Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

How does anarchy affect the behaviour of states?

One of the more central concepts of International Relations is that of anarchy. TheOxford English Dictionary defines anarchy as “Absence of government; astate of lawlessness due to beliefs that people are inherently good and canorganize themselves without government or bureaucracies; another type of political order." (http://www.answers.com/anarchy#wp-_ref-0) however this isdifferent to the IR view of anarchy, which is the arrangement of states in theinternational world, completely independent and self-governing with no world-wide organisation or higher power to reign over them. The concept of anarchywas showcased by the British International Relations theorist, Hedley Bull. Hestated that anarchy was “the central fact of the international system and thestarting place for theorising about it.” (Bull, 1966:35) As with the first definitionof anarchy, there are inherent dangers, disadvantages and other effects with theconcept of anarchy in International Relations, which this essay will attempt toexplain, as well as the cause-and-effect role of anarchy – as anarchy affects thebehaviour of states, so shall the behaviour of states affect the internationalstage.However, it is an interesting point to note the relative stability of the world in this“anarchical” society. If a state became anarchical in the first sense of the word,then it would not take long for society to break down, for example due to the lackof government, emergency services, welfare, food distribution, and so on. Sohow is it that states, with large militaries and nuclear powers, and therefore a lotmore to gamble with, are able to maintain the peace with each other in anarchy?Waltz suggests, as a point of neorealism or “Structural Realism,”that survival isthe overriding concern for states. “To achieve a favourableoutcome from aconflict, a state has to rely on its own devices, the relative efficiency of whichmust be its constant concern." (Waltz, 1959:159) This then leads to a tense

situation where neighbouring states are constantly sizing up each other’scapability to threaten one another. They will still cooperate of course, but that isonly to further their own interests; after all, as per the “stag hunt” analogy, themost beneficial outcome for all parties (states, in this case) is if all states worktogether. However, the interesting point to note about this is that he views thestates as defensive, not aggressive. They are there to look after themselves, andif that means taking a defensive, even paranoid view of other states, then so beit, just as long as that state is not necessarily the aggressor. This illustrates thedifference between the defensive realists who believe this, and the “offensiverealists” like Mearsheimer who believe that states are likely to accumulate asmuch power as they possibly can, be it territory, resources, or anything that canfurther their military requirements, and its need for more space (expansionism.)In fact, it is this concept of survival, and the “self-help” it encourages states topursue that is integral to anarchy as a concept in International Relations. Afterall, if there is no-one above the state to turn to, no overreaching InternationalGovernment to beg for help from, then it is up to you (i.e.the state) to pursueyour own interests. As above, cooperation with other states is acceptable of course, but perhaps an overreliance on other states could nurture the idea thatyour state is dependent on others for survival, perhaps even weak and atempting target.Another strong concept in this subject is the concept of the Balance of Power. This was originally defined as the power struggle (the “balance”) between twostates, but has come to mean any array of powers in a group of states. The mostclassic case of these

bipolar

Balances of Power is of course the Cold War, betweenthe USA and the USSR. The consensus in a lot of IR theorists is that bipolarBalances of Power are dangerous and volatile, due to the fact that no otheractors are able to influence the Balance, only the two “poles.” However, Waltz

argues that bipolar Balances of Power are BETTER due to the lack of 3

parties,i.e. other states, getting tangled up in the Balance.Another firmpoint in the Realist view of anarchy is the concept of the SecurityDilemma. If you are unsure what your neighbouring state is doing with respectto being aggressive towards you, you might feel compelled to increase thedefences of your own territory. However, the neighbouring state might see yourincreased defensiveness and portray that as increased aggressiveness instead,i.e. thepreparation for mobilisation for war. This will then of course drive you tofurther increase your defences and so on, resulting in a spiralling stand-off situation. This is another example of the Prisoner’s Dilemma; the only wayeveryone will achieve total security is through cooperation, but becauseeveryone is concerned with their own, they might proceed with a more selfishpath at the risk of themselves and others.Also, another point about anarchy is that it encourages states to nurture the“Balance of Power.” What this means is that if a state tries to tip the scales of the balance away from the status quo, then the balance of power will becomeunstable, and therefore hostilities may commence.What about an opposing view on anarchy however, from the Liberalist point of view? The difference in viewpoints between Liberalists and Realists on thesubject of anarchy is that anarchy itself doesn’t in any way hinder or stopsanysort of cooperative relationship between states. In fact, it is more likely to be thecase that states share objectives and goals, and therefore they will naturallywork together in order to achieve these. However the problem with this comesup with the famous “Prisoner’s Dilemma” as well; the only way cooperation willbe beneficial for all states is if all states are actually contributing. A “parasitic”state that contributes little but expects a lot in return will be very detrimental toany sort of cooperation, while under a more Realist view of anarchy this sort of