Is the International System Anarchic - Article Example

Is the international system anarchic? This is a question that has been discussed by different scholars in an effort to point to the key benefits and limitations of the current international system. First, it is imperative to understand the meaning of anarchy from a dictionary and the in the context of international relations in order to fully explore all the factors that might point to the international system anarchic or not. The Oxford English Dictionary defines anarchy as a “state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems.” The second definition describes anarchy as the “absence of a government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal”. One must consider the way the international system is organized when discussed anarchy in the international system. Is it possible for anarchy to be organized? The current international system fits the description of an anarchy even though the level of anarchy is reduced by the high level of organization in the way states relate to each other.

Anarchy can have more than one meaning as demonstrated by the presentation of two definition from the Oxford English Dictionary. The focus of the article is on the meaning of the anarchy in the context of international relations. In this sense, anarchy refers to the lack of a higher authority that is above the state in international relations. A state is a sovereign entity that exists to cater for the interests of her people. It is the responsibility of a state to protect her citizens and ensure they are safe from any form of injustice whether its domestic or orchestrated by another state. States possess the power to make their decisions and act within their interests even if it means offending other actors in international relations. It is a situation that best describes the lack of a superior authority, which fits the meaning of anarchy from the perspective of international relations. An anarchic system should not be a direct implication of chaos but a simple description of a situation where independents states exist in a self-help systems with survival as the main goal of all the states.

Waltz’s description of the international system can be summed up by saying an international system is described by the behavior of the states that make up the system, the principle of ordering and the distribution of power among all the actors in the international system. From a neorealist perspective, the international system will remain anarchic because states remain functionally alike and the lack of superior authority will persist. It is difficult to explain the dynamics of international relations in the world today without considering the concept of anarchy. The behavior of states is influenced by the anarchic conditions of the international systems. Consider the case of United States and North Korea. The lack of a superior authority has made it difficult for both states to reach an agreement. No one is trusted because every state works to defend itself from any form of invasion or aggression. The current standoff between United States of America and North Korea is proof that the international system is anarchic.

The fact that there is nothing that can prevent the aggression of others in the international environment means states are constantly coming up with ways to survive. A state work to eliminate any potential danger through establishing relations with other nations, going to wars and eliminating anything that threatens her safety. Survival is not easy because the distribution of power in the international system is not equal. Some states are more influential than others making it more difficult for the less influential states to keep surviving. The balance in the international system is kept by states taking actions to reduce the influence of other states as long as that state is threatening its survival. Consider the cold war between Russia and United States. The two countries acted to neutralize any military advantage or power that the other country had because the growth of Russia was seen as a threat to the United States and vice versa. The response of states depends on the action of other states and the influence that they have on the international system. Organized anarchy remains stable as long as states do not become a source of threat for each other. The entire explanation supports the fact the international system is anarchic in nature.

The world history is full of tales of wars between nations as part of efforts to settle scores or pursue specific interests. Wars are a confirmation that the international system is naturally anarchic. The discussion up to this point has been revolving around the actions of states as they work to protect their interests and the overall implication of the international system. The international system is anarchic and states are competitive. Sometimes one state can become too competitive and take actions that might be deemed as negative. Stiff competition between states can lead to misunderstandings that can easily culminate to wars. Wars are a way of states trying to get rid of any threat that might hamper their survival. Wars occur because of the anarchic system where everyone has to answer to everyone. Once the competition gets intense, security dilemma is a possibility. It is a situation where one state sees the advancement of the other state endangers its existence. The decision to go to war is a way that some states can choose to cope with the pressure form the all the available sources. The past world wars and the current conflicts between nations send one clear message that the international system is anarchic.

Ardent supports of the realist perspective of the international system have described it as something tragic. The system offers the state with only one solution when faced a threat that endangers the state. States are forced to choose war because it is part of the responsibility to protect all citizens. The realist perspective has been described as too extreme by liberalists and constructivists who believe the existence of anarchy does not necessary mean states will continue competing and upsetting the balance of power. The realist perspective is backed by real life examples that include the strife between Iran and the United States, the current standoff between North Korea and the USA and many more. The intense competition that is motivated by the need to survive is pushing states to act according to their interest, which upsets the balance of power. War is a possibility at any time as along as the state believe it must take measures to prevent itself from being replaced or undermined.

Liberalists do not deny the existence of anarchy in the current international system even though they do not share the perspective taken by political realists. They acknowledge that anarchy has a role to play to play in the current international systems but believe states and other actors can come together to create institutions that can help maintain control and balance in the international systems. Based on this perspective, one can say that the formation of organizations like United Nations, African Union, and other international organizations are part of attempts to bring some sense of authority in the international system. The idea is to get an avenue where both state and non-state actors can discuss and reach agreements. The argument fronted by liberalists does not dispute the existence of anarchy. It only proposes a different way of dealing with the friction that is likely to emerge as states compete. According to the liberalist, as long as there is a cooperation that benefits all parties then the balance of power is maintained. The argument has traces of truth as evidenced by the work that the United Nations has done to quell strife between powerful nations. The international system is an anarchy that relies on the management of relationships to prevent the security dilemma from developing.

The constructivist theory of international relations does not refute the existence of anarchy in the international system. It takes a middle ground by claiming that states are at liberty to determine how things pan out in the anarchy. The actions of states can lead to war or harmony, which means the responsibility to go to war or maintain harmony remains with the state actors in the international system. The lack of a superior authority is a problem that makes it difficult to organize all members at times. They posit power play and competition are not the direct effects of anarchy but consequences of the actions taken by state actors. It is an interesting take in the concept of anarchy from the perspective of international relations. However, it does provide adequate explanation to convince that anarchy has no effect on the way state actors relate and behavior in the current international systems. Real life examples confirm states are always driven to get ahead by amassing wealth and increasing military power.

