Wide realist definitions of state and anarchy - Essay Example

The realist concepts of and 'anarchy' Wide realist definitions of and anarchy The realist concept of and 'anarchy' is that different countries have different interests and desires, and in the pursuit of such interests, there are chances that the countries will conflict (Smith, 2007, p.48). The major question therefore is: how do the arising conflicts get resolved? In addressing this question, the realists have defined the state as a sovereign entity that has no competing governmental authority over it, which can enforce promises or protect the country against aggression by other countries (Garnett, 2010, p.72). Thus, the concept of realists in relation to State is that as a sovereign entity, it is upon the state to decide how it will deal with both internal and external problems (Waltz, 1979, p.96). Further, the realist concept observes that a state exists in a ‘state of nature’, where like humans, states are existing on their own, and must work out how to live with each other in the international arena, since the states as collective entities do not have any higher authority over them, for example, a world government that can restrain them, a condition known as ‘anarchy’ (Adem, 2000, p.12). Therefore, the realist concept of 'state' and 'anarchy' is that a condition of war between nations is permanent and expected since, as opposed to internal feuds between different groups within a state which can be restrained by a civil government of the state, there lacks any global institution or government with the ability to restrain the aggression of one country against another, resulting in a situation where states are the most important and unitary actors in the world politics, and thus anarchy reigns supreme in international relations (Grieco,1988, p.487). The core of realist concepts of 'state' and 'anarchy' therefore, remains the existence of a state of permanent conflicts and war in the world and certainly nothing can change that fundamentally (Jervis, 2003, p.84). Thus, conflicting state systems and wars shall have to continue, and nothing, not even any attempt to foster international cooperation can possibly end the state of anarchy in the world, considering the fact that even the establishment of international oversight institutions cannot amount to a sovereign world government that exerts its control over the sovereign states. The state of nature dictates that human nature is not kind, but rather self-centred and egoistic (Hopf, 1998, p.172). This being the case, even the wisest attempt to end the conflicting world systems will not be able to work out any solutions, and thus nations must always be prepared for wars. This is the same aspect that has been demonstrated by history, that increasing military strength, if not superiority, has been the constant attempt for all nations in the world (Mearsheimer, 1990, p.7) In the light of this, the realist concepts of 'state' and 'anarchy' is that it is only military might that can win wars, and as such, the realists fundamental principle is the maximization of state security, through build-up of military might, which is the only way through which a state can be able to avert any threatens of international aggression on its sovereignty and territorial integrity, due to the lack of any legitimate world government that can exert control over states, and thus restrain foreign aggression of a state against another (Adem, 2000, p.17). Power is in the core of realist concepts of 'state' and 'anarchy', where in the international systems, states are always striving to ensure that their security is guaranteed and protected, as they embark on competing for resources and power (Ashworth, 2002, p.37). Thus, according to realists, states are rational actors in the global sphere, where they are engaged in rational calculation of their interests, which then becomes the basis upon which the states interact with others, on the international scene. National security remains the overriding interest and concerns of the states, since the realist concepts of 'state' and 'anarchy’ holds that states are only responsible for what happens within their borders, since the international system is defined by anarchy (Brown, 2001, p.53). It is therefore essential that states apply rationality when interacting with the international community, through keenly calculating its interest in the international relations, and then applying the same, as the basis of bargaining with the other international actors, who are also driven by self-centred interests. Thus their motivation for interacting with foreign countries is simply to compete for resources and power with those countries (Lebow, 2003, p.88). Where a state has been able to enhance its national security and reinforce its military might, the state is then assured of a better bargaining platform with the other international actors, considering that even where war, which is an expected and permanent occurrence in the international system, erupts, the countries can still manage to secure their interests (Jervis, 2003, p.87). The states thus apply rationality in advancing their self-centred interests, by logically connecting the means and the ends, where a state will only be engaged with other states within the international system, as a means of obtaining its desired end in terms of power of dominance, or the much desired resources that the country could be in shortage (Molloy, 2003, p.79) The realist concepts of 'state' and 'anarchy assumes that states are unitary actors in the global front, and thus their interaction with other nations will only be possible where a state has calculated rationally, and found that there are opportunities for the state to gain either power of dominance or resources that are in shortage (Ashworth, 2002, p.51). The realists therefore separate the basis for international interaction into two fronts; the Military & Strategic front, and the Economic & Political front. The Military & Strategic front is a component of high politics, since it forms the basis for which a state can achieve its major overriding interest, which is national security (Keohane, 1984, p58). On the other hand, the Economic & Political front, according to the realist concepts of 'state' and 'anarchy', forms the component of the low politics categorization, considering that this front is the basis of a state’s negotiating and competing for resources, which is not as highly regarded as the Military & Strategic front. This is because the Military & Strategic front can enable a state to obtain power and resources, through military might and superiority, where the application of the Economic & Political front fails to deliver results, since the international system is defined by anarchy, where nations have to work out how to live with one another, may it through peaceful coexistence or permanent wars (Hutchings, 1999, p.15). Nevertheless, it is important to underline the fact that, the realist concepts of 'state' and 'anarchy', while upholding war as necessary and permanent occurrence on the international system that is characterized by anarchy, they do not like or advocate for inter-state wars. Rather the realists study and formulate the theories of war and conflict, with the hope of addressing the causes, and reducing the chances of occurrences of wars and conflicts amongst nations in the future (Doyle, 1997, p.83). The realist concepts of 'state' and 'anarchy' emphasises on the sovereignty and independence of a state, while defining the sovereignty of a state as the ability of the state to make authoritative decisions regarding issues that affect it. In instances where the authoritative decision is challenged, sovereignty of a nation entails the ability of a nation to make decisions to make war (Brown, 2001, p.23). It is therefore fundamental to insist on the fact that despite the fact that the realist considers war as an expected and permanent occurrence amongst nations interacting on the international front, the realists underline the fact that war occurs as a matter of necessity, where the authoritative mandate of a state to make decisions in matters affecting it has failed to bear fruits, and thus turns to war as the alternative means of exercising its sovereignty (Waltz, 1979 p.97). Therefore, the realists have adjusted the definition of sovereignty to reflect this assertion, through offering the current realist definition of sovereignty, as the recognition by internal and external actors, of the fact that; the state has the exclusive authoritative and coercive mandate to intervene in matters within its territory (Garnett, 2010, p.98). Accordingly, the bottom-line of the realist concepts of 'state' and 'anarchy' is that; the absence of a central authority that can settle disputes and conflicts amongst nations, coupled with the existence of a condition of anarchy, where states are existing on their own, and must work out how to live with each other in the international arena, contributes to international security dilemma (Grieco, 1988, p.502). As such, the realist concepts of 'state' and 'anarchy' hold onto the fact that there are unchanging laws of nature that regulate the state behaviour, the laws of nature, which provides for self-centeredness and aggressive pursuit of interests without any due regard to morality, as well as pursuing desires to the detriment of other international actors (Doyle, 1997, p.79). Realists have simply held that the international security dilemma exists because of the prevalence of anarchy, and as long as there shall never arise a sovereign world government that can be able to exert its control over the individual states in the international system, conflicts and wars will forever remain the common denominator of international relations (Krasner,1999 p.11). Factors that make the realist concepts of 'state' and 'anarchy' a more compelling Analysis of the global political economy than concepts from other theoretical traditions The realist concept of ‘state’ and ‘anarchy’ is built on two fundamental realities of nature. First, it is based on the natural rule that humans are egoistic, and are naturally driven by the sense of self-centeredness and competition for power, wealth and glory. Therefore, a constant state of war and conflict cannot cease, considering that humans will forever continue to struggle for glory and diffidence, even in the absence of government (Garnett, 2010, p.77). Secondly, the realist concepts of 'state' and 'anarchy' is build on the foundation that in reality, there does not exist any other powerful authority over the state authority, which is capable of exerting control over the sovereignty of a state. Thus anarchy is a reality that forever exists, since countries will continue to relate based on an international system that lacks equality, and the military superiority. Thus, powerful countries will forever exert their will over the less military strong nations (Hutchings, 1999, p.14). The two fundamental realities of nature then combine to create a conflict-based international system, where the main actors are the states, and the main issues of concern are power and national security, while morality is not amongst the driving forces that helps define the way the states relate on the international front (Brown, 2001, p.56). Through applying the above suppositions, the realist concepts of 'state' and 'anarchy' remains the most widely applied and analyzed theory of international relations, and it has come to be regarded as universally acceptable under certain circumstances, due to its consistent, pragmatic and applicable framework of analyzing the conflict and security issues of international relations. Further, the realist concepts of 'state' and 'anarchy' advances the supposition that states are constantly struggling for survival within the international community, with each state trying to enter into relations with other