Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T08:51:14.077Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The assumption of anarchy in international relations theory: a critique*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

Helen Milner
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

‘Anarchy is one of the most vague and ambiguous words in language.’ George Coreewall Lewis, 1832.

In much current theorizing, anarchy has once again been declared to be the fundamental assumption about international politics. Over the last decade, numerous scholars, especially those in the neo-realist tradition, have posited anarchy as the single most important characteristic underlying international relations. This article explores implications of such an assumption. In doing so, it reopens older debates about the nature of international politics. First, I examine various concepts of ‘anarchy’ employed in the international relations literature. Second, I probe the sharp dichotomy between domestic and international politics that is associated with this assumption. As others have, I question the validity and utility of such a dichotomy. Finally, this article suggests that a more fruitful way to understand the international system is one that combines anarchy and interdependence.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , January 1991 , pp. 67 - 85
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I would like to thank David Baldwin, James Caporaso, Alexander George, Joanne Gowa, Stephan Haggard, Ted Hopf, Robert Jervis, Robert Keohane, Fritz Kratochwil, Kathleen McNamara, Henry Nau, Susan Peterson, Kamal Shehadi, and Jack Snyder for their helpful comments.

References

1 Cornewall Lewis, George, Remarks on the Use and Abuse of Some Political Terms, Facsimile of 1832 text (Columbia, 1970), p. 226.Google Scholar

2 John, Ruggie, ‘Continuity and Transformation in the World Polity: Toward a Neorealist Synthesis’, World Politics, 35 (Jan., 1982), pp. 261–85.Google Scholar

3 Richard, Ashley, ‘The Poverty of Neorealism’, International Organization, 38 (Spring 1984), pp. 225–86.Google Scholar

4 Hayward, Alker, ‘The Presumption of Anarchy in International Polities’, ms., 3 Aug 1986.Google Scholar

5 The assumption is not progressive in the sense that Lakatos proposes. The propositions it generates do not lead to new questions and their answers. See Imre, Lakatos, ‘Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programs’, in Lakatos, and Musgrave, (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (London, 1970).Google Scholar

6 Robert, Art and Robert, Jervis, International Politics, 2nd edition (Boston, 1986), p. 7.Google Scholar

7 Robert, Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics (Cambridge, University Press, 1981), p. 7.Google Scholar

8 Kenneth, Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Reading, Mass, 1979), p. 88.Google Scholar

9 Robert, Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation (NY, 1984), p. 3.Google Scholar

10 Axelrod, , Evolution, p. 4.Google Scholar

11 Axelrod, , Evolution, p. 190.Google Scholar

12 Robert, Keohane, After Hegemony, chs. 5, 6 esp. pp. 73, 85, 88. He later relaxes this restrictive assumption, citing various forms of interdependence which may mitigate this anarchy. See ch. 7, esp. pp. 122–23.Google Scholar

13 ‘Cooperation Under Anarchy’, World Politics, 38 (Oct. 1985), p. 1.Google Scholar

14 Hedley, Bull, The Anarchical Society (NY, 1977), pp. 24–25.Google Scholar

15 Bull, , Anarchical Society, p. 8.Google Scholar

16 Bull, , Anarchical Society, pp. 15–16 and ch. 2.Google Scholar

17 Bull, , Anarchical Society, p. 42.Google Scholar

18 Oye, , ‘Cooperation Under Anarchy’, p. 226.Google Scholar

19 Gilpin, , War and Change, p. 28.Google Scholar

20 Tucker, Robert W., The Inequality of Nations (NY, 1977).Google Scholar

21 Waltz, , Theory, p. 102.Google Scholar

22 See Axelrod and Keohane in Oye, ‘Cooperation Under Anarchy’, p. 226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23 Wight, Martin, Power Politics (Harmondsworth, 1978), p. 101. The essays here were originally written in 1946.Google Scholar

24 Dunn, Frederick, ‘Research Note: The Scope of International Relations’, World Politics, 1 (Oct. 1948), p. 144.Google Scholar

