Defining great powers
Within the English School tradition, great powers aren't just strong states. They are states that other members of international society recognize as holding special rights and responsibilities. This distinction matters: material capability alone doesn't make a great power. Recognition by the broader society of states does.
Hedley Bull, one of the English School's central figures, made this point explicitly. A state qualifies as a great power not simply by having a large military, but by being treated as a great power by others. That social recognition is what separates the English School's account from purely realist approaches that focus on measurable capabilities.
Characteristics of great powers
- Possess significant economic, military, and political capabilities that let them exert influence on a global scale
- Recognized by other states as having special status and responsibilities within international society (this social recognition is what makes the English School's account distinctive)
- Able to shape the rules, norms, and institutions that govern international relations
Economic and military strength
- Maintain large, advanced economies that provide the resources to sustain military power and project influence abroad
- Field powerful armed forces capable of conducting operations across multiple regions simultaneously
- Invest heavily in research and development to maintain technological advantages
Political influence and prestige
Great powers don't just coerce; they also persuade. Their diplomatic clout and soft power shape the preferences and behavior of other states.
- Often hold permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council, with veto powers that give them outsized influence over collective security decisions
- Cultivate extensive networks of allies, partners, and client states that look to them for leadership and protection
Great powers and the international system
Shaping global norms and institutions
For the English School, great powers are the primary architects of international society. They don't just follow rules; they write them.
- Play a central role in creating and upholding principles like sovereignty and non-intervention
- Use their influence to design international organizations (World Bank, IMF, WTO) in ways that reflect their interests and values
- Leverage economic and military power to incentivize or coerce other states into complying with the prevailing order
Balancing power and stability
- Engage in strategic competition and alliance formation to prevent any single state from achieving dominance over the system
- Maintain a balance of power to deter aggression and reduce the risk of major war
- Provide public goods that benefit international society as a whole, such as freedom of navigation and financial stability
Hedley Bull argued that great powers perform a managerial function: they actively work to preserve order, not just pursue narrow self-interest. This doesn't mean great powers are altruistic. It means that maintaining a stable international society serves their long-term interests, and other states expect them to play this role. That expectation is itself part of what defines great power status in Bull's framework.
Hegemony vs. multipolarity
- Hegemony refers to a system where a single great power enjoys a preponderance of power and can shape the international order largely unconstrained by others
- Multipolarity describes a system with multiple great powers that compete and collaborate to advance their interests
The distribution of power among great powers has significant implications for the stability and character of international society. Bull was skeptical that hegemony could sustain legitimate order over the long term, since it tends to erode the consent of other states. Without that consent, order rests on coercion rather than shared norms, which pushes the system away from "international society" and toward a rawer "international system."
Great power competition and conflict
Rivalry and arms races
Great powers engage in long-term strategic rivalries that shape their foreign policies and defense strategies. The US-Soviet rivalry during the Cold War is the defining modern example.
Heavy investment in military capabilities and new technologies can fuel tensions and increase the risk of war, but it can also promote stability by maintaining a balance of power. Nuclear deterrence illustrates this tension well: the very weapons that could cause catastrophic destruction also made direct great power war far more costly, arguably preventing it during the Cold War.
Spheres of influence
- Great powers establish exclusive zones of political, economic, and military influence in their respective regions. The Monroe Doctrine (1823), through which the US claimed the Western Hemisphere as its sphere, is a classic case.
- They use a combination of inducements and threats to maintain the loyalty of states within their spheres and prevent outside powers from interfering.
- Spheres of influence can provide stability and predictability in regional affairs, but conflict often arises when they overlap or are challenged by rival powers.
Alliance formation and shifting
- Great powers form alliances to pool resources, coordinate policies, and deter adversaries. NATO and the Warsaw Pact are the most prominent Cold War examples.
- Alliances range from formal treaty commitments to informal arrangements based on shared interests and values.
- The shifting and realignment of alliances can significantly alter the balance of power and reshape international politics. Think of how China's split with the Soviet Union in the 1960s opened the door for US-China rapprochement in the 1970s.
Great powers and global governance
Leadership in international organizations
- Great powers assume leadership roles in organizations like the United Nations and World Trade Organization, shaping their agendas and decision-making
- They use their influence and resources to mobilize collective action on issues like climate change and terrorism
- Their financial and diplomatic support is often essential to the effectiveness and legitimacy of these organizations
Responsibility for maintaining order
This is where the English School's concept of great power responsibility becomes most concrete. Bull identified great powers as bearing special duties for maintaining international peace and security. With special status comes special obligation.
