the elements of national power as does Professor Hans J.
Morgenthau in his politics among nations. It may be regarded as one of the major determinants of national
morale although of course, it is broader then morale. But where it is more then the basis of morale, it may
help to explain some other elements. National character may be thought of as climate, morale as weather.
Morgenthau also says that, “National character is the degree of determination with that a nation support the
home and foreign policy of its government in time of peace and war.”

Limitations On National Power:

Howsoever powerful a county may be and possess one of as many elements of power as
possible, it ca of arbitrary and authoritative manner at int National power operates within
certain Limitations. These act as restrictions on state action. The major limitations of
national power are as follows:

International Morality:
Though many thinkers like Machiavelli and Hobbes deny international morality, yet many
others accept the existence of international morality. Men profess to follow certain moral
rules whether they act as individuals or as statesmen and seldom make any distinction, at
least in principle, about the nature of these binding rules. But in reality, they do draw such
distinction.
For example, when they Work as statesmen, they claim an exemption for certain acts on
the ground of necessity, which they would never justify in their private capacity. Therefore,
in fact, there exists a contradiction between moral command and the requirement of
successful action.
Meaning. International morality or ethics is the combination of the standards, norms, and
values that nation-states and international organizations think they should observe in their
relations.
Juris Law Academy
These norms or values may originate from desires and attitudes, from social customs and
traditions the developments regularly influence them in the sphere of science and
technology.
One of the most crucial and clearly understood items in this code is the obligation not to
harm others or delict unnecessary suffering on other human beings except for some higher
objective held, rightly or wrongly, to justify a derogation from this general obligation.37

Operation of International Morality:

Had the struggle for power taken the independent course, it would have converted the
world into the Hobbesian state of war and might have been right. In practice, moral norms
operate in the civilized world, and in their presence, power struggles cannot go unbridled.
To preserve society, in the words of Morgenthau, certain moral precepts have been put
forward which the statesmen and diplomats ought to take to heart to make relations
between nations more peaceful and less anarchic, such as the keeping of promises, trust, in
other words, fair dealing, respect for international law, protection of minorities, repudiation
of war as an instrument of national policy.

Morgenthau further explains how international morality operates to protect human life and
check the occurrence of war. First, international morality protects human life in peace by
renouncing the assassination of the leaders of the opponent countries, the technique of
giving poison, treachery, etc. Such policies may still be desirable and possible, but morally
these are rebuked and difficult to execute.
“Moral limitations of the same kind protect in times of peace the lives not only of
outstanding individuals but also of large groups, even of whole nations whose
destruction would be both politically desirable and feasible.”39
Second, similar moral limitations Operate in times of war. They protect civilians and those
combatants who are unable or unwilling to fight. Both statesmen and army leaders admit
that, as only the armed forces participate in combat activities, it is undesirable to make the
civilian population the major target of their attack If the army commanders isolate this
moral principle of not attacking the civilian population unnecessarily or beyond reasonable
limits and indulge in ruthless civilian killings, they have to face a condemnation at home
and abroad.
Similarly, morality prohibits that those who were no longer engaged in actual warfare
because of sickness, wounds, disability, or because they have become prisoners of war
should not be harmed. Such a humanitarian approach towards the prisoners of war and
disabled soldiers was developed during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in
Europe. It culminated in adopting certain treaties in this respect by many states in the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
The Geneva Convention of 1864, 1906, 1929, and 1949 and the Hague Conventions of 1899
and 1907 laid down certain specific conditions regarding treating the sick and wounded
soldiers by the other side. Third and final, there is a moral condemnation of war in the
present century.
Juris Law Academy
War as an instrument of foreign policy has been repudiated on moral grounds, and all
nations are keen to avoid it as far as possible. The eschewing of war itself has become an
aim of statecraft only in the last half-century. The two Hague Peace Conferences of 1899
and 1907, the League of Nations of 1919, the Briand-Kellogg Pact of 1928, the League of
Nations, and the United Nations in the present times all have the avoidance of war itself as
their final goal.
After the Second World War, many powerful states avoided war even at the huge cost of
their political and military advantage. The desire to eschew war outweighed all other
considerations of national policy.
The attempts of all the great powers to confine the Korean War to the Korean peninsula
and thus prevent it from developing into a third world war and the self-restraint practiced
by all of them during many international crises (e.g., Cuba, Suez, Kuwait, etc.) since the end
of Second World War are striking examples of a basic change in the attitude toward war.
Morgenthau sums up, “Thus, while the moral limitations upon killing in times of peace
remain intact, the moral limitations upon killing in war have proved to be largely
ineffective.”

