The Nature and Role of Anarchy in International Relations – Realist Accounts, Research Paper Example

Introduction

Realism has been discussed by several authors just like the role of anarchy. In the reading of realist (neo-realist) ideology, international systems are clearly defined by anarchy. This means that taking away the central authority in international systems, there is no concentration of power and control. The only power that exists in international relations is of the different, independent states, and as such they are trying to defend themselves from each other to survive the conflicts of interest. The principal goal of every state is survival, according to the realist accounts. The below review will reveal the background details of such an international relations model and the role of anarchy within.

The Main Tenets of Realism

According to Wright (1991) international relations are dependant on war and power politics alike. Realism provides the most detailed description and analysis of international relations. Interestingly, the ideology of anarchy goes back to ancient times, while it was first examined by Hobbes (1651) who stated that without a sovereign there would be anarchy and people are not to be trusted to make their own decisions. While they are born with equal rights, they voluntarily give up this right to allow the ruler to make decisions for them. This idea was also taken on by Rousseau, who stated that international life is not more than chaos and war. States, however, do not escape the state of war, even if people within the state can. Modern theorists of political science explain this with the thesis that states do not respect any authority above themselves, unlike the individuals who are being ruled.

Variants of Realism

There are different variants of realism in political science: Classical Realism, Neo-Realism, Defensive Structural Realism, Offensive Structural Realism, Rise and Fall Realism, and Neo-Classical Realism. The main author on the subject of classical realism is Morgenthau, (1973), the main theorist of neo-realism is Waltz, Defensive/Offensive Realism s based on the “balance of threat” developed by Waltz while the Rise and Fall realism concludes that balance is often associated with war and peace only exists when the supremacy of power belonging to one state is “unchallenged”. Neoclassical realism claims that the assumption of threats makes international systems unstable.

Modern realism started after the First World War, and continued through the second war and

Cold War as well. After the Second World War, Morgenthau (1973) recalled realist ideology and concluded that the power struggles, wars and conflicts are a result of “the lust for power”.

The six principles of political realism according to Morgenthau are as follows:

a, politics, just like human society are ruled by objective laws, originating in humans

b, the way to examine international politics is to define the concept of interest

c, both power and interest are variable

d, universal moral principles are not suitable for being applied to states

e, the moral aspirations of states are not the subject of study in realism

f, political realism preserves the autonomy of the “political sphere”. (Morgenthau 1973)

The paradigms of power and states’ struggles for antagonism were explained in different ways. He also determined the six principles of political realism. From this time, and especially after the end of the Cold War, the power shift of different states was responsible for wars, while they

concluded that with the disappearance of the Eastern Block and the Soviet Union in 1989 the decline of the relative power led to a peaceful change and the re-balancing of the political world. (Brown et al. 1995)

The Impacts of Anarchy

According to realism, the main results of anarchy are mistrust and uncertainty. This clearly explains the political situation and the power struggle during the Cold War between the United States and Soviet Union. In anarchy, there is no way that cooperation can develop and relative gains are more important than absolute ones. The mistrust results in limitation of cooperation on the trade or economics. That is why realists say that interdependence, when all states are aiming to gain a dominant position is dangerous and makes individual states vulnerable.

As states’ first priority is survival, second one is domination, there are different, (not equal but more balanced than anarchy) systems develop. Balance power initiates from anarchy and moves towards bipolar or multipolar international systems. (Waltz 1979. p. 118.)

According to Waltz, (1979) states are independent and therefore have to use their own resources to defend their interests. The author also defines that the principal difference between each individual state is based on capacity and not function. (as their function is the same) Superiority and power is, therefore, defined in the political system by the distribution of capabilities. (p. 97.)

International Law and Individual States

According to realists, when states create international law, it does not determine their actions; more like the power forces and interest of the individual state. While Hobbes concludes that humans are selfish and only act upon their own interests, political realists go further than that; they categorically identify states acting on their own selfish interest. In this aspect, the definition of anarchy by realists is similar to the terms used by liberalism; the difference is that liberalist theories take into consideration the individual national characteristics. Constructivists, however, do not think that power determines international systems; instead they examine the meaning of states. (Slaughter 2011. p. 19.)

References

Michael Edward Brown, Sean M. Lynn-Jones, Steven E. Miller ed. (1995) The Perils of Anarchy: Contemporary Realism and Security. MIT Press

Maxwell, M. (1990) Morality Among Nations: An Evolutionary View. SUNY Press

Slaughter, M. (2011) International Relations, Principal Theories. Published in: Wolfrum, R. (Ed.) Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford University Press, 2011)

Devetak, R., Burke, A., George, J. (2011) An Introduction to International Relations. Cambridge University Press Chapter 2.

Donnelly, J. (2000) Realism and International Relations. Cambridge University Press. p. 1-25.

Waltz, K. (1979) Theory of international politics. Addison-Wesley

Morgenthau (1973): Politics Among Nations. p. 141-147

Hobbes, Thomas (1651, reprint:1985)Leviathan. Ed. C. B. Macpherson. London: Penguin.