What is anarchy and why is it so heavily debated?

Discuss with at least two

Anarchy is a significant concept within the international system, the term

refers to there being no supra-national government, meaning states are

sovereign and there are no main rulers. Different theories have different

approaches to anarchy within the international system, which is a reason as

to why it is so heavily debated. States are the main actors in this

international and anarchial system, realist Kenneth Waltz suggested this was

a system of ‘self-help’1 indicating that states are concerned with their own

security and that anarchy has no higher authority than the states therefore

ensuring state survival as they are consistently looking out for themselves.

This is reinforced by idea of constant defensiveness inside the anarchial

system, for example China is persistently trying to gain power due to

potential hostility from Japan who are allied with the US to ensure their own

survival. There has been a debate on whether anarchy is fixed or not,

although some of the realist perspective idealises anarchy as fixed, liberals

however do not. Liberals suggest that there is a complex interdependence

between states and that the increase of trades and transmissions of

information leaves states gaining power but also reliant on one another for

that power. Aiding this idea Keohane and Nye propose ‘interdependence in a

world of politics refers to situations characterised by reciprocal effects

among countries or among actors in different countries’ 2 referring to

importance of interdependency in an anarchial system because there is

reliance on one another for costly transactions. Therefore, therorising that

states are more concerned with relative gains within organisations such as

the United Nations rather than absolute gains, implying states have other

interests beyond power. Moreover, constructivism does agree to a certain

extent that states have other interests beyond power based on shared norms

and values however, it often theorises that anarchy is not a main trademark

in the international system arguing that ‘anarchy is what states make of it’ 3.

This demonstrates the idea that interests and identities are constructed by

shared norms reinforcing the processes of interactions which shape reality,

not anarchy. Therefore, claiming that states do not act due to idea of

anarchy they act due to norms, values, and interactions. It is clear that the

idea of anarchy within the international system is heavily debated because

of differences within perspectives and theories

One of the first events that introduced realism was the Peloponnesian War at

the end of the 5th century BC. It was described as ‘The strong doing what

they can, and the weak suffering what they must’ 4 in reference to power

being the main drive for the survival and security of states which

demonstrates anarchy as indispensable within the international system.

6018534/%28Principal%29%20KEOHANE%20R.%20%281984%29.%20After%20hegemony
%20cooperation%20and%20discord%20in%20the%20world%20political%20economy
%281%29.pdf >
3
Thucydides c.455-c.400 ‘History of the Peloponnesian War’ Bk. 5, Ch.89 <
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191866692.001.0001/q-oro-
ed6-00010932 >
4
Seifudein Adem, ‘Anarchy, Order and Power in World Politics’, Ashgate, 2002, P20
Anarchy for realists is ideal, as they theorise the structure within the

international system technically ‘survival of the fittest’ and that competition

between states is inevitable due to states constantly competing for power.

Machiavelli also idealises this by stating ‘even if she does not molest others,

others will molest her, and from being thus molested will spring the desire

and necessity of conquests’5 to support this would be the increasing desire

for power and the advancing growth of China due to the potential hostility

from Japan who are allied with the United States. This illustrates the paradox

of anarchy among the states. This is because even if one states power does

in fact increase their power, this creates a decrease of another states power

thus leading them to compete for more security and survival. It is often

assumed by realists that anarchy dictates the actions of states within

international politics and, that the system is anarchial creating uncertainty

among states as they are ‘uncertain’ of each other's aims and values

although this can be criticized by treaties such as The North Atlantic Treaty

Organisation (NATO) or the United Nations where the member states all have

cooperative means and are centered around the shared goals and values

which creates a balance of power, however realists assume that this is

inefficient. There is often a clash between defensive and offensive realists, as

they disagree on the amount of power a state needs, defensive realists

idealise the seeking of ‘appropriate power’ and that a balance is needed so

competition between states won't be as destructive suggesting that anarchy

5
Robert Keohane and Joseph S. Nye. ‘Power and interdependence’ 4th ed, Boston, Little,
Brown and company, 1977, P9
can be stationed. However, offensive realists like Mearsheimer suggest

states are driven by the fixed anarchic international system which causes a

drive for security not power but, making the drive for power inevitable

because what is security for states without power? Thus, creating a divide

within realism. Therefore, proving in a realist perspective no state is safe,

and they will continue to compete for power against one another despite the

idea of a balance of power leaving them theorising anarchy as a main

feature of the international system.