Sanctions:
Moral precepts act as restraint Owing to the following reasons or sanctions as explained by
Frankel. The first is found in the sanctions imposed for violating the internationally
accepted moral standards of conduct, which is in social disapproval.
However powerful, all countries are sensitive to the dangers of losing the reputation and
prestige of acting morally. All countries are expected to abide by the generally accepted
standards of conduct and are fully aware of the disrepute arising if they are disobeyed.
Since all political actions come under public scrutiny and are nearly always morally
evaluated, the moral principles frequently professed as a veil for selfish national policy
assume a momentum of their own to avoid the unwelcome reputation of hypocrisy and
duplicity, however insincere they may have been in their protestations, politicians usually
find it more convenient to obey the professed norms than to violate them. In other words,
domestic as well as world public opinion compels leaders to follow certain ethical
standards in their international dealings.
The Second sanction behind restraint can be found in the moral sentiments and
consciences of the statesmen or ruling elites themselves. In the nineteenth century, both
Great Britain and the United States enjoyed an unequaled moral opportunity by being
exceptionally secure; moreover, international moral rules closely approximated their
domestic moral codes internalized by their statesmen.
These statesmen preferred to act morally rather than otherwise, unless, of course, a really
vital national interest appeared to be at stake similarly. However, it can be said about
politicians in other times and places to a lesser extent.
Finally, moral restraint operates much more effectively in the relations among friends and
allies than among rivals and enemies. The principle of reciprocity can explain this. Good
behavior, which is expected to be reciprocated, is good in moral terms and beneficial to all
concerned.
Juris Law Academy
Thus international morality limits the use of power a country possesses to achieve the
desired goals. States do not pursue certain ends and use certain means because of moral
limitations. But as Frankel says, “Even an extreme idealist would not assert that moral
restraints actually prevail over what states consider to be their vital interest.”

World Public Opinion:

The nation’s policies or activities directed to pursue their objectives can be influenced,
modified, or even halted under the pressure of world public opinion. No nation can
generally dare to use the power at its disposal to achieve selfish ends in violation of world
public opinion. But as a concept, it is more elusive and lacks analytical precision.
World public opinion was considered to be the force behind the League of Nations.
International law, the decision of the Permanent Court of International Justice, the Briand-
Kellogg Pact, etc., were to be executed through world public opinion. The great weapon we
rely upon is world public opinion, and if we are wrong about it, then the whole thing is
wrong,
Declared Lord Robert Cecil in the House of Commons on July, 21,1919. Before the
beginning of the Second World War, Cordell Hull, then American Secretary of State, said
that “a public opinion the most potent of all peace forces is mo strongly developing
throughout the world
The United Nations is an important instrument of world public opinion and vice versa. The
General Assembly of the United Nations is decorated to be the Open conscience of the
world. “

Meaning:

To understand world public opinion, we will first define the term public opinion. According
to Bryce, “This term is commonly used to denote the aggregate of the views men held
regarding matters that affect or interest the community. Thus understood, it is a congeries
of all sorts of discrepant lotions, beliefs, fancies, prejudices, aspirations.”
On the other hand, Lowell defines it by saying that, “Public opinion tot re worthy of the
name, to be the proper motive force in democracy, must be really public. A majority is not
enough, and humanity is not required. Still, the opinion must be such that, while the
minority may not share it, they feel bound, by conviction and not by fear, to accept it. If
democracy is complete, the submission of the minority must be given unstintingly.”
In Morgenthau’s words, “World public opinion is obviously a public opinion that
transcends national boundaries and that unites members of different nations in a
consensus about artiest certain fundamental international issues. This consensus makes
itself felt in spontaneous reactions throughout the world against whatever moves on the
chessboard of international politics is disapproved by that consensus.”
Whenever a state acts against humanity or does a wrong thing, humanity will react,
regardless of national affiliations, and try to mend it through spontaneous sanctions upon
the erring state. In this way, the international society will either compel it to abide by its
standard or shut it out from society for its erring behavior.
Juris Law Academy

Existence and Operation:

