‘The chief purpose of the study of international relations is to understand the consequences of international anarchy.’ Do you agree?
The role of anarchy and its relationship to the behaviours of state and the progression of international politics has been considered to be of great importance. However, it being considered as the main driver of the international political system now has to be considered to be a somewhat outdated approach, more suited for a time of greater state isolation and clearer cut international and organisational boundaries. Such a point of view is a classical realist extreme, and cannot be taken to be true. Of far greater, and increasing, importance are sociological factors and the rise of international institutions that hold significant power, such as the UN. Beyond this, the very conception of anarchy is seen to be changing, with a less clear-cut view of what an anarchical system actually is emerging. As such, understanding the consequences of international anarchy now only serves to produce a somewhat limited view of international politics, and so cannot be studied in isolation.
To answer this question we must necessarily define anarchy. Helen Milner defines anarchy to be an absence of order, necessitating conditions of chaos. Kenneth Waltz adds greater specificity to this, saying that anarchy is the absence of a central monopoly of legitimate force, thus implying a breakdown in the military sovereignty of a state.
Classical realists such as Carr and Morgenthau see the role of anarchy as having a significant effect on the way states behave, both internally and in their interactions with one another. The very nature of anarchy suggests unpredictability and volatility, which are hugely perturbing to states, as it leaves them unsure of how other states will act. As such, in an anarchical system states are forced to become isolated and insular bodies, as they are unable to form relationships of trust with other states out of an instinct for self-preservation. This produces a system where there are no alliances and states rely on themselves to persist. However, in this search for self-preservation states will increase their military strength, as a means of protecting themselves against the anarchy present in the international system. This is problematic as it leads to an increase in said state’s relative power in respect of other states. This has the adverse effect of increasing the tension between states, leading to a greater likelihood of conflict as relationships deteriorate and states feel threatened by one another. Booth and Wheeler call this the “security dilemma”. They conclude that the outcome of an anarchical system is a constant state of fear and hostility between states, resulting in an increased likelihood of an arms race and war between states, as they perpetually fuel each others fears over their intentions and the cause of each states seemingly hostile behaviour.
In contrast, neo-realists believe that anarchy has its origins not in the inherent aggression of humans, as Morgenthau suggests, but rather in the structuralist factors of the international system. Waltz argues that rather than the behaviour of states being a reaction to anarchy, they are actually determined by anarchy. He suggests that anarchy is in fact the so-called “ordering principle” of the international political system. However, he did still concur with many of the realist beliefs on this subject, still holding anarchy very centrally in his view of international relations, omitting many other social and structural factors that may have an impact, and still putting the relationships that stem from this anarchy at the heart of his theory, even if he did present a more structuralist view of them. Where he did differ again, is in his recognition of how different structural compositions present within the international system affect how the consequences of anarchy are felt. He observes the effect that having a varying number of great power players has on the international political system, noting that the most unstable systems have either only a singular great power player, which he labels as unipolar, or many great power players, which he calls a multipolar system. Instead, Walt suggests that a bipolar system, where there are two great power players, is the most effective in balancing the anarchical system, as each power keeps the other in check, as they prove to be a significant opposition to each other and thus temper volatility and unpredictability on both sides. However, Waltz disregards the effect that international organisations and businesses have on the behaviour of states and the functioning of the international political system, seeing them merely as a tool for the use of great powers. Regardless, such a proposal suggests that it is international power dynamics that dictate the behaviour of states, which necessarily means that we must investigate factors beyond anarchy to fully understand international relations.