Liberals also associate anarchy as a main feature within the international

system and that there is no main authority. However, they suggest that

anarchy is not fixed and can be overcome through interconnectivity. They

use modernisation and globalisation to emphasise this, as the modernisation

of the world can take many societies down a common path to overcome

anarchy. Supporting this is the idea of ‘complex interdependence’ between

states meaning all states profit from this but are also increasingly reliant on

one another, Liberals like Keohane and Nye say this happens through

regimes that can aid in regulating state behaviour and anarchy as well as,

there being no clear hierarchy between issues meaning states can work

together to ensure peace and cooperation within the international system.

An example of this would be England and France who were in constant

competition with each other for centuries, whereas they are now in peace

treaties such as the United Nations where both the United Kingdom and

France are on the security council which highlights the idea that
modernisation does create peace and cooperation among states, leaving

anarchy unfixed although still lingering. ‘Thus, under suitable conditions,

cooperation based upon reciprocity proves stable in the biological world’ 6 in

terms of suitable conditions, the regime theory also provides this idea as well

as supporting it, the regime theory states that power is evenly distributed

among states and organisations that cooperate on certain issues such as

security which can regulate state behaviour. Specified regimes like Article 33

of the United Nations charter states ‘any dispute that is likely to endanger

the maintenance of international peace and security should be first

addressed through negotiation, mediation or other peaceful means’ 7 means

that state behaviour is through regimes and cooperation which determines a

‘complex interdependence’ among them. Keohane proposed the idea

‘Without the specter of conflict, there is no need to cooperate’ 8 which

suggests that cooperation only arises when states are trying to overcome

conflict or potential conflict which supports the idea of trying to overcome

anarchy through peaceful means such as cooperation. However, many would

argue that cooperation doesn't have to be bred through conflict if states

would cooperate with each other instead of competing against one another

for power and security. Therefore, anarchy to liberals is although a main

6
Alexander Wendt, ‘Anarchy is what States Make of it: The social Construction of Power
Politics’, international organisation, Vol. 46, No.2 (Spring, 1992), p395 <
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2706858?seq=5 >
7
United Nations Charter, Chapter VI, Article 33: ‘Pacific Settlement Of Disputes’ <
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/chapter-6 >
8
Robert Axelrod, ‘The Evolution of Cooperation: revised edition’, Basic Books, 2006, P22
feature of the international system and a drive for security, they also suggest

states can work together to overcome this and provide a peaceful system.

Constructivism assumes reality is constructed and that there are specific

systems and processes that happen between states which are far more

important than the structure of the international system which contrasts the

theories of both liberalism and realism. Constructivists state that anarchy is

not an innate feature of the international system, leading states to act due to

their own intentions and interests rather than acting because of the

anarchial structure of the international system. Anarchy to this perspective is

dependent on the meaning attached to it implying that anarchy can different

meanings for different actors, ‘if states and non-state actors interact with the

‘belief’ that they are in an anarchic environment, we would be bound to

witness a specific set of behaviour’9 this would suggest that all states act

different upon the context of anarchy and that it's not always down to

competing or self-help. The structure of the international system is driven by

the interests, norms and values of the states meaning they are changeable

and not pre-determined, assuming anarchy does not always produce conflict

within the international system. An example of this would be The North

Atlantic Treaty Organisation which was officially built from an agreement

based on shared values and identities among the states that are members,

this stresses the idea of there being a ‘normative power’ and that different

ideas of similar facts can lead to certain results like competition or

9
Niccolo Machiavelli, ‘The Discourses’ New York: Modern Library, 1950, P345
cooperation. ‘self-help security systems evolve from cycles of interaction

where each party acts in a way that the other feels is threatening... Creating

expectations that the other is not to be trusted’ 10 suggesting that

interactions are fundamental to the international system as a state can and

have changed the way they interact with one another and their behaviour

towards one another to prevent the uncertainty of aims and goals, to

preserve peace and harmony amongst each other. This demonstrates that

state behaviour can create anarchy and also prevent anarchy highlighting

that meanings behind behaviour are important for the structure of the

international system. Therefore, alike liberals, constructivists also see

anarchy as unfixed however, they also suggest anarchy does not always

breed violence and can create harmony among states, emphasising the

statement ‘anarchy is what states make of it’ 11.

