1- What is anarchy in international relations and why does it matter?
Anarchy is defined as “the state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence is governmental authority”. In more simpler words, anarchy is just a city or area functioning without a set government or establishing rules.
It is often referred to as a “state of nature”. It is usually referred to as this because of the early enlightenment thinker, John Locke, who introduced the idea of natural rights. Natural rights are rights an individual was born with. Rights you are entitled to as being born a human. These same rights, people would put them in a bigger picture, there should be no government because individuals have free will and should be in control of their own actions.Thinking of anarchy is basically how Atheism has a lack of religion.
Anarchy matters because of the fact that the world itself exists in a form of anarchy. There are multiple governments making up rules for cities and making sure everything is set in place, but there is nobody governing the world as a whole, that can make countries do specific things such as establish laws and a system of authority.
International Anarchy can be assigned to mean one of three things, with international relations defined as relationships between “sovereign states”. The first, briefly discussed before, is the absence of world government. The second, is international disorder, while the third, is actually the opposite; international order. International order actually seems to be an antonym of what anarchy actually is. But could it be possible that no government, is actually a better form of government?
Anarchy has many cons to it, but it also comes with just as much pros. Anarchy is similar to democracy, in terms of the “ majority rules” rule. With that being said, anarchy provides opportunity for discussion to find mutuality between one another. Having a government might also stir up a feeling of anxiety or fear, of doing one thing and facing consequences for it, such as imprisonment. “These negative elements are then tied to individual morality. If you accept these fears, then you can be moral, but that morality is defined by others. Anarchy suggests you control your own definition of morality.”
3- Why do democracies not go to war with each other?
War is typically defined as a military conflict, resulting in over a thousand casualties per year. If democratic governments go to war, then the government which is currently in power will get the heat causing uprisings to occur. If such things occur, and they get the citizens of the country to be against them, they may have no followers or supporters and lose the upcoming election. War has often led to protests and riots. We see examples of this across the world especially throughout middle eastern countries. Democratic countries going into war with one another may eventually lead into the overthrowing of the government, creating an environment of anarchy.
Democracy is nothing but a marketing term, typically used to justify mutually agreed upon genocide. Democracy is the rebranding of imperialism under politically correct pretenses. According to a 2017 review study, "there is enough evidence to conclude that democracy does cause peace at least between democracies, that the observed correlation between democracy and peace is not spurious. Democracy, disguised as imperialism, is where ‘democratic' nations such as the United States of America or the United Kingdom, get to accomplish whatever they want to do to the rest of the world in their benefit because they have ensured that they are free of blame. An example of this would be how the United States of America have previously invaded Iraq and Libya because they are not ‘democratic' and utilize the excuse of them liberating these said countries instead of invading. They invade these countries with less stable governments because of the fact that countries with unstable governments are good targets which are less likely to reciprocate. Democratic states that dispute with other democratic states more than usually have a shorter conflict or disagreement.
“ there is also evidence that democracies have less internal systematic violence. For instance, one study finds that the most democratic and the most authoritarian states have few civil wars, and intermediate regimes the most. The probability for a civil war is also increased by political change, regardless whether toward greater democracy or greater autocracy. Intermediate regimes continue to be the most prone to civil war, regardless of the time since the political change. In the long run, since intermediate regimes are less stable than autocracies, which in turn are less stable than democracies, durable democracy is the most probable end-point of the process of democratization (Hegre et al. 2001). Abadie (2004) study finds that the most democratic nations have the least terrorism. Harff (2003) finds that genocide and politicide are rare in democracies.”
Rummel (1997) finds that the more democratic a regime, the less its democide. He finds that democide has killed six times as many people as battles.”
Democracies are reluctant on initiating war with other governments with the same ideology. Referred to as the Democratic Peace Theory, or Mutual Democratic Pacifism, this theory is the opposite of what theories regarding war are. It is there to clarify a status of peace and agreement. This theory of peace and democracy has been studied for centuries, but more recently in the year of 1989, researchers by the names of Maoz and Abdolali, have came across an outstanding correlation between countries that identify as Democratic, and the peace between them. Other individuals had more logical explanations for if democracy is made for peace or if peace is merely just one of the results of democracy, and of how democracy might also affect other aspects of foreign relations such as alliances and collaboration.
...(download the rest of the essay above)