Global Facilitation Network for Security Sector Reform (GFN-SSR)

Military power and international order

 Printable version

What is the relationship between military power and international order? What impact did the development of nuclear weapons have on this relationship? This paper from the Journal of International Affairs is an abridged version of Michael Howard’s inaugural lecture at King’s College London in May 1964. It concludes that in the era of nuclear weapons, military power can only serve as an instrument of international order if it is subject to rigorous political control.

Howard argues that the capacity of states to defend themselves, and their evident willingness to do so, provides the basic framework for international relations. International order is based not on agreement, but on the recognition of disagreement between states. As a result, the conduct of international relations must always be a delicate adjustment of power to power. It is a mutual exploration of intentions and capabilities so as to find and preserve an order which, though satisfying nobody, is tolerable to all.

The change in international relations brought about by the introduction of nuclear weapons should not be overestimated. Power is the raw material of politics and violence remains an accepted, although rarely used, means to secure or attain it.

• Nuclear weapons have increased states’ aversion to the use of violence, but this is not a new development.
• Since 1870, the expense of making war and the uncertainty of its consequences for a society have made violence an increasingly unusable instrument for states in international affairs.
• Political influence does not necessarily increase in direct proportion to the acquisition of nuclear weapons. This is because there are very few threats urgent enough to justify the use of such destructive force.
• If a justification to go to war, or ‘casus belli’, does emerge between nuclear states, it is likely it would provoke threats and, if necessary, the execution of limited acts of violence.
• These would be accompanied by a intensification rather than a cessation of diplomatic intercourse.
• Therefore, instead of a formal state of war in which diplomacy was subordinated to the requirements of strategy, it is likely that military operations would be carried out under the most rigorous political control.

As a result, in the era of nuclear weapons, military power can only serve as an instrument of international order if three conditions are met. The first is complete mutual understanding and cooperation between civil and military leaders. The second is the effective functioning of the mechanism of command and control. The third is entire discipline and obedience in every rank of military hierarchy. In addition:

• Military leaders will need exceptional political wisdom and technical expertise. However, they must refrain from attempting to shape the political world to their military advantage.
• Political leaders will need a deeper understanding of military matters and of the needs and capabilities and limitations of armed force.

Access full text