IR 701

Concept Paper 2: Anarchy

Jocelyn Nicolas

Although today the term “anarchy” carries with it meanings and images of chaos, destructive disorganization, and catastrophe, within the study of International Relations it carries a simple, yet foundational, definition. Anarchy within International Relations simply denotes that there is no worldwide leader or universal government to dictate state interactions, mediate disputes, or enforce law. Rather than signifying disorder or conflict, it describes a world system built on sovereign, independent states with no central authority.

The word anarchy is derived from the Greek prefix “an-“ which means without, and the Indo-European root “arkh” which means to begin or to take the lead. The roots of this word literally mean “without a leader,” although in contemporary usage it has also come to signify the disorder that is bound with the absence of a leader. But within International Relations, it does not retain its definition of disorder, but merely of having no superior authority. (Roberts)

The concept of anarchy is absolutely foundation to the study of International Relations. Derived from the neorealist theories of International Relations, British scholar Hedley Bull claims that anarchy is “the central fact of the international system and the starting place for theorizing about it. (Roberts)” Within the neorealist view of International Relations, the nation-state is the primary actor and acts on its national interests, which usually conflict with other states’.

Kenneth Waltz describes neorealist International Relations as a “self-help” system: “With many sovereign states, with no system of law enforceable among them, with each state judging its grievances and ambitions according to the dictates of its own reason or desire – conflict, sometimes leading to war, is bound to occur. To achieve a favorable outcome from such a conflict, a state has to rely on its own devices, the relative efficiency of which must be its constant concern. (Roberts)”

Viewing the anarchic system through such a point of view, several state behaviors result. Nation-states must always be aware of the motives and capabilities of their neighbor in order to ensure that they are more powerful than potential threats. States are forced to hold security as their main interest due to the fact that other states look for opportunities to take advantage of others. Life in the anarchic system is characterized by competition and a constant possibility of war. (Lain)

While liberalism (especially neo liberalism) may admit that international politics is an anarchical system and that states are the key actors, they would argue that within such a system, war is not inevitable and that it can be minimized and prevented through cooperation and participation within international organizations. (Lain)

Feminist scholars are critical of the theory of anarchy, and although they too accept that anarchy exists, they question the meaning of nation-states and sovereignty in everyday life. They believe that anarchy is defined too heavily using masculine ideals and military solutions, excluding cooperative alternatives. (Roberts)

Constructivists are possibly one of the most severe critics of the anarchical system. Leading Constructivists, such as Nicholas Onuf and Alexander Wendt, claim that “anarchy is what we make of it. (Roberts)” They argue anarchy is not an independent constraint existing separately from the activities of the nation-states, but rather is the commonly accepted rules of the international system. Constructivists believe that everything is constantly in flux and thus theories and understandings of international relations must be contextual. (Roberts)

The theory of anarchy is completely dependent on the assumption of state sovereignty. But recently, voices have risen questioning the true extent of states’ sovereignty, if sovereignty is in the process of being compromised or reformulated, or even if sovereignty exists at all. Due to the lack of a central world government, leader, or set of laws, states are left to act as they see is best. This has led to conflict, and on the other end of the spectrum, humanitarian intervention. Such interferences in other states directly undermines the principles of sovereignty. In such cases, because there is no world governor to mediate situations, it seems often times decisions fall to the most powerful states.

While such instances challenge sovereignty and highlight the shortcomings of anarchy, the growth of globalization and the creation of powerful international organizations brings me to question if our world’s anarchical system may be on the brink of change. Such institutions as the UN, the ICC, and the World Bank are beginning to unite sovereign states in decision-making as well as creating and enforcing some of the first forms of international agreements.

Could these institutions mark the beginning of a new world system? Could their attempts at cooperative agreements be the beginning of international law? Or will we reside in the conclusion that a world system defined by anarchy is truly the best world order for our states to flourish within?

Works Cited

Lain, Sisi. "How does the Condition of Anarchy Shape International Politics?." Word Press 09 Nov. 2007: n. pag. Web. 19 Oct 2010. .

Roberts, James C. "Anarchy." The Internet Encyclopedia of International Relations. Web. .

IR 701

Concept Paper 1: Humanitarian Intervention

Jocelyn Nicolas

A heated topic of debate in International Relations today is that of humanitarian intervention. Alistair McMillan defines this act as, “entry into a country of the armed forces of another country or international organization with the aim of protecting citizens from persecution or the violation of their human rights. (McMillan)”

While the premise of this concept is understandable, holding the best interest of others in mind, the implementation of humanitarian intervention has international communities up in arms.

First, there is ambiguity in what defines a humanitarian crisis in need of such intervention. Humanitarian attempts have been heavily criticized all over the world for either unnecessary intervention, or lack of needed intervention, resulting in a hesitancy and heavy consideration process when determining whether to intervene in a given situation or not.

