Theories of International Relations - Essay Example

? ‘Anarchy is what s make of it’ al affiliation ‘Anarchy is what s make of it’ The world today has become a system of interdependent states, which need each other to survival in an increasingly competitive international system. This interdependence among states means that they have to find ways of relating with each other in order to maintain international security, even as they pursue their individual interests (Beitz, 1999, pp. 42). As a result of the complexity in international relations, this field of study has attracted numerous scholars who come up with theories to explain international behavior among states. For most theorists of international relations the state is the primary player that determines the direction in international matters. Olson and Groom (1992, pp. 274) state that the policies adopted by a certain state go along way into shaping its relationship with other states, thus molding international relations. The field of international relations widely accepts anarchy as one of the possible explanations for behavior in international politics. Different theorists of international relations have varying concepts on the issue of anarchy. To some pessimists, anarchy is totally appalling, while to some optimists, anarchy can be advantageous to a state. More specifically, there is a “myth” of international anarchy that provides that ‘Anarchy is what states make of it’. According to Weber (2004, pp. 63) this myth of international relations holds that the outcomes of global anarchy vary from one state to another. This means that one cannot predict how anarchy will affect a given state, since different states have different responses to anarchy. Essentially, anarchy may cause either cooperation or conflicts among states, depending on the policies of each individual state on international behavior (Griffith, 1999; pp. 154). Accordingly, it is critical to have deeper insight into the concept of international anarchy; its meaning, origins, the role it plays in international relations. It essential to consider how individual states have it in their power to shape international relations by choosing the consequences that anarchy is going to have on them and other states they interact with. For most people, especially those not concerned with the study of international relations, the term anarchy is associated with disorganization, violence, and absence of laws to govern the actions of people. This means that most people view anarchy as being characterized by severe social and political instability, meaning that anarchy is a threat to international order and security (Griffiths, 1999; pp. 145). With such a mindset, anarchy is depicted as the very opposite of civilization and most people would rather do without anarchy. However, in the study of international relations, different scholars have different views concerning international anarchy and its consequences on international politics. Some see anarchy as negative, while others see it a positive. Yet for some, international anarchy can have either negative or positive effects or both on a state and in the entire field of international politics. Nevertheless, all theorists of international anarchy agree that anarchy is caused by lack of a universal government. In the field of international relations, anarchy is not necessarily considered a theory; rather it is taken as a myth by theorists of international relations. Theorists of international anarchy hold that the world is made of sovereign states, each yielding power over its territory, people, and resources. According to Brown (2002, pp. 145,) such a sovereign state holds the ultimate power over its area of jurisdiction and no other authority, whether domestic or international, should challenge its position. Therefore, as far as international politics of anarchy are concerned, all states are sovereign, but the degrees of sovereignty vary from state to state. International independence among states varies, according to the political structures of individual states, which determine how influential a country is in international affairs. According to Knutsen (1997; pp. 75) each sovereign state is independent of other states in the international field, considering that there is no world government to exercise power over these sovereign states. From the foresaid, one can generally term anarchy as the absence of international authority to govern and control the actions of sovereign states. The lack of a world government denotes the presence of anarchy, regardless of international hegemony and institutions. International hegemony implies that there are some states that have power to shape international relations by virtue of economic and political prowess, for example, the USA (Jackson and Sorenson, 2003; pp. 87). However, such hegemony is not enough to completely curtail or endorse the activities of another sovereign state. As far as international institutions are concerned, individual states form membership to organizations such as the United Nations. Membership to such institutions comes with terms that must be met. Nevertheless, since membership to such institutions is voluntary, a state may choose to withdraw membership if the terms do not suit its policies. Fundamentally, neither international hegemony nor membership to international institutions can yield power over a sovereign state. The absence of an international ordered system has often been interpreted to mean that anarchy is more likely to cause conflict than cooperation. The choice between conflict and cooperation as a way of responding to international anarchy is, therefore, left to individual states (Weber, 2004; pp. 82). Fundamentally, if a state chooses to result to conflict in order to maintain its sovereignty and self-interest, then such a state officially brands international anarchy as conflict-oriented. On the other hand, if a state chooses to cooperate with another to achieve and retain sovereignty and common interests, then international anarchy is seen as cooperative. It is, therefore, the interests and characteristics of individual states that determine international anarchy. However, these interests and characteristics are constantly changing, thus making it difficult to predict the behavior of states and its ripple effect on international anarchy. In as early as the 1970s, theorists of international relations, especially the realists, for example, Hedley bull were of the opinion that states often end up in conflict due to selfishness and their pursuit of self-interests (Olson and Groom, 1992; pp. 139). This meant that the international arena lacked a system to order its relations, signifying that international security was constantly under threat. Accordingly, the security of the international relations among states was determined by the actions of individual states, whose behaviors shaped international anarchy. Later on the neo-realists, for example, Kenneth waltz were of the opinion that the balance of power in the international system is what causes conflict and cooperation. According to Griffiths (1999, pp. 145) Waltz viewed international anarchy as the catalyst for