states, which the state finds most promising and capable of benefiting its national interests (Adem, 2000, p.21). This supposition is most inarguable, considering that no state seeks to enter into an international relation with other states, where there are no chances and opportunities for such a state to benefit from the cooperation entered into. In addition, there is no argument that can replace the argument presented by the realist concepts of 'state' and 'anarchy', which provides that states within the international system are in constant competition for power and resources, as well as glory and dominance. Thus, the only reason for which a state can seek to enter into an international system of cooperation, is so that the cooperation can supplement for the areas in which the state has desired to realize self benefits, but it has not succeeded on its own (Hopf, 1998, p.177). Therefore, the realist concepts of 'state' and 'anarchy' is inarguably one of the most convincing and compelling analysis of the global political economy, compared to concepts from other theoretical traditions. Another factor that makes the realist concepts of 'state' and 'anarchy' a more compelling analysis of the global economy is the complexity of anarchy. The realist concept of ‘state’ and ‘anarchy’ asserts that anarchy is a very complex concept within the international arena, considering that humans are self-centred, egoistic and diffident, thus, their pursuit is always dominance, glory and power. Consequently, there is always uncertainty over the motives and commitments of the other states in regard to negotiations and cooperation within the international systems, which means that there are still chances that negotiations can fail (Doyle, 1997, p.91). This then requires that the states involved in international relations should always be prepared for war, considering that on the event that negotiations fail to work, then, the conflict can only be resolved through a decision to make war with the other state. While this realist assertion might be viewed as very pessimistic and lacking in human values of trust and need for peace, it is a very factual assertion, due to the sole fact that there does not exist any overarching authority on top of state authority and sovereignty, which can exercise control over a state, and force the state to fulfil its promises (Keohane, 1984, p59). This means that a state, depending on its power and military might, can opt to negate an agreement that has been reached in a peaceful negation, and instead continue to challenge the sovereignty of another state, regarding its internal matters. It is upon this realization, that the realist concepts of 'state' and 'anarchy' holds that states must always be vigilant and ready to protect themselves, on the event that a peaceful negotiation is negated by the bargaining state partners (Garnett, 2010, p.81). The complexity of anarchy in the international system as explained by the realist concepts of 'state' and 'anarchy', underlines the fact that states are always insecure and they always fear that other nations are seeking to exploit them. Further, the fact that power is always a Zero-sum, and thus anything that creates an advantage for one state is likely to create a disadvantage for the other country, makes mistrust and insecurity a reality that lives within nations, especially in matters of international cooperation and internal bargains, rendering vigilance and preparedness for war the only option (Milner, 1991, p.67). Therefore, this is an inarguable supposition that cannot be successfully challenged by other theoretical traditions, making the realist concepts of 'state' and 'anarchy' a more compelling analysis of the global political economy, than concepts from other theoretical traditions. The other compelling analysis of the global political economy presented by the realist concepts of 'state' and 'anarchy', which is more convincing than concepts from other theoretical traditions is that; the realist concept has upheld that conflicts and wars are expected and permanent in the international system relations (Ashworth, 2002, p.39). The realist concepts of 'state' and 'anarchy' asserts the fact that due to lack of a central authority that can exercise control over the sovereignty of individual states, conflicts and wars remain a constant factor, considering that the desires and interests of nations are different, while their powers and capabilities are also not equal (Brown, 2001, p.67). According to the realist concepts of 'state' and 'anarchy', the move and attempt by a nation to search for national security and power, leaves the other countries threatened and insecure, and the attempt for a state to seek absolute security and power leaves the other states absolutely threatened and insecure (Mearsheimer, 1990, p.13). This being the case, the move and attempt by a nation to pursue power and security, which is in essence the reality conditions of nature for humans to strive for power and glory, always raises a wave of resistance amongst the other nations, and the spiral effect will produce a condition where only conflicts and wars remains a constant denominator in the international relations (Van Evera, 1998, p.12). This supposition of the realist concepts of 'state' and 'anarchy' is also factual, real and inarguable, making the global and economic analysis of the realists more convincing than the concepts of other theoretical traditions. Factors that make concepts from other theoretical traditions more compelling Analysis than the realist concepts of 'state' and 'anarchy' Holistic concepts from the idealism/liberalism traditions The theory of idealism/liberalism is in constant conflict with the concept of realism, through suppositions that power and security are not the only needs for humans, and thus human needs goes beyond competition for power, security and glory, to include further needs for peace and stability (Strohmer, 2013, n.p.). Therefore, the