25 Waltz, , Theory, pp. 103–4.Google Scholar

26 Wight, , Power Politics, p. 102–4.Google Scholar

27 Oye, , ‘Cooperation Under Anarchy’, pp. 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28 Hobbes, Thomas, Leviathan (Indianapolis, 1958), ch. 14, p. 117.Google Scholar

29 Robert Dahl deals with this issue of monopoly by adding a new dimension to the definition of monopoly. He sees government as having a monopoly over the regulation of what constitutes the legitimate use of force. See his Modem Political Analysis, 4th edition (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1984), p. 17.Google Scholar

30 Morgenthau, Hans, Politics Among Nations, 6th edition (NY, 1985), p. 34.Google Scholar

31 Waltz, , Theory, p. 88.Google Scholar

32 Weber, Max, Economy and Society, ed. Roth, Guenther and Wittich, Claus (Berkeley, 1978), I, p. 54. Weber, unlike Waltz, emphasizes elsewhere institutions and legitimacy as well as force to explain politics.Google Scholar

33 Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, p. 13.Google ScholarThe Dictionary of Political Science, ed. Dunner, Joseph (NY, 1964), p. 217, provides a similar definition: government is ‘the agency which reflects the organization of the statal (politically organized) group. It normally consists of an executive branch, a legislative branch, and a judicial branch’.Google Scholar

34 Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, p. 8.Google Scholar

35 Eckstein, Harry, ‘Authority Patterns: A Structural Basis for Political Inquiry’, APSR, 67 (Dec. 1973), p. 1,142.Google Scholar

36 Easton, David, The Political System (NY, 1965), pp. 137–8.Google Scholar

37 Weber, , Economy and Society, I, p. 231; see also I, pp. 31.Google Scholar

38 Dahl, Robert and Lindblom, Charles, Politics, Economics, and Welfare (NY, 1953), pp. 99–123.Google Scholar

39 See, for example, Eckstein, , ‘Authority Patterns’; Easton, Political System, pp. 132–3.Google Scholar

40 See Jervis, Robert, ‘Security Regimes’, International Organization, 36 (Spring 1982), pp. 357–78 for a discussion of the legitimate order formed under this system.Google Scholar

41 Waltz, , Theory, p. 88.Google Scholar

42 Waltz, , Theory, p. 112.Google Scholar

43 Waltz, , Theory, p. 113.Google Scholar

44 Waltz, , Theory, pp. 115–16.Google Scholar

45 Waltz, , Theory, p. 81.Google Scholar

46 Waltz, , Theory, p. 81.Google Scholar

47 Waltz recognizes this; see Theory, pp. 81–82. But it never influences his very sharp distinction between the ordering of domestic and international politics.Google Scholar

48 See, for example, Katzenstein, Peter, Between Power and Plenty (Ithaca, 1978).Google Scholar

49 Waltz does note the differences in systems in terms of the number of great powers, or poles. He suggests the consequences of this are different levels of stability in the system. Ruggie in ‘Continuity and Transformation’ also sees differences in systems over time. But his focus is on the divide between the medieval and the modern (post-seventeenth century) systems.Google Scholar

50 Ruggie, , ‘Continuity and Transformation’, p. 266.Google Scholar

51 See Ruggie, , ‘Continuity and Transformation’, pp. 148–52Google Scholar, and Waltz, , ‘Reflections on Theory of International Politics, p. 328Google Scholar, in Keohane, R. (ed.), Neorealism and Its Critics (NY, 1986).Google Scholar

52 Waltz, , Theory, pp. 89–90, 129-36.Google Scholar

53 Waltz, , Theory, p. 104.Google Scholar

54 Waltz, , Theory, p. 47.Google Scholar

55 Waltz, , Theory, p. 105.Google Scholar

56 Waltz admits that anarchy and hierarchy are ideal types. But he rejects their use as a continuum, preferring for theoretical simplicity to see them as dichotomies. See Theory, p. 115. Moreover, he simply posits that the an anarchic ideal is associated with international politics more than it is with domestic politics.