wars among states, especially in a bipolar global system. The neo-realists proposed that the level of the international system is what determined international anarchy, as opposed to the actions of individual sovereign states. A state often reacts to the alterations of power in the international arena, implying that most of the times states engage in self-help, because they are forced to by the international system. For such neo-realists, anarchy mostly leads to negative outcomes such as conflict as opposed to cooperation. Survival policies are essential in the field of international anarchy. It is evident that each sovereign state seeks to retain its autonomy in worldwide affairs, using whichever means. For most states, power over others is the only guarantee that its independence and sovereignty are safeguarded (Weber, 2004; pp. 219). A state with less power is constantly at risk of being subjugated by a more powerful state. According to waltz, therefore, the international system of self-help among sovereign states, human behavior and internal structures among states are what shape international anarchy (Jackson and Sorenson, 2003; pp. 168). The lack of international order is a product of the nature of human beings to want to survive using whichever means. Since a sovereign state is not answerable to any superior power, it may choose to bring disorder into international politics by causing conflicts among nations, for its self-gain. In essence, realists are convinced that the absence of a global government has a negative impact on international politics. However, proponents of the liberal theory of international relations argue that it is not necessarily given that anarchy would lead to conflict (Jackson and Sorenson, 2003). For neo-liberalists particularly, the growth of more powerful international organizations is the key to averting the negative consequences of anarchical international relations. Such international institutions would ensure that member countries share common interests and values which govern the behavior of such states in international matters. By so doing, the states forming membership to such international organizations form a society of their own, which is shaped by common values, norms, interests, ideas, and identities. Ultimately, this means that the commonness of these states will cause them to cooperate, instead of conflicting and pursuing individuality. Although membership to international institutions such as the United Nations does not necessarily phase out conflicts among states, the potential for the occurrence of such conflicts is minimized to a large extent (ibid). These international institutions are able to accomplish this task by acting as media through which different states can communicate freely and solve any pressing issues that may otherwise lead to conflicts. The contrasting views between realists and liberalists seem to have converged and found common footing, following the work of Alexander Wendt, a constructivist, when he wrote an essay with the title ‘Anarchy is what states make of it’ in 1992 (Weber, 2004). Wendt’s essay implies that each sovereign state makes the rational choice to follow its interests, whether or not the process of following those interests ends up in conflict or cooperation with other states. Modern-day perception of international anarchy stems from the constructivist theory of international relations. Constructivist theorists hold that the interests and identities of individual states in international politics are unstable and unpredictable. Just as human beings change their interests and personalities over time, so do states. Changes in interests and identities observed in sovereign states are occasioned by the interaction of the former with other sovereign states in the international arena. According to Baylis et al (2008; pp. 7) to Wendt, anarchical power, politics, and self-help politics are brought into existence by the behavior of different states. The interests and identities of these states do not follow any logical process in order to achieve anarchy. In as much as individual states always calculate the capabilities of other states, the leaders of the former are also concerned about their own characteristics and how future behavior will affect international relations. According to Weber (2004; pp.68) Wendt views international anarchy as a social construct produced by individual states through their actions, meaning that one cannot separate anarchy from the prevalent practices in a state. For example, if the leaders of a certain state choose to be critical of their own behavior and learn from their own behavior, they should let those lessons shape their behavior in international relations. Wendt gives the example of Gorbachev the former president of the Soviet Union, whose actions led to the end of the cold war and the bipolarity experienced in the world during the cold war (Burchill, 2005; pp. 55). For Wendt, therefore, international anarchy does not necessarily have to be conflictual or cooperative; rather it is a creation of the processes and practices of individual sovereign states. Just like other scholars of international relations, Wendt views the state as the primary actor in global affairs. A sovereign state is one that has its own way of relating with other states, while demonstrating an understanding of the role it has to play in international politics, through its relatively stable individual identity. Through this interaction with other states, a sovereign state develops certain interests that it deems necessary to safeguard. At the end, all states with the same identities and interests come together to form institutions that ensure the protection of their interests in international politics. Basically, international anarchy is determined by a social construct stemming from numerous interactions among states. For Wendt, the only relatively stable aspect of international politics is the identity of a state (Olson and Groom, 1992; pp. 180). No matter how much a state evolves, certain characteristics will always be associated with that particular state. Interests and institutions on the other hand, are in a constant state of change depending on the social interactions of sovereign states. States, just like human beings act towards different objects, in this case other states, differently, considering the meaning they attach to those objects. This construction of meaning is not a spontaneous feat; rather it is the product of assessment done by a sovereign state on other states during social interactions. Therefore, anarchy can only take place once states have interacted and from there, the result may be either conflict or cooperation. Perhaps borrowing from the ideas of neo-realist, Wendt argues that conflict and cooperation are determined by the actions of individual states as they try to survive in international politics. The survival tactics for one state may be to collaborate with others, while for another, it may be to conflict with other states. Constructivist theorists led by Wendt hold that states treat each other with caution during the first meeting. Although such states may treat one another with