Powel (1991) believes that the arguments fronted to put anarchy at the center of the dynamics of international relations has led to misinterpretations. The absence of central authority does not mean that states will go to war because the international system has been anarchic for decades. However, the full focus should be on the behavior of state of actors because that is what influences the response from other state actors. Powell’s argument presents a different perspective but does not refute the existence of anarchy in the international system. The second meaning of anarchy, which refers to the presence of chaos is refuted by Powell’s argument and the liberalist view of the international systems. The notion is that anarchy can still exist even states organize and act with set rules to avoid conflict. The problem is too much attention on anarchy because it makes scholars to ignore the behaviors of state actors. The push for power can be taken by a state even when it is not under any threat.

A review of the world’s history reveals that the three perspectives of anarchy in international relations have all taken place. The realist perspective of anarchy and its role in causing wars and strife is evidenced by the world wars, and the cold war. The need for states to become powerful and extend their prominence led to conflicts that ended up in destructive wars. In the 21st century, there are still instances that can be explained using the realist perspective of anarchy. The liberal view started to take effect when states actors agreed to form international bodies that can act as centers of power to influence decision making at the international level. The formation of the United Nations is an example of the liberalist view at place. The constructivist approach emphasizes the importance of relationships. The emergence of new threats like terrorism, drugs, and human trafficking has creating the necessity for states to work together to bring down powerful criminal organizations. It is still within the interests of the states. Constructivists describe the international system as a social world where states are free to associate however they like it. They can make of anarchy whatever they feel, which might be positive or negative. There are no fixed ideas or policies that limit the behavior of the states.

A number of theoretical writings in international relations are founded on the fact that the international systems is anarchic. Robert Jervis and Robert Art are examples that have produced informative writings based on the notion that the international is anarchic. Kenneth Waltz places anarchy as the core element in the international system. The interaction of egotistical states in a system with no central authority is bound to bring strife and the desire for additional power. Strong supporters of the realist perspective have questioned the possibility of cooperation in a system where every state thirsts for power and domination. The persistent placement of anarchy at the international systems is proof that the system is anarchic and pushes one to think real meaning of anarchy in the international system. It cannot mean that the international system is chaotic in nature because the semblance of order has been noted in international relations for many decades. All authors that start their argument from the anarchy acknowledge that there is some semblance of order and cooperation in the international system. The thought that the international system should be chaotic for it to be considered anarchic is shortsighted because it does not take into account the first meaning of anarchy.

Milner (1991) provides a vivid analysis of the concept of anarchy by exploring the two meanings of anarchy and then relating it to international systems. According to Milner (1991), the absence of authority is used to describe the international systems as anarchic. Understanding the meaning government makes it easy to comprehend the concept of anarchy in international relations. A government exists to enforce laws and provide a safe environment for all citizens. The government has the legitimacy to use force to counter private force as long as its acting with the constitution. It seems the lack of authority that is mentioned in the international systems is because the international system lacks a superior body with the legitimacy to use force. The legitimacy to use force is the most difficult thing to achieve in the international systems because there are many independent state actors who are always in competition. The difficulty in placing this type of body in the international systems is adequate proof that the international systems will remain anarchic.

Anarchy remains the most distinctive aspect of international politics and that which differentiates it from the national politics. The national politics is the culmination of power at the government, which is a central force while international politics is the decentralization of power to all states. The interaction of these actor is driven by the struggle for power and prosperity. It is pertinent to note that this view is too extreme for liberalist who believe the cooperation alters the behavior of state actors.

A review of the issues surrounding the dynamics in the international system suggest that there are more factors that influence the behavior the states. Anarchy plays a role but it is not the only thing that defines the international systems. It is an organized system that is made of state actors who have cooperated by signing trade deals, forming the United Nations and work together to make the world a better place for everyone. The international system is fairly complex and that makes it difficult for anarchy to explain the all actions of state actors. There is no doubt that the international system is anarchic but does that mean that anarchy should be center of all discussion of the international system. The focus of the article has been on showing the international systems is anarchic, in the sense that, there is no central authority that can control all the state actors. It is pertinent to note that most discussions in international politics have failed to account for the ambiguity of anarchy in their discussions. As a result, anarchy has been awarded an importance that most scholars would consider exaggerated.

In conclusion, the question of whether the international system is anarchic or not has been answered by taking the second definition of anarchy, which is to mean the lack of central authority. There is no central authority in the international systems, which means it is anarchic in nature. There is certainly no chaos in the international system as evidenced by the ability of states to cooperate and organize. The cooperation has led to a form of interdependence that allows states to rely on each other even when they are competing. The interdependence has been borne out states taking the initiative to talk and reach agreements. The system has already been rendered anarchic by the absence of a central authority but the power to start wars and strife remains with the state actors. They are at liberty to make of anarchy whatever they life. The international system is anarchic but not chaotic in nature. The discussion about anarchy in the international systems is bound to continue as many scholars gain the interest. The ambiguity of the concept of anarchy means it will take more time before new knowledge on anarchy and international politics is produced. Realist and liberalist perspectives acknowledge the existence of anarchy. The constructivist perspective admits anarchy is there but refutes the claim that it has a sole impact on the behavior of state actors.