Overall, the idea of anarchy within the internation system is incredibly

heavily debated due to the differing of opinions on what makes it and what

drives it. Both liberalism and realism provided a centralised theory on

anarchy being an innate feature of the international system although, taking

into consideration that this is often critiqued as many state behaviours have

10
Alexander Wendt, ‘Anarchy is what States Make of it: The social Construction of Power
Politics’, international organisation, Vol. 46, No.2 (Spring, 1992), p395 <
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2706858?seq=5 >
11
Alexander Wendt, ‘Anarchy is what States Make of it: The social Construction
of Power Politics’ international organisation 46, Vol2, spring 1992 P407 <
https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/
B03BC7C9AAC5211B6DC319C077C1A854/S0020818300027764a.pdf/
anarchy-is-what-states-make-of-it-the-social-construction-of-power-
politics.pdf >
clearly changed and will continue to do so which is suggested by

constructivism. The regime theory that helped conclude the definition of

anarchy for liberalism providing insight on regulated state behaviour and the

distribution of power, although the drive for power and security is

emphasised by liberals, they also emphasise that working together can

provide evenly distributed power within the international system through a

‘complex interdependence’ leaving anarchy an unfixed feature as well as a

main feature. Furthermore, realists suggest the international system is

inevitably anarchic due to the necessity of power and security leaving

intense competition amongst the states. Realism also assumes anarchy is

not only an innate feature of the international system, but it is also a drive

for competition dictating the actions of states, again the growth of China is

evidence of this. Although a balance of power is needed, it is quite unlikely

from a realist perspective as when one state gains power, other states will

have less, leading to impending anarchy amongst the states. In addition to

this, constructivism suggests that norms, values and interests are the main

actors within the international system as these are what drive the goals for

states. Constructivists are also still concerned with power and security within

the international system however, they are not the main concern suggesting

identities and interests along with norms and values have higher value

within the international system and can take more precedence over anarchy,

assuming they drive the behaviour not anarchy. Therefore, leaving the

definition of anarchy still heavily debated as all theories have different

have on the idea surrounding anarchy.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1 Waltz K.N. ‘Theory of international politics’, 1979, P251

2 Robert Keohane and Joseph S. Nye. ‘Power and interdependence’ 4th ed,

Boston, Little, Brown and company, 1977, P9

3 Alexander Wendt, ‘Anarchy is what States Make of it: The social

Construction of Power Politics’, international organisation, Vol. 46, No.2

(Spring, 1992), p395 < https://www.jstor.org/stable/2706858?seq=5 >

4 Thucydides c.455-c.400 ‘History of the Peloponnesian War’ Bk. 5, Ch.89 <

https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191866692.001

.0001/q-oro-ed6-00010932 >

5 Niccolo Machiavelli, ‘The Discourses’ New York: Modern Library, 1950, P345

6 Robert Axelrod, ‘The Evolution of Cooperation: revised edition’, Basic

Books, 2006, P22

7 United Nations Charter, Chapter VI, Article 33: ‘Pacific Settlement Of

Disputes’ < https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/chapter-6 >

8 Robert O. Keohane, ‘After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the

World Political Economy’, Princton University Press, 1984, P54 <

https://homologacao.edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/5526008/course/
section/6018534/%28Principal%29%20KEOHANE%20R.

%20%281984%29.%20After%20hegemony%20cooperation%20and

%20discord%20in%20the%20world%20political%20economy%281%29.pdf >

9 Seifudein Adem, ‘Anarchy, Order and Power in World Politics’, Ashgate,

10 Alexander Wendt, ‘Anarchy is what States Make of it: The social

Construction of Power Politics’ international organisation 46, Vol2, spring

1992 P407 <

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/

B03BC7C9AAC5211B6DC319C077C1A854/S0020818300027764a.pdf/

anarchy-is-what-states-make-of-it-the-social-construction-of-power-

politics.pdf >

11Alexander Wendt, ‘Anarchy is what States Make of it: The social

Construction of Power Politics’, international organisation, Vol. 46, No.2

(Spring, 1992), p395 < https://www.jstor.org/stable/2706858?seq=5 >