Nye, Neohane and Robert argue against the realist point of view with their theory of complex independence. In contrast to the realist ‘billiard ball model’, in which states will hit into each other regardless of their internal machinations, this theory suggests that states are actually deeply connected to one another at many levels, and so in order to understand their interactions one must study these relationships. The theory of complex independence stands against realism, as it states that the international political system has evolved to an extent where we can no longer look at it in isolation, and thus we must look beyond anarchy as an explanation. It essentially identifies the development of the state from a singular actor into an entity that now has strong connections and dependencies upon other states, which renders an anarchical system to be outdated. One such example of this is the increased interdependency of states’s economies. The mechanisms of our global economic system are such that no political or diplomatic action is without an economic consequence, and thus states are forced to deeply consider the economic ramifications before they go to war, with this often acting as a deterrent to conflict. Furthermore, they state the decreasing efficacy of military action, especially when used as a diplomatic tool, largely due to the increased interconnectedness of states and the evolution of new forms of conflict and, more significantly, conflict resolution. This undermines the assumption that anarchy stems from the tensions between states on account of growing militaries and subsequent changes in relative power. Such a point of view limits the usefulness of studying the effects of international anarchy, especially in isolation, instead insisting that we study it as one of a comprehensive range of factors.
Bull concurs with Nye et al in their assertion that anarchy is too limited a factor to explain the range of international relations, stating that Waltz fails to address sociological factors, such as prestige, authority, legitimacy, as well as the growing concept of an international society, in which soft power has a more significant role. However, Bull himself fails to address the role of international institutions, which have come to have a significant effect on the way states act. This leads to Hurrell’s theory that the concept of ‘balance of power’, which he attributes to realism, does not exert sufficient pressure upon states to force them to act in certain ways. Instead Hurrell argues that the balance of power is actually in a constant state of flux, being debated between various actors, and thus cannot be understood to be the result solely of an anarchical system. This undermines the realist theory that the anarchical system is the determinant of state behaviour.
The continuing existence of the anarchical system itself has been called into question. Bull argues that an anarchical system no longer prevails in international politics, distinguishing between a ‘system of states’ and a ‘society of states’. The crux of this is that states are social entities, and society is a precarious mix of a multitude of factors: balance of power, law, diplomacy, war and the role of great powers. This precipitates the view that instead of the balance of power that, according to realists, is formed by anarchy, it is instead formed independently of anarchy, and because the states that form a society are desirous of such a system. Essentially, states decide to form into a society where they coexist peacefully as a means of avoiding war, which would be calamitous for all parties. As such, it is essential in such a theory that the social links between societies, usually formed from shared values, cultural norms and common goals, are not neglected or restricted. This necessitates the rise of such international institutions that the realists completely ignore in their theories.
Wendt goes even further, disregarding anarchy as a constituent of modern day society and politics altogether. Wendt develops the theory that the way states interact is due to their shared values, cultures and goals, which determines whether or not the states will be in conflict, not an anarchical system. He believes that states interact with one another in a similar way that humans do, given that they are comprised and managed by humans. He identifies three different types of anarchies based on the social ideas and identities of states, which he calls Hobbesian, Lockeian and Kantian. This opposes the realist principle that anarchy and the balance of power is the driving force behind global politics. Whereas Waltz takes a view of anarchy as being a defensive mechanism deployed by states, Wendt says that “anarchy as such is an empty vessel and has no intrinsic logic”. He also states that the balance of power and the steps states take to improve their relative power is merely a social construct, and thus cannot be an intrinsic part of the international political system, as realists argue. Wendt also introduces the concept of ‘presocial behaviour’, saying that all states will be exposed to varying amounts of this depending on their social institutions and characteristics. As such, rather than anarchy, he suggests that the behaviour and characteristics of the actors within a state are a much better determinant of said state’s actions.
It is clear that an isolated study of international anarchy will no longer be sufficient to explain the complex behaviour of states and their interaction with one another. Rather, we should see it as one part of the complete picture, as an inherent fear of anarchy does still guide states actions on a subconscious yet resolute level. Furthermore, the realist theory of the balance of power is equally insufficient, as states have become too interconnected and interdependent to look only at their relative power when making decisions. Instead they look to their allies, the economic consequences of decisions, and the likely steps taken by international organisations to guide their decision making. Rather than just a fear of anarchy or power, the social makeup of a state has a significant role in forming its political nature and interactions with others, which many would argue is an inherent part of its people, and thus cannot be politically explained. It is clear though that, in accordance with the rapid development of technologies, ideas and social movements, so too has the way in which states behave changed, and with it the explanation for why.