57 Small, and Singer, J. D., Explaining War (Beverly Hills, 1979), pp. 63, 65, 68–69.Google Scholar

58 Waltz, , Theory, p. 103.Google Scholar

59 Morgenthau, , Politics Among Nations, pp. 39–40.Google Scholar

60 Carr, E. H., The Twenty Years’ Crisis (NY, 1964), p. 41.Google Scholar

61 Carr, , Twenty Years’ Crisis, p. 79.Google Scholar

62 Carr, , Twenty Years’ Crisis, p. 60.Google Scholar

63 Carr, , Twenty Years’ Crisis, p. 180.Google Scholar

64 Claude, Inis, Power and International Relations (NY, 1962), p. 231.Google Scholar

65 Claude, , Power and IR, p. 231.Google Scholar

66 Claude, , Power and IR, p. 234.Google Scholar

67 For Waltz this is the ultimate test of an assumption, see Waltz, Theory, p. 96.Google Scholar

68 See, for example, Spiro, Herbert, World Politics: The Global System (Homewood, II, 1966), esp. ch. 1.Google Scholar

69 Rosenau, James, ‘Calculated Control as a Unifying Concept in the Study of International Politics and Foreign Policy’, Princeton, Center for International Studies, Princeton University, 1963, pp. 2–3.Google Scholar

70 Waltz, , Theory, p. 72.Google Scholar

71 Masters, Roger, ‘World Politics as a Primitive Political System’, World Politics, 16 (July 1964), pp. 595–619Google Scholar; Gellner, Ernest, ‘How to Live in Anarchy’, The Listener, 3 April, 1958, pp. 579–83Google Scholar; Alger, Chadwick, ‘Comparison of Intranational and International Polities’, APSR, 62 (June 1963), pp. 406–19.Google Scholar

72 Fox, W. T. R., The American Study of International Relations (Columbia, SC. 1968), p. 20.Google Scholar

73 Schelling, Thomas, Strategy of Conflict (Cambridge, Mass., 1960), p. 5.Google Scholar

74 See Baldwin, David, ‘Interdependence and Power: A Conceptual Analysis’, International Organization, 34 (Aut. 1980), pp. 471–506Google Scholar. This conception of interdependence does not include the notion of sensitivity, as employed by Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye in Power and Interdependence (Boston, 1977). The notion of vulnerability is the most well-accepted definition.

75 Waltz is confusing on this point. He sees the two as opposed but linked; however, he cannot decide which way the linkage runs. Anarchy for him implies equality, sameness, and hence independence of actors, on the one hand. On the other, he claims interdependence is highest when states are equal. If this is true, then anarchy may well be characterized by very high levels of interdependence, since all states are equal.

76 See Carr, Twenty Years’ Crisis, for example; also see the discussion of neoliberal institutionalism in Grieco, Joseph, ‘Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation’, International Organization, 42 no. 33 (Summer 1988), pp. 485–508.Google Scholar

77 Hirschman, Albert, National Power and the Structure of Foreign Trade (Berkeley, 1980)Google Scholar; Keohane, Robert and Nye, Joseph, Power and Interdependence (Boston, 1977)Google Scholar; Schelling, Strategy of Conflict: Baldwin, ‘Interdependence and Power’.

78 Richard Little makes this point about symmetric relations and suggests that this is an understudied area; see ‘Power and Interdependence: A Realist Critique’, in Barry Jones, R. B. and Willetts, Peter (eds.), Interdependence on Trial (London, 1984), pp. 121–6.Google Scholar claims, Waltz that only symmetric relations can be interdependent, but this position seems untenable; see Theory, pp. 143–6.Google Scholar

79 Jervis, Robert, The Logic of Images in International Relations (Princeton, 1970), and Perception and Misperception in International Politics (Princeton, 1976).Google Scholar

80 Keohane, Robert, makes this point in After Hegemony.Google Scholar

81 A metaphor Waltz resorts to later, see Theory, pp. 129—36.Google Scholar

82 The rules of thumb that Schelling discusses in Strategy of Conflict are one type of tacit communication.

83 Solutions in oligopolistic markets are possible to identify if one assumes away strategic interdependence. For instance, Coernot-Nash and Stackleberg equilibria are identifiable if one holds constant the other’s behaviour in price or quantity decisions.