The International System And The Anarchism Of The International System

The international system is anarchic. It is very important to notice that anarchy, according to Mearsheimer, does not mean chaos or disorder, but absence of centralized authority, that stands above states and protects

Realists’ belief that, “war is unavoidable and natural part of world affairs.” According to Bova, there are over 200 sovereign states, and they all interest to gain power to defend themselves. As a result, state’s feeling of insecurity causes it to take any means to feel secure whether it is through the formation of ally with another powerful state or accumulation of military and economic power. Such action threatens other states provoke them take similar actions. This cycle applies to all states, and the feeling of threat and desire to survive is innate in humans In understanding International Relations, McNamara’s lesson is useful in the regards that actions that state takes to protect itself causes the complexity and conflicts of foreign policies that human beings are incapable of

This rationality means they will pursue interests “in terms of power according to offensive neorealism, or in terms of security according to defensive neorealism” (Collard-Wexler, 2006). These two strands have been heavily debated within neorealist theory, particularly by Mearsheimer in favor of offensive neorealism and Waltz in favor of defensive neorealism. John Mearsheimer believes that the goal of states is to maximize power while Waltz believes the goal of states is to “maintain their positions in the system” (Snyder, 2001). There is no punishment for irrational or aggressive behavior because of the anarchic nature of the system so states must rely on themselves for survival, through the use of power. Due to anarchy, states will balance “against their peers by imitation, by boosting their national assets (internal balancing), forming alliances with other states (external balancing) or by adopting the successful power-generating practices of the prospective hegemon (emulation)” (Wohlforth et.al, 2007) and these 3 processes will prevent hegemony.

We talked about anarchy means no central authority and there is no world police force. In class we talked about anarchy and how it related to International Relations. In the real world every country feel insecure and the only way for surviving is relying on themselves; self-help. We said in class, it is difficult to trust anyone because everyone is looking for self-interest in the anarchy system. As a result, that led to security dilemma that is actions taken by countries in order to secure themselves from other countries. Increasing its military strength or making alliances, for instance. The book talked about anarchy in general and how countries such as USA, Germany, and China would interact with one another under anarchy system. On the other hand, the book talked about how diplomatic communications can lessen or inflame tensions between countries or actors as well as clarify or obscure a county’s intentions. So not only military can help you to protect yourself but also

In studying International Relations, I have realized that, the nature of International politics can be likened to anarchy. This is because in International relations there seems to be no supreme or overriding authority which establishes and maintains rules or laws in international affairs. All States appear to behave in their own interests.

In the international arena, there is no hierarchical rule to keep states in line or behaved; meaning that the international system is constantly in anarchy, aka the state of nature. This lack of rule enforcement puts states in a constant state of war, in a constant state where they need to stay on guard and in a tactical advantage otherwise the safety and well being of their state will be in jeopardy. In this scenario, the state’s number one priority is to protect itself and act in its self interest when need be, despite if it would typically be deemed immoral. (Donnelly 20)

Human nature as defined by the Collins dictionary, is ‘the qualities common to humanity’. It shows how humans are predisposed to act. Different ideologies have opposing views on human nature; the realist approach would view humans in a very pessimistic way, in that they are uncooperative and choose ‘self-interest over moral principle’ (Nardin, Mapel, 1993, p62). Essentially realism shows that ‘the principle actors in the international arena are states, which act in their own national interests, and struggle for power’ (Stanford, 2010). In regards to the international system and how nation states collaborate, when there is no authority, and nations do what benefits them the most, international anarchy occurs. This then could lead to potential conflict as there is no authority. Anarchy, in the international context is defined as “absence of

Anarchy is a controversial political concept that refers to the absence of government. Anarchists believe all forms of hierarchy are unjust and corrupt because they are maintained by violence. The concept is often negatively looked upon as it is associated with disorder and chaos due to the fact individuals are free to do as they please in society. Anarchic experiences around the world highlight the pros and cons of anarchy. Philosophers have distinct perspectives on how they view the state of anarchy in politics as they view the ideal as either problematic or beneficial. Although the state of anarchy seems morally beneficial to society, ultimately government is needed to address conflict and provide order for individuals.

Realism is a theory which believes that sovereign states are the primary actors in the international system. It also believes that the international system has always been anarchic due to the nature of states not trusting each other and each state seeking to gain or maximize its own power capability. The Realist approach to the Cold War was also that of an “anarchical constitutive” and had seen the Cold War as something that was not out of the ordinary. The realists believed that states are always competing to maximize their own power, “the basic premise of its understanding is that the Cold War was not historically unique. the Cold War rather reflected in general terms the ongoing logic of inter-state conflict derived from the anarchical constitutive nature of the international system, and the ‘power maximization’ policies of states” R.Saull (2001:7).

In a realist world, states have “supreme power” over its territory and population, there is an absence of a higher authority. The fact that there is no higher authority has its consequences. States become self-interested, they compete for power and security. It can lead states to continuously struggle for power “where the strong dominate the weak (Kegley, 28).” This ultimately creates a system in which each state is responsible for its own survival, making them cautious towards their neighboring states. In addition, a realist world is a self-help system; “political leaders seek to enhance national security” by building armies and forming alliances (Kegley, 28). Economic and military power are key components to a state sovereignty and to national security.

There are two, key conflicting theories in the study of international relations, idealism and realism, known to scholars as the ‘Great Debate’. Realism, offers an account of international affairs through four central ideas; that states are the key players in international relations, the decentralised international stage is anarchic, actors are rational and self-interested

The traditional security paradigm is focused on physical and external security threats to states. It promotes that security should be state centred and national security is primary over other securities, such as human security. States must defend their territory and authority from external, foreign threats, by physical means, such as increasing the military or

As anarchy is one of the most debated cases in the International Relations study, many philosopher and scientist argue about the word ‘Anarchy’. In Wendt’s journal “Anarchy is what states make of it”, Alexander Wendt conveys that anarchy does not by chance lead to a self-help system (Wendt A. , 1992). The term anarchy comes from the Greek, 'anarchia', which means 'absence of authority'. Generally, we can define Anarchy as the condition where there is no sovereignty, the rules that disappeared because of the absence of authority. The Cambridge English Dictionary defines the word anarchy as ‘a situation in which there is no organization and control, especially in society, because there is no effective government’. George C. Lewis states that “Anarchy is one of the vaguest and ambiguous words in language” .

For example, although there is consensus that the international system is structured anarchically, neo-realists and neoliberals hold differing views on the nature of anarchy: the former argues that anarchy is all-encompassing whereas the latter contends that anarchy can be weak or strong. Furthermore, neo-realists think that international cooperation is much harder to achieve than neoliberals do. What is more, they see institutions as unable to mitigate international anarchy, while neoliberals doubt this. All of the aforementioned differences will be sequentially elaborated on throughout this essay.

The security dilemma is a fundamental concept in IR originate in John Herz’s writing provided the definition of security dilemma back in 1951 “a structural notion in which the self-help attempts of states to look after their security needs tend, regardless of intention, to lead to rising insecurity to others as each interprets its own measures as defensive and measures of others as potentially threatening” (Herz, 1950: 157) which is a classic definition heavily associates with realism. In international system, where there are no world governments or police to provide security for states as a result state exist in an anarchy and the only way to ensure their own security is through self-help. In short, security dilemmas caused by anarchy, however, in this essay,