Question

What are the consequences of international anarchy? Your answer should include the definition of anarchy (how at least two of the three theoretical traditions in IR (realism, liberalism, constructivism) view the consequences of anarchy. Be sure to make an argument for which tradition best explains the consequences of anarchy in the real world. In very good detail please !

Answer 1

In international relations theory, anarchy is the idea that the world lacks any supreme authority or sovereign. In an anarchic state, there is no hierarchically superior, coercive power that can resolve disputes, enforce law, or order the system of international politics. In international relations, anarchy is widely accepted as the starting point for international relations theory.

While some political scientists use the term "anarchy" to signify a world in chaos, in disorder, or in conflict, others view it simply as a reflection of the order of the international system: independent states with no central authority above them. Anarchy provides foundations for realist, liberal, neorealist, and neoliberal paradigms of international relations. Constructivist theory disputes that anarchy is a fundamental condition of the international system.

The constructivist Alexander Wendt argued, "anarchy is what states make of it". In Wendt's opinion, while the international system is anarchical, anarchy does not determine state behaviour in the way in which other schools of international relations theory envision it, but rather it is a construct of the states in the system.

The Realist theory of international relations asserts that states are the main power players in international politics. Realists respond to the anarchic world system by assuming a "self-help" doctrine, believing they can rely on no one but themselves for security. They believe that in the anarchical system, the basic motive of a state's behavior is survival, which they see in relative terms; holding that the increased security of one state will necessarily lead to a decrease in security of others. Thus, states are forced to constantly take into account that others might have more power than them or are planning to gain more power and are so forced to do the same, leading to competition and balancing.

According to the classic realist thinker Niccolò Machiavelli, the desire for more power is rooted in the flawed nature of humanity, which extends itself into the political world, and leads states to continuously struggle to increase their capabilities. Another traditional realist, Hans Morgenthau, claimed “international politics is struggle for power” elaborating, that “the struggle for power is universal in time and space”.

Key to the realist belief is the conviction that power must be defined in military terms. Realism asserts that stronger military power will lead states to their ultimate goals, being either a hegemon for Offensive Realists or to a balance of power for defensive realists. In his 1988 article "Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation", Joseph Grieco wrote: “for realists, international anarchy fosters competition and conflict among states and inhibits their willingness to cooperate even when they share common interests”. Therefore, realists see no reason to believe that states can ever trust each other, and must rely on themselves (the self-help doctrine) in the anarchic world system. In the course of providing for one's own security, the state in question will automatically be fueling the insecurity of other states. This spiral of insecurity is known as the "security dilemma".

Realism and liberalism both agree that the international system is anarchic, and the self-interested state is the starting point for both theories. However, unlike realism, liberal theories argue that international institutions are able to mitigate anarchy's constraining effects on interstate cooperation. This is where the two theories diverge.

While liberal theory acknowledges that the international system is anarchic, it contends that this anarchy can be regulated with various tools, most importantly: liberal democratization, liberal economic interdependence and liberal institutionalism. The basic liberal goal is a completely interdependent world. Liberal theory asserts that the existence and spread of free trade reduces the likelihood of conflict, as “economically interdependent states are reluctant to become involved in militarized disputes out of fear that conflict disrupts trade and foreign investment and thus induces costs on the opponents”. Liberal contend that it is not in a country's interest to go to war with a state with which its private economic agents maintain an extensive exchange of goods and capital.

Thus, for liberals, there is hope for world peace even under anarchy, if states seek common ground, forming alliances and institutions for policing the world powers. Realists tend to believe that power is gained through war or the threat of military action, and assert that due to this power-grabbing system there is no such thing as lasting alliances or peace. Liberal thought however, attributes more power to common institutions than to states, and takes into account the individual attributes that states possess, allowing for the idea of lasting alliances based on common beliefs and ideas. Rather than focusing solely on the military survival of states, liberals believe that common ideas can lead states into interdependence, and so remove allies as threats to sovereignty. Liberalism emphasizes that the real power for states comes from mutually held ideas like religion, language, economies, and political systems that will lead states to form alliances and become interdependent.

This sentiment is summed up nicely by Norman Angell, a classical London School of Economics liberal, who claimed: "We cannot ensure the stability of the present system by the political or military preponderance of our nation or alliance by imposing its will on a rival".

While the concept of anarchy is the foundation for realist, liberal, neorealist, and neoliberal international relations theories, constructivist theory disputes that anarchy is a fundamental condition of the international system. Alexander Wendt, the most influential modern constructivist thinker, is often quoted for writing, "Anarchy is what states make of it". That is to say, anarchy is not inherent in the international system in the way in which other schools of IR theory envision it, but rather it is a construct of the states in the system. At the core of constructivist thought is the idea that, contrary to the assumptions of neorealism and neoliberalism, many core aspects of international relations are socially constructed (they are given their form by ongoing processes of social practice and interaction), rather than inherent. Wendt lists the two basic tenets of constructivism as:

• The structures of human association are determined primarily by shared ideas rather than material forces
• The identities and interests of purposive actors are constructed by these shared ideas rather than given by nature

Moreover, borrowing from the ideas of sociologist Anthony Giddens, Wendt suggests that agents (in this case states) can influence the content and effects of a particular structure (in this case anarchy) through the way they act. Constructivism's formative period in the 1980s came at a time when neorealism was the dominant international relations discourse. As such, constructivism's initial theoretical work focuses on challenging basic neorealist assumptions. For example, while neorealists argue that anarchy forces states to act in certain ways, constructivism challenges this assumption by arguing that the emphasis neorealists assign to structure is misplaced, and that the attributes of anarchy are not inherent, but constructed by "social practice".