Whether world public opinion really exists and operates or not, there are two different
views. One is negative and emphatically denies its existence. The other positive one admits
its existence and effectiveness. Notwithstanding world public opinion, it could not operate
as a restraint in the following instances, according to the negative viewpoint supported
by Morgenthau.
These instances are the Japanese aggression’s against China in the thirties, the German
foreign policies since 1935, the Italian attack against Ethiopia in 1936, the Russian
suppression of the Hungarian revolution in 1956, the Czechoslovakian revolution in 1968,
and intervention in Afghanistan in 1980, China’s annexation of Tibet in 1959, Iraq’s
annexation of Kuwait in 1990, etc.
Morgenthau has made mention of some developments which give rise to a myth regarding
the existence of world public Opinion whereas, in fact, there is no such thing. First is the
psychological unity of the world. Today, all human beings want to have security, liberty,
freedom, peace, and order.
These are Some of the minimum set of standards, which all human beings seek.
Morgenthau remarks, “Any violation Of the standards of this world public opinion, against
and by whoever committed, would call forth spontaneous reactions on the part of
humanity forgiven the hypothetical similarity of all conditions, all men would fear that
what happens to one group might happen to any group.”
But in actual life, these set standards have different meanings in different environments
and countries.
Peace, liberty, justice, democracy, etc., are interpreted differently by different nations.
Another appreciates an action condemned by one group as immoral and unjust like the
opposite. Thus Morgenthau observes, “the contrast between the community of
psychological traits and elemental aspirations, on the one hand, and the absence of shared
experiences, universal moral convictions, and common political aspirations, on the other,
far from providing evidence for the existence of a world public opinion, rather
demonstrates its impossibility, as humanity is constituted in our age.”50
Second, in the modern age, the world’s technological unification has also created an
impression of world public opinion, if it has not actually created it. A world public Opinion
tends to develop because Of the extension of the radius and rapidity of communication by
inventions in ocean, land and air transportation, and the press, postal service—
telecommunication and satellite communication system.
Quincy Wright observes that animals are guided mainly by instinct, primitive man by
custom, civilized man by conscience,e and modern man in the age of abundant
communication by public opinion. With more and more international communication
means between governments and between people, world public opinion tends to develop
and influence government actions.
But Morgenthau points out that even if we lived in a world actually unified by modern
technology with men, news, and ideas moving freely regardless of national boundaries, we
would not have a world public opinion.
Juris Law Academy
The third is the barrier of nationalism and national bias. The particular nationalism
molds and directs men’s minds, which infused their particular meanings into the good
words of democracy, freedom, security, and peace, paint them with their particular color,
and makes them symbols of their particular aspirations. In such a situation, how world
public opinion can exist and operate effectively.
The same issue agitates the public mind in many countries, but public opinion formed
about them in different countries is not the same. It is mainly due to the national bias of
different peoples. For example, public opinion in various capitals on the Indo-Pak war in
1971 was not similar. The US and China supported Pakistan, whereas the USSR was with
India.
But at times, on some burning issue, different countries of the world express a similar
public opinion in one voice, albeit national bias and national conditioning. One such
example was the Vietnamese War when large-scale destruction of life and property by US
involvement aroused strong public opinion against the US. Ultimately, she had to retreat
from Vietnam. These two examples of the Indo-Pak war and the Vietnam war reveal the
ambiguity and the complexity of world public opinion in certain circumstances as well as its
uniformity in many other ”situations.”
If the issue is severe and the attitude of a particular power is clearly unjust and provocative,
it does arouse world public opinion in favor of the victims and influences foreign policies in
various capitals to some extent. Despite the national bias, it would be incorrect to deny
its existence altogether like Morgenthau.
It has played a crucial role in shaping policies in the countries where the press and other
mass media organs are free compared to those countries where they are government-
controlled. After the introduction of Glasnost (openness) Soviet Union’s foreign policy has
witnessed a notable change.

International Law:
International morality and world public opinion have been discussed in detail as above. The
other limitations on national power, such as international law, the balance of
power, international organizations, and disarmament, are briefly touched upon.
International laws are rules that regulate the conduct of nations at the international level.
Most nations endeavor to be known in the eyes of the world as law-abiding nations. In
achieving this goal, they accept the obligations of limitation entailed by international law. If
each nation uses its power in unlimited ways against its rivals, the world society will perish.
There would be no peace or stability. It would be a perpetual state of war.
To avoid this, a code of conduct like international law is essential to limit national power.
Strictly speaking, international law is not a true law as it suffers from many shortcomings
such as the absence of a common law-making, law-enforcing, or law adjudicating body. Its
execution is dependent upon the will and convenience of the states. The execution of these
laws by consent or use of external force restricts the use of national power by any state.

The Balance of Power:

The balance of power implies containing power with power. Like checks and balances in
domestic politics, in the Sphere of international politics, the power of one nation or a
Juris Law Academy
group of nations is used to prevent a particular nation from imposing its will upon others.
When a state has a preponderance of power, it must be balanced or checked by other
states’ combined power.
The balance of power’s common patterns is direct opposition to the other state to preserve
the status quo. In the second one, two nations compete with each other to establish
control over the third nation. The other common methods used to maintain the balance of
power are divide and rule, compensation and acquisitions, armaments and intervention,
alliances and counter alliances, and buffer state formation.

International Organizations:
The coming into existence of international organizations like the League of Nations and the
United Nations has also kept the states’ power within limits. At present, the member states
are expected to act following the principles enshrined in the UN Charter. It is correct that
the United Nations cannot intervene in any state’s internal affairs except when they pose a
threat to peace. Still, it certainly acts as a check on the unfair and unlimited use of power
by the states and is a limitation on power.
The UN Charter incorporates the theory of collective security, which also has a deterrent
effect on the states’ power ambitions. Since its formation, the UN has done remarkable
work not only in preserving peace but also in limiting the superpowers’ ambitions.

Disarmament:
Disarmament efforts in and outside the UN have also restricted national power. The steps
towards disarmament have acquired much significance in our times. An effort has been
made through several agreements, treaties, and conventions to control the use of nuclear
and conventional weapons that have the potentialities to destroy the entire world. To some
extent, this also helps in the reduction of power.