34.4.1 Acceptance of Anarchy in the Global System

Introduction

Both liberal and realist theories in international relations accept the premise of anarchy in the global system—meaning the absence of an overarching authority to govern state behaviour. However, the implications they draw from this acceptance are vastly different, shaping their understanding of international relations, state behavior, and the potential for cooperation or conflict.

Realism: Anarchy and the Inevitability of Conflict

Core Assumption of Anarchy

Human Nature and Conflict: Realism is rooted in a pessimistic view of human nature, influenced by thinkers like Thomas Hobbes, who described life in a state of nature as "nasty, brutish, and short." Realists extend this view to the international arena, arguing that in the absence of a central authority, states are naturally inclined towards competition and conflict as they pursue their own interests.

Implications of Anarchy

• Self-Interest and Survival: In an anarchic system, realists argue that states prioritize their survival above all else. This leads to a world where every state acts in its own self-interest, often at the expense of others. The absence of an overarching authority means there is no one to enforce rules or mediate disputes, making conflict a constant possibility.
• Security Dilemma: One of the key implications of anarchy is the security dilemma, where the actions a state takes to secure itself—such as increasing its military power—are perceived as threatening by other states. This can lead to an arms race and heighten the likelihood of conflict, as states continuously seek to outmanoeuvre each other in a bid for security.
• Power Dynamics in Anarchy: Realists believe that the anarchic nature of the international system results in a constant struggle for power among states. Whether in a multipolar system with multiple powerful states or a bipolar system dominated by two superpowers, realists see power as the central factor in determining the behaviour and survival of states.

World Government: Unrealistic in Anarchy

Liberalism: Anarchy and the Possibility of Cooperation

Acknowledging Anarchy

• Acceptance with Optimism: Liberals accept the existence of anarchy in the international system but offer a more optimistic interpretation of its implications. While they agree that there is no overarching authority, they believe that states can still find ways to cooperate and coexist peacefully within this framework.
• Potential for Order in Anarchy: Unlike realists, liberals argue that anarchy does not necessarily lead to inevitable conflict. Instead, they believe that international institutions, norms, and laws can create a level of order and predictability, allowing states to cooperate even in the absence of a global sovereign.

Role of International Law and Institutions

• International Norms and Institutions: Liberals contend that despite the anarchic nature of the international system, a network of international norms, laws, and institutions can facilitate cooperation and reduce the likelihood of conflict. Influenced by thinkers like Hugo Grotius, who advocated for the creation of international law, liberals believe that these frameworks can manage state behavior, protect human rights, and promote global justice.
• Society of States: The concept of a "society of states" represents a blend of realist and liberal thought. While acknowledging the self-interest that drives states, this idea suggests that states can recognize their common interests and form a society governed by shared norms, rules, and institutions. This society can maintain stability even within an anarchic system, provided that national and international interests are aligned.

Joseph Nye and Complex Interdependence

• Redefining National Interest: In a globalized world, Nye suggests that national interest should be redefined to emphasize economic interdependence and cooperation rather than purely military strength. This redefinition aligns with the liberal belief that states can work together within an anarchic system to achieve common goals.
• Decline of Military Force: Nye observes a decline in the relevance of military force in modern international relations, with economic power and soft power—such as cultural influence and diplomacy—becoming more significant. This shift highlights the potential for states to cooperate and manage conflicts through non-military means within an anarchic system.
• Smart Power: Nye advocates for the use of "smart power," a combination of hard power (coercion) and soft power (persuasion). By blending these strategies, states can more effectively navigate the challenges of anarchy, promoting stability and cooperation even in the absence of a central global authority.

Challenges to Liberal Optimism

• Realist Critique**:** Despite liberal optimism, realists remain critical, arguing that the anarchic nature of the international system inevitably leads to competition and conflict. They see the persistence of power struggles, the security dilemma, and the limitations of international institutions as evidence that anarchy continues to pose significant challenges to global stability.

Conclusion

• Realist View: Realists accept anarchy as the defining characteristic of the global system, leading to a world where states are primarily concerned with their survival, often resulting in competition and conflict. They argue that the absence of an overarching authority means that power and self-interest will always dominate international relations.
• Liberal View: Liberals also accept the reality of anarchy but are more optimistic about the potential for cooperation. They believe that through international institutions, norms, and economic interdependence, states can manage the challenges of anarchy and work together to achieve peace and stability. Joseph Nye's theory of complex interdependence further supports this view, suggesting that in a globalized world, cooperation is not only possible but necessary for addressing common challenges.