theory of political idealism/liberalism challenges the suppositions of the concepts of the realist concepts of 'state' and 'anarchy', through observing that humans and human needs should be perceived holistically, as opposed to selectively, an aspect that will open further avenues for liberalism to be the fundamental basis of international relations, as opposed to wars and conflicts (Ashworth, 2002, p.44). In advancing the holistic perception of humanity and human needs, the theory of idealism applies the example of the cold war, which was a potentially explosive situation that could have seen the destruction of the world, out of the struggle for the balance of power between the USA and the USSR. However, considering that humans have more overriding needs other than the need for power, dominance and glory, the situation of the Cold War was quelled through negotiations and peaceful means, which eventually brought the potentially dangerous war to an end (Strohmer, 2013, n.p.). This being the case then, the theory of idealism/liberalism negates the assertions of the realist concepts of 'state' and 'anarchy', which emphasises on war and conflict as the prime means through which international relations is built. Thus, while the realist concepts of 'state' and 'anarchy' is a convincing analysis in relation to the global economy and the state of international relations; its major weakness is the perception of humans from the tragic side, while negating the optimism side of human nature. Thus, the non-holistic aspect of realists renders it universally inapplicable. Therefore, in the light of this, the realist concepts of 'state' and 'anarchy' offers a less compelling analysis of the global political economy, than the holistic concepts from the idealism/liberalism traditions. Social values, norms and assumptions of constructivist approach theory The constructivist approach is yet another theory that seeks to discredit the realist concepts of 'state' and 'anarchy', thorough introducing an alternative approach to the concept of anarchy, from the one held by the realist concept. According to the constructivist approach, anarchy within the international systems is not absolute, considering that there are far more important meanings attached to human relations other than just conflicts, which are defined in terms of social values, norms and assumptions that are universally upheld by the international community (Fierke, 2007, p.39). This being the case, there is a universal norm within the international systems, that a state cannot arbitrarily attack another nation, violate its sovereignty and territorial integrity, or interfere in its internal matters. In addition, there is a widely accepted assumption within the international relation systems that states will coexists mutually, without the attempt of one state to cause any aggression against the other country (Copeland, 2000, p.187). Finally, it is universally accepted within the international relations systems, that national resources belongs to a state and are within the control of the state authorities, and thus cannot be exploited by another foreign state (Synder, 2004, p.61). Therefore, it is through the social values, norms and assumptions that countries have been coexisting together for centuries in the world, even where some countries are less powerful and have little military might (Fierke, 2007, p.42). It therefore follows that the absolute anarchist perception of the international system relations held by the realist concepts of 'state' and 'anarchy' does not hold and is therefore factually impractical, since the whole world could be existing in constant feuds, wars and conflicts, if the social values, norms and assumptions were not anything to go by, for the nations (Copeland, 2000, p.202). Therefore, the constructivist approach defies the notion advanced by the realists, that self-help and power politics are the major characteristics of anarchy as a major component of the international system relations. The constructivist approach advance the view that such absolute characteristics of anarchy are the factors that affects the institutions of social values, norms and assumptions in the international system, rendering them less effective (Powell, 1994, p315). Therefore, there is no doubt that the social values, norms and assumption institutions, as advanced by the constructivist approach theory to international relation, offers a more compelling analysis of the global political econom, than the realist concepts of 'state' and 'anarchy'. Multi-dimensional angle of Cosmopolitanism theory The Cosmopolitanism theory has emerged to challenge the limited angle applied by the realist concepts of 'state' and 'anarchy', through emphasizing that the single-minded focus of political power aspect, as the single most determinant of the international system relation, is erratic, incomprehensive and insufficient (Lake, 2009, p.144). This is because, there are many other factors that acts in the international arena, which defines the relationship between nations, outside of the political power, and which can exert higher influence on the way nations interact and relate in the international platforms, than the political power does (BBC, 1996, n.p.). According to the cosmopolitanism theory, there exist further influential factors on the international arena, which include the economic phenomena, technological phenomena, the social phenomena, and the cultural phenomena, which are capable of influencing the way nations relate with each other. In fact, the economic phenomena has emerged as the single most influential factor on the international platform, where the countries that are emerging as economically dominant are seen to exert even more influence on the international platform, compared to the those with high political powers (BBC, 1996, n.p.). China forms a good example of a nation that did not have much political influence in the world, but has now emerged to