suspicion, they do not necessarily enter into a security dilemma in the first meeting. During that first encounter, states try as much as possible to learn the social structures of other states, their identities, and interest. Such knowledge enables the states to determine whether to treat each other cordially, or to become rivals. Wendt refers to the states meeting for the first time as alter and ego (Weber, 2004; pp. 68). He argues that a security threat does not exist between alter and ego, up until they have interacted and established their interests. It is either that a state (alter) chooses to threaten another socially, or ego deciding that the actions of alter pose a social threat in its survival tactics. The survival tactics of alter and ego are what make and shape anarchy. The identity of each state in relation to another determines the kind of survival tactic it is going to adopt. Even if the international system seems to force states towards self-help mechanisms that end up in conflict, according to neo-realists, states have the power to change the system if only they are willing to (ibid). If only states can transform their personal identities into collective ones, start cooperating and transform their interest, then international politics and anarchy would have very positive outcomes. A socially constructed state is, therefore, through its practices and processes, the primary determinant of international anarchy. States are, thus, solely responsible for producing conflictual or cooperative international anarchy. Wendt differs with neo-realists on the issue of self-help. While the neo-realists hold that self-help is inevitable in the global system of politics, Wendt argues that individual states are the ones that determine self-help (Dunne et al, 2010; pp. 170). The cold war not an accident, it was a carefully thought out plan with the United States and the Soviet Union trying to dominate each other. The Second World War had led to the bipolarity of the global system and each of the two powers wanted to propagate its ideologies. Baylis et al (2008; pp. 95) are of the opinion that the two nations were involved in the cold war because each wanted to be the superpower and to be the only one whose ideologies were ideal for the whole globe. Wendt is also of the opinion that cooperation was the only acceptable alternative after the cold war, just like it had been practiced for the four decades following the Second World War. A multi-polar universe was more profitable than a bipolar or unipolar one since multipolarity ensured that the interests of most states were catered for, thus ensuring cooperation rather than conflict in international politics (Burchill, 2005; pp. 58) . A general definition of anarchy would put into consideration the fact that there is no global government to rule over sovereign states, thus the latter have ultimate power to conduct their affairs freely. The absence of a world government means that each sovereign state has absolute power to rule over its territory, in whichever way it desires, without being answerable to anyone. Although different theorists of international relations have different perspectives concerning the effects of anarchy on international politics, they all agree that the state is the primary actor in international anarchy. Realists, liberals and constructivists all agree that the behavior of states is what determines the positivity or negativity of international anarchy. According to Griffiths (1999; pp. 152) Wendt emphasizes on the role that states play in determining the nature of international anarchy and politics in general. Whereas realists view international anarchy as always resulting to conflict, liberalists on the other hand opt to see international anarchy as resulting to cooperation. Constructivists are the ones who strike a balance a balance between realist and liberal ideas by arguing that the identity and interests of a state are the key factors that determine cooperation or conflict with other states. wendt is, thus, one of the leading constructivists, especially going by his work ‘Anarchy is what states make of it’. In as much as every state is in constant need to survive in an increasingly competitive globe, the way it behaves towards other states influences international anarchy, thus resulting in either conflict or cooperation (Dunne et al, 2010; pp. 181). Through its foreign policies, a sovereign state can have anarchy of friends and anarchy of enemies separately. The most probable states to form anarchy of friends are ones whose values, interests and ideologies are similar, for example, democratic states. Conversely, anarchy of enemies is formed by states whose values, ideologies, identities, and interests are conflictual. An example is the bitter relationship between democratic and authoritarian states in international affairs today, with the former always trying to force the latter to embrace democracy. This stand-off between democratic and authoritarian states has often led to conflict and war, but in some instances, it has led to cooperation. However, since the interests and identities of a state are prone to change at any time, it thus becomes clear that a state has the power to determine international anarchy. In conclusion, the absence of a world government does not necessarily mean violence, chaos, and conflicts among sovereign states in the international arena. These sovereign states, through their leaders are the ones who make the conscience decision to either pursue conflict or cooperation with other states. Just like human beings, such states can change their identities when they realize that in pursuit of their interests, they are creating security dilemmas in the world. A classic example of a state making its own anarchy was set by Gorbachev of the Soviet Union when he accepted the futility of holding on to communism (Weber, 2004; pp. 115). The change in identity led to the end of the cold war, bipolarity, and the restoration of international security. The Soviet Union is thus, a state that chose its own form of international anarchy. References Baylis, J., Smith, S., and Owens, P, 2008. The Globalization of World Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Beitz, C,1999. Political Theory and International Relations. New York: Princeton UP. Brown, C, 2002. International Relations in Political Thought: Texts from the Ancient Greeks to the First World War (Cambridge University Press)  Burchill, S., 2005. Theories of International Relations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Dunne, T, Kurki, M and Smith, S, 2010. International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Griffiths, M., 1999. Fifty Key Thinkers in International Relations. New York: Routledge. Jackson, R. and Sorenson, G., 2003. Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Knutsen, T., 1997. A History of International Relations Theory. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Olson, W. and Groom, A., 1992. International Relations Then and Now: Origins and Trends in Interpretation. New York: Routledge.   Weber, C., 2004. International Relations Theory: A Critical Introduction. New York: Routledge.   Read More