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. .