- Great powers use military and economic power to prevent or resolve conflicts, provide humanitarian assistance, and enforce international norms through peacekeeping operations and sanctions
- They are frequently criticized for failing to live up to these responsibilities, or for using the language of responsibility to mask the pursuit of narrow self-interest
- The tension between genuine stewardship and self-serving behavior is a recurring theme in English School analysis. When the US invokes "rules-based order" while selectively ignoring rules that constrain it, that tension is on full display.
Challenges to great power authority
- States and non-state actors that reject great power leadership or seek to revise the existing order pose ongoing resistance
- The diffusion of power to actors like multinational corporations and NGOs can constrain great powers' freedom of action
- Maintaining legitimacy is an ongoing struggle, especially when domestic political pressures and international criticism undermine a great power's credibility
Rise and decline of great powers
Factors contributing to ascent
- Rapid economic growth and technological innovation enable rising states to build military capabilities and expand global influence
- Attractive political and cultural models enhance soft power and the ability to shape international norms
- Rising powers often exploit opportunities created by the decline or missteps of established great powers to assert their own leadership
Overextension and relative decline
Imperial overstretch occurs when a great power takes on more global commitments than its resources can sustain. Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (1987) is the classic study of this dynamic. Kennedy showed how Spain, the Netherlands, Britain, and other powers each declined in part because the costs of maintaining their global positions outpaced their economic base.
Relative decline happens as other powers catch up economically and militarily, or as a great power's own growth slows and domestic problems mount. Declining powers struggle to maintain influence as rising states and shifting power balances erode their position.
Power transitions and systemic change
- The rise and decline of great powers can lead to power transitions that reshape international society and create new patterns of cooperation and conflict
- Established powers may seek to accommodate or resist the demands of rising powers, leading to periods of tension and uncertainty
- Major wars have historically accompanied power transitions. The Napoleonic Wars and both World Wars are key examples of states fighting to defend or revise the existing order. Whether power transitions must produce conflict is one of the big debates in IR theory.
Contemporary great power dynamics
US hegemony and challengers
The United States has enjoyed unrivaled power since the end of the Cold War, shaping the international order through military, economic, and cultural dominance. The rise of China and the resurgence of Russia pose significant challenges to American leadership and raise questions about the sustainability of US hegemony.
Other actors, including the European Union and India, are asserting their own interests on the global stage, contributing to a more complex and potentially multipolar system.
China's rise and assertiveness
China's rapid economic growth and military modernization have made it a major global power with increasing influence in Asia and beyond. Beijing has pursued a more assertive foreign policy, challenging US dominance and seeking to reshape aspects of the international order. The Belt and Road Initiative, which extends Chinese infrastructure investment and political influence across dozens of countries, is one prominent vehicle for this.
From an English School perspective, the key question about China is whether it seeks to join the existing international society on revised terms or to replace its foundational norms with alternatives. The answer has major implications for whether the current order can adapt or faces fundamental disruption.
Russia's resurgence and revisionism
Under Vladimir Putin, Russia has sought to reassert great power status and challenge the US-led international order. Russia has used military force (in Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine from 2014 onward) and political influence operations to expand its sphere of influence and undermine Western cohesion.
These actions have intensified concerns about a new era of great power competition and the potential for sustained geopolitical rivalry.
Great powers and the future of world order
Prospects for cooperation vs. competition
- The future of international order depends on whether great powers can cooperate on shared challenges like climate change and pandemic response while managing their rivalries
- Growing economic interdependence and the diffusion of power to non-state actors may create incentives for more collaborative approaches to global governance
- Conflicting interests and values among great powers may limit deep cooperation and produce a more fragmented international system
Emerging powers and multipolarity
- The rise of new powers like India and Brazil, alongside the relative decline of Europe and Japan, is creating a more multipolar distribution of power
- Emerging powers are seeking greater voice in shaping international order, creating new challenges and opportunities for governance
- A more multipolar world may be more resilient than one dominated by a single hegemon, but it is also likely to be more complex and prone to rivalry
Reforming global institutions and norms
Post-World War II institutions and norms are under strain as great powers compete for influence and emerging powers demand greater representation. Reforming bodies like the UN Security Council and updating norms around sovereignty to reflect current power realities will be a major challenge.
From an English School perspective, failure to adapt risks weakening the institutional fabric of international society. If institutions lose legitimacy because they no longer reflect the actual distribution of power, the system drifts closer to what Bull called the Hobbesian "international system" pole, where raw power rather than shared norms governs state behavior. The stakes of institutional reform, in other words, aren't just procedural. They go to the heart of whether international society can be sustained.