be one of the most influential nations globally, due to its economic prowess that has been developing in the recent past, making it possible for such a nation to have more influence in the international arena, than does other nations, which would be considered to be traditionally political powers (Synder, 2004, p.57). Therefore, the negation of the other factors that defines the international relations system, and the narrow and single-minded focus on political power as the most influential factor in the international relations system by the realist concepts of 'state' and 'anarchy', is insufficient (BBC, 1996, n.p.). This renders the realist analysis of the global economy challengeable, and thus the unlimited and multi-dimensional angle of Cosmopolitanism theory to international relations offers a more compelling analysis of the global political economy than the realist concepts of 'state' and 'anarchy. Non-state actors (NSA) supposition of idealism/liberalism theories The theory of idealism/liberalism has emerged as a strong challenger of the the realist concepts of 'state' and 'anarchy, thorough observing that the narrow focus of the realist concept to international systems has negated the role of other important factors, which are equally powerful influencers of the international relations and interactions (Lake, 2009, p.147). The idealism/liberalism has introduced a different perspective of the Non-state actors (NSA) in the international relations system, where there are non-state actors, such as terrorism that has exerted greater influence on the international systems than the political power could has done in the past(Ashworth, 2002, p.35). While the realist concepts of 'state' and 'anarchy' emphasises on the role of sovereign states as the basis of international relations, it has been unable to account for the recent development, where there are terrorist organizations that have emerged to be operating across borders and functioning in different territorial states (Brown, 2001, p.61). Such terrorist organizations have been responsible for undermining the sovereignty of the world, not even that of a single state, through numerous attacks that has affected different nations, amongst them those with high military power and superiority, like the USA. Such occurrences have served to prove the inadequacy of the realist concepts of 'state' and 'anarchy', since it cannot be able to account for such emerging trends, only serving to explain the occurrence of traditional wars and conflicts within the international systems. Therefore, the narrow focus on the realist concepts of 'state' and 'anarchy' on the state, as the only actor in the international relations system, while negating the role of other Non-state actors (NSA), has served to successfully challenge the comprehensiveness and adequacy of the realists concept. Therefore, the Non-state actors (NSA) supposition of idealism/liberalism offers a more compelling analysis of the global political economy, than the realist concepts of 'state' and 'anarchy. References Adem, S. 2000. Anarchy, Order and Power in World Politics, Ashgate, Hampshire. Ashworth, M. 2002. “Did the Realist-Idealist Debate Really Happen? A Revisionist History of International Relations,” International Relations, 16(1), 33–51. BBC. 1996. “Realism vs. Cosmopolitanism. Open University.” Retrieved December 12, 2013 from https://www.polity.co.uk/global/realism-vs-cosmopolitanism.asp Brown, C. 2001. Understanding International Relations (2nd ed). New York: Plagrave. Copeland, D. 2000. “The Constructivist Challenge to Structural Realism”, International Security, 25: 2: 187-212. Doyle, W. 1997. Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism, and Socialism, New York: Norton. Fierke, K.M. 2007. “Constructivism”, in Dunne, T., Kurki, M. and Smith, S., International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, Oxford University Press. Garnett, J. 2010. The Causes of War and the Conditions of Peace. Oxford University Press. Grieco, J.M. 1988. “Anarchy and the limits of cooperation: A realist critique of the newest liberal institutionalism.” International organization, 42(3), 485-507. Hutchings, K. 1999. International Political Theory. London: Sage. Hopf, T. 1998. “The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory”, International Security, 23(1), 171-200. Jervis, R. 2003. “The Compulsive Empire”, Foreign Policy. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 83-87. Keohane, O. 1984. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Krasner, D. 1999. Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press. Lake, A. 2009. Hierarchy in International Relations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Lebow, R. 2003. The Tragic Vision of Politics: Ethics, Interests and Orders, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mearsheimer, John J., 1990. “Back to the Future: Instability in Europe After the Cold War,” International Security, 19, 5–49. Milner, V. 1991. “The Assumption of Anarchy in International Relations: A Critique.” Review of International Studies 17, 67-85. Molloy, S. 2003. “Realism: a problematic paradigm,” Security Dialogue, 34(1), 71-85. Powell, R. 1994. “Anarchy in international relations theory: the neorealist-neoliberal debate.” International Organization, 48(2), 313-344. Smith, S. (2007) “Introduction: Diversity and Disciplinarity in International Relations Theory. International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. Oxford University Press. Strohmer, C. 2010. “Realism & Idealism.” Retrieved December 12, 2013 from http://www.charlesstrohmer.com/international-relations/international-relations-101/realism-idealism/all/1/ Synder, Jack (2004), “One World, Rival Theories”, Foreign Policy. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 53-62. Van Evera, S. 1998. “Offense, Defense, and the Causes of War”. International Security, 22(4), 5-43. Waltz, N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Read More