Anarchy and Order

This academic essay was written for a school paper assignment in grad school. 

One of the core concepts of International Relations is focused on the sovereignty of states which gives them a monopoly to use legitimate force within their territory. In other words, sovereign states have discretion on how to control their domestic affairs. This basic principle provides system and order in the domestic level where structure and sovereign institutions to enforce laws are present. But in the bigger world system with hundreds of actors, one may wonder and ask, “Who is sovereign over the sovereigns?”

         The answer is no one.

         A world government is non-existent. The globe operates under anarchy where an overarching central authority is absent. Contrast to the hierarchical order of domestic politics, anarchy is marked by the lack of ultimate arbiter or police force to respond immediately to states’ emergencies. For instance, states can agree on conventions and treaties but no sovereign institution monitors compliance and punish nonconformities. Although anarchy carries a misleading negative connotation usually synonymous to chaos and order, anarchy permits anything to happen including war or even peace. As one can observe in the reality of the present time, most states are not fighting most of the time. The world is in a relatively peaceful state characterized by order. How order is created though is a subject of heated debate among political scientists who subscribe to different schools of thought to make sense of the anarchic world. According to these scholars, states behave and respond to anarchy in diverse ways with different underlying reasons.

         Of primary salience among these schools of thought is realism which views anarchy as the fundamental characteristic underlying international relations. According to structural realists, particularly Waltz, the structure of international society encourages states to behave in an insecure condition where they had to defend themselves. Since there is no external supreme authority, states had to rely on themselves to safeguard their survival. Neighboring states are considered as untrustworthy and potential threats, hence, most states would seek power for defense. This defensive behavior is based on the reasoning that more powerful states are less likely to be attacked. States would engage in activities, including but not limited to violent coercion, to promote their beneficial interest, even at the expense of others. They will acquire opportunities to alter the balance of power in their favor. At the very least, states would guarantee that other states would not gain power at their expense. States will actively covet power in response to anarchy.

         In a similar manner, Morgenthau supports this power-seeking behavior of states under anarchy. He put emphasis on securing interest, specifically national interest, to be the central goal of states. He asserted that states are in a constant struggle for power. Morgenthau’s belief is closely related to classical realism where states’ hostile behavior for power is concomitant to human nature. Relatedly, this power-centered belief is similar to Thucydides argument on interstate relations and war. He likewise highlighted power politics and self-interest as principal features of international relations. Thucydides would concur that without an ordering principle, states are expected to exert power. Just like in The Melian Dialogue, strong states are expected to exercise dominance over weak ones. In addition, under an anarchic world, states may behave without major consideration of moral, value, and justice.

          In contrast, constructivists would argue that the behavior of states in response to anarchy is dependent on the meaning associated with it. In his “Anarchy is what states make of it”, Wendt argued that international relations is a socially constructed phenomenon that is filled with norms, values, and assumptions. Compared to the fatalistic view of a realist, constructivist takes a more optimistic middle ground view on anarchy. The absence of a world government is neither bad nor good. It is the understanding of anarchy that guides states in certain behavioral response. To put in a different way, state actors react to anarchy according to how they interpret and construe it. Anarchy permits a wide range of behavioral options that will result in insecurity, conflict, cooperation, peace, etc. The inter-subjective meaning states assign to social contexts determines these behavioral tendencies. While neorealist highlights the structure, constructivist stresses the behavioral process of states. Constructivism would oppose the belief that war is inevitable by pointing out that identities, interests, and ultimately behavioral response can be flexible for change. 

         For an understandable reason, the traditional definition of anarchy is generally associated with confusion, chaotic behavior, and disorganization. This view, however, disregards the other side of the anarchic coin where peace and order can also be achievable. Although achieving a harmonious co-existence under anarchy seems like a daunting and challenging task, it does not mean that it cannot be attained. In fact, it is notable to mention that order is a persistent element of our present world. Political scientists have proposed ways how to shape a harmonious world without a supreme authority.     

         For realists, under anarchy, peace and order can be achieved by balancing the power of states. For instance, if one state strengthens her military might, a threatened state would also increase her military, if resources permit. If not, the state at risk can forge flexible alliances with other states to balance the distribution of power. This coalition would ensure that no one state is on a position to exert total dominance over the other states. Non-violent relationships can also be preserved thru deterrence or the threat or use of significant force such as nuclear weapons to forestall the attack of an adversary state. Although these strategies are tension-laden, it has worked effectively in the past to achieve a relatively peaceful world. Yet another strategy offered by realist is focused on the power of cultivating effective diplomatic practices. Morgenthau laid out rules and principles to guide states in the conduct of this non-virulent process. In a nutshell, diplomacy is an alternative that states can opt to secure national interests by peaceful means.

         Unlike realism and constructivism, liberalism has a limited explanation of states’ behavioral response to anarchy. However, liberalist scholars have presented several suggestions on how to achieve peace in the current world system. As noted by Baylis & Smith, liberalism considers anarchy as a possibility for states to unite together and build institutions that will regulate the rules. Without an existing world government, liberalism pushes for an overseeing institution that will closely resemble a global authority to govern states. Liberalism, with its utter support of absolute gains and cooperation, advocates for collective security where states work collectively and collaboratively to prevent wars by repelling potential aggressors.

         Another fundamental view of liberalism underscores the role of democracy in achieving peace under anarchy. This principle argues that democratic states are less likely to engage in hostile wars with one another. Due to the tendency of democracies to see fellow democracies as legitimate and unthreatening, cooperation is not elusive. The internal restraints on domestic power also help encourage peace. Yet we have to be cautious in inferring causality between democracy and peace. Mansfield warns us of the danger of a rough transition to democracy. According to his notion, states in the process of democratization are more likely to fight wars. Unfortunately, this is the price we have to pay in expanding the zones of stable democracy in the hope of a peaceful world in the long run.

         Lastly, constructivism has shared ideas that contributed to attaining peace in a world void of ultimate authority. Unlike the predeterminism of realism, constructivism explains that identities and interests can be dynamic and flexible to allow for cooperation among states. This school of thought has parallel commonalities with liberalism in terms of the role of higher institutions in transcending identities and interests beyond the usual assignments. In response to anarchy, Wendt laid emphasis on the power of previous interaction among states. To modify the international structure to a peaceful one entails reciprocal and safe interaction among actors. One example of the avenue of these interactions is through diplomacy (as Morgenthau argued) where the transformation from tension into cooperation can transpire. Repeated diplomatic interaction would allow for reconsideration of initial identities to reduce fear and foster peace.

         In conclusion, anarchy is indeed one of the fundamental concepts of International Relations. Its timeliness and relevance are manifested in the ongoing debates on the behavioral response of states and the best strategies to achieve peace under an anarchic system. Nonetheless, digging deeper into anarchy is always a worthy endeavor as it makes our understanding of the world more meaningful.

*This essay was submitted as a requirement for POS 190 (International Relations).

*Still on the process of editing to avoid plagiarism. References are listed in the original file.