Co-chair of the ICISS, Gareth Evans, attempts to outline the criteria that justify military intervention in humanitarian crises: “There must be serious and irreparable harm to the human beings in progress or imminent: either large-scale loss of life due to deliberate state action, in action or inability to act, or large-scale ‘ethnic cleansing’ carried out not only by killing, but forced acts of terror or rape. (Kiplagat)”

Second, as the international community continues to see and react to humanitarian crises, the act of intervention, whether necessary or not, is deliberately challenging our international sovereign state system. One of the major principles that the concept of state sovereignty is based upon is that of non-intervention. But could there ever be a situation when it would be appropriate to break these rules? Countless interventions have spoken for themselves in that states around the world think there are necessary times to intervene in other states, but when is this appropriate? And does this international trend of interference mark the demise of state sovereignty? Some are even asking if sovereignty even exists at all, seeing as the rules are continually being broken.

Michael Itnatieff explores this dilemma with the concept of “lesser evils,” which in this case would be ignoring national and international law in order to prevent a greater evil. (Kiplagat)

The United States has received heavy criticism on the topic of humanitarian intervention, along with giant international actors that they are involved with, such as the UN. The United States, and increasingly so in recent decades, heavily emphasizes human rights. Efforts to protect the rights of humanity are reflected both in major US organizations and in the personal lives of US citizens. For example, the Human Rights Watch, which took root in the US 25 years ago, has now spread worldwide.

This very organization, however, has criticized the United States for unnecessary intervention in Iraq on the basis of humanitarian grounds. Kenneth Roth, the executive director of the Human Rights Organization said that, “such interventions should be reserved for stopping an imminent or ongoing slaughter. They shouldn’t be used belatedly to address atrocities that were ignored in the past.” (MacAskill) The Human Rights Watch regards war as a last resort and that in most cases conflict should have the approval of the United Nations Security Council, although they realize that this is not possible in all cases, such as Rwanda. A second criterion for intervention is whether war will improve life for the population being invaded. According to these principles, they do not condone the war in Iraq for humanitarian purposes.

On the other hand, the United States received heavy criticism for not taking a leading role in intervening in the Rwandan Genocide. Rather than arranging an intervention, US officials resorted to public statements, organizing a ceasefire and contacting the RPF and interim government behind the killing. The US did use its influence in the UN, although discouraging a “robust UN response,” but even the majority of that action came too late. France finally intervened, with the support of the UN Security Council, and is credited with saving tens of thousands of Tutsi lives. (Ferroggiaro)

Currently, similar humanitarian dilemmas are ensuing across the globe, challenging national and international leaders to make difficult decisions concerning intervention and challenging the very foundations that our international sovereign state system is founded upon. The conflict in Darfur is a perfect example of this struggle. But even more voices than past incidents have joined in the debate of how to appropriately respond to, now commonly referred to as, Darfur’s genocide. Survivors from recent humanitarian crises, such as The Holocaust and Rwanda, have spoken out to pressure governments to intervene in ways that they did not in previous, justified situations. Rwanda survivor Freddy Umutanguha spoke out during a “Day for Darfur,” saying, “In 1994, the world left Rwandans to their fate and a million people were murdered. Today, the world must stop genocide in Darfur. We survivors stand with the victims in Darfur. We know what it is like to lose our mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters. We know what it is like to lose everything and see all who are dearest to us destroyed.” (Majendie) In the United States specifically, youth and young adults have also raised their voices to highlight such issues and to pressure our government to intervene in such crises, such as “The Invisible Children” organization.

Humanitarian Intervention, while attempting to offer life-saving and beneficent aid, remains a topic of heated controversy internationally. It will be interesting to see in the coming years whether the act of “unlawful” intervention will be harnessed by the international system, or if the international system will be forced to respond to a permanently justified form of humanitarian intervention. But for now, the debate continues.

Works Cited

Ferroggiaro, William. "The US and the Genocide in Rwanda 1994: Evidence of Inaction." National Security Archive 20 Aug. 2001: n. pag. Web. 7 Oct 2010. .

Kiplagat, Nirina. "Darfur and the case for intervention." Ploughshares Monitor 26.1 (2005): n. pag. Web. 7 Oct 2010. .

MacAskill, Ewen. "Iraq war unjustified says human rights group." guardian.co.uk 27 Jan. 2004: n. pag. Web. 7 Oct 2010. .

Majendie, Paul. "Global Protests Call for U.N. Intervention in Darfur ." Washington Post 18 Sep. 2006: n. pag. Web. 7 Oct 2010. .

McMillan, Alistair. "Humanitarian Intervention." Answers.com. Answers Corporation, n.d. Web. 7 Oct 2010. .