by Norbert Tóth
Power Dynamics in International Relations
Every human relationship is, ultimately, a relationship of power (too). This idea is, of course, not new: similar views can be deduced, among others, from the writings of Michel Foucault,1 Friedrich Nietzsche,2 and even Karl Marx.3 Certainly, human relationships, much like humans themselves, are far too complex to be reduced solely to dynamics of power. However, it is likely true that the farther we move from the human being, the more pronounced the role of power becomes. As the distance from individuals increases, the role of emotional considerations diminishes inversely, giving way to interests of those practising power. This is particularly evident, and unfortunately so, in the realm of international relations and public international law (hereinafter: international law). Relations between States, for example, are primarily interest-driven, thus favouring power considerations more strongly. In international law it is therefore essential to build effective checks and balances, along with institutions, to prevent an accumulation of power that could ultimately endanger the existence of individuals. From the perspective of the international rule of law, one such ‘tool’ of limitation of power is the universal protection of human rights, which seeks to adjust power dynamics in favour of individuals against the traditional actors of international relations.
I argue that much like one of the fundamental laws of physics (the ‘law of conservation of energy’), there exists a comparable principle in international relations, which we might call, for the sake of simplicity, the ‘law of conservation of power.’ The ‘law of conservation of energy’ essentially means that in a closed system, energy remains constant and is not lost; it can only be transformed.
Consequently, by the ‘law of conservation of power’ I mean that in the more or less closed system of international relations, power also remains constant, albeit distributed unevenly. A significant portion of it still resides with traditional actors (States), and within this cluster, it is again distributed unevenly (albeit not in the legal sense). The international legal protection of human rights is a mechanism within international law and international relations that limits the power of States (and other actors, such as corporations) by allocating some of it to individuals.
Division of Power in International Relations
Approaching this from another perspective, as international law is a decentralised legal system, the division of powers is not interpreted as occurring between institutions or organs, but rather between international legal subjects. Power, in a legal sense at least, is equally distributed among States, primarily guaranteed by the principle of sovereign equality and the right of peoples to self-determination, as well as among other legal subjects. However, it is true that international legal subjects other than States (such as international organisations, natural persons [this is what human beings are called in legal language], etc.) possess significantly less power than States. The power of individuals vis-à-vis States (and corporations) is ensured by human rights (as well as humanitarian law, refugee rights, international criminal law, etc.). Consequently, it is logical that weakening the international protection of human rights ultimately violates the constitutional principles underlying the division of powers and leads to a concentration of power.
Power, the Power of Human Rights and the International Rule of Law
The democratisation and representativeness of the international community also encompass this notion: that power is distributed somewhat more equitably among the subjects of international relations than before. In international relations (and, of course, within States), power can be considered constant. The global weakening of human rights, first within States and then in the international community, results in a drastic shift in the advantageous legal environment established after World War II through international law, human rights, and other regulatory frameworks beneficial to individuals. And this shift favours traditional actors, first and foremost States.
Under the ‘law of conservation of power,’ this can be simplified as follows: when States increasingly and severely violate human rights, the power allocated to individuals through human rights is transferred back to States and other powerful actors (like companies). Simply put, if power is not with me (i.e. the individual), it must necessarily reside elsewhere, as power cannot be destroyed, it can only change form.
The Price of the Erosion of International Human Rights Law
The erosion of the rule of law, a key element of which is the unconditional respect for human rights as well as the principle of division of powers, inevitably begins within States. Interestingly, though logically, a State that erodes the rule of law domestically will also exhibit similar behaviour in international relations, failing to respect the international rule of law. Unfortunately, this behaviour can negatively affect other States too, as the erosion of the rule of law can snowball from one State to another, leading eventually to a broader weakening of the international rule of law. This, in turn, results in a significant accumulation of power among traditional actors in international relations, leaving the individual, both within states and in international relations, vulnerable to unchecked power.
Norbert Tóth is Associate Professor at National University of Public Service and University Lecturer in public international law at Åbo Akademi University.
- See for instance the essays of Foucault in Michel Foucault: Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977. 246. However, this idea is not literally there in any of these writings, but according to Colin Gordon, the author of the afterword to this volume, „for Foucault power is omnipresent in the social body because it is coterminous with the conditions of social relations in general.” ↩︎
- Nietzsche’s famous or infamous „the will to power” idea might have also some relevance here, although I would not necessarily think Nietzsche was right in what he was thinking. ↩︎
- Karl Marx also viewed the relationship between certain groups of people (classes) as essentially a relationship of power. ↩︎
Photo by Jeremy Bishop on Unsplash