Anarchy in International Relations

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anarchy in international relations is a theoretical assumption that states that the sovereign states, as key players in international politics, cannot entrust their security to a higher, norm-setting, controlling and sanctionable authority (a world government ). In the currents and schools of thought in the political science sub-discipline international relations , the lack of a superordinate power is assessed differently. According to neorealism , the nation states either self-help or cooperation . According to neoliberal institutionalism , anarchy is curbed by increasing interdependencies between individual states and societies.

Use of terms

The use of the term in the theories of International Relations (IB) started in the period between the First and the Second World War . The starting point was the failed attempt to resolve and prevent international conflicts between nation states through the League of Nations . The political science discipline IB, which had just emerged and was shaped by idealism , could not find an explanation for this failure . Edward Hallett Carr , Hans Morgenthau and John H. Herz then developed the theory of realism in which anarchy is a crucial structural component. This was also adopted by Kenneth Waltz in neorealism and by Hedley Bull in the English school .

The use of the term is a derivation from the theory of the state of Thomas Hobbes , according to which people in a natural state are in a war of all against all , which can only be ended by an ordering authority with absolute power. In a further step, Hobbes also describes the constant enmity between kings and those who have the highest power. The political science realtists of the interwar period followed up on this. Anarchy in its sense defines the lack of a hierarchical structure of rule over sovereign states. No state is granted the right to rule over other states. No state has an obligation to obey other states. States have internal and external sovereignty. Within their borders they have a monopoly of power and power; in the international system there is no political authority that can dictate to them how to shape government within the state. And there is no authority that regulates how the relations between the states are structured.

Despite the different weighting of anarchism in international relations in the theoretical strands of realism , neorealism, and the English school, there is agreement that it is the basic static structure of the international system. Because the question of power is of central importance for the sovereign states, cooperations with one another only come about with extreme caution in order to avoid negative dependencies. “The result is an unstable state of balance of power based on uncertainty and fear.” This creates a security dilemma .

criticism

The neoliberal institutionalism formulated by Robert O. Keohane , Joseph Nye and Stephen D. Krasner from the 1980s onwards assumes that anarchy in the international system is curbed by increasing interdependencies between individual states and societies. These transnational interdependencies result in an increased interest in cooperation among the actors, which leads to the formation of international institutions . The constructivism in international relations that emerged from the 1990s denies that anarchism is a constant, static and structural basis of the international system resulting from natural law. It is only the result of the interactive processes of the participating states. A state's self-help and power politics can therefore neither logically nor causally be inferred from a state of anarchy in the international system. According to Alexander Wendt , anarchy in the international system is always what the states or other actors make of it.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Since it is a sub-discipline of political science , international relations is an independent term and is capitalized. The political science research object of the same name, international relations , is written in lower case. In addition: Siegfried Schieder and Manuela Spindler: Theories of international relations . 3rd edition, Budrich, Opladen 2010, ISBN 978-3-8252-2315-1 , introduction, p. 9, note 1.
  2. ↑ Unless otherwise stated, the presentation is based on: Sebastian Hiltner, Anarchy in International Relations . In: Susanne Feske , Eric Antonczy, Simon Oerding (eds.), Introduction to International Relations. A textbook . Budrich, Opladen 2014, pp. 101-109.
  3. ^ Frank Schimmelpfennig : International Politics . In: Hans-Joachim Lauth and Christian Wagner (Eds.): Political Science. An introduction. 8th edition, Ferdinand Schöningh, Paderborn 2016, pp. 135–161, here p. 136.
  4. ^ Sebastian Hiltner: Anarchy in International Relations . In: Susanne Feske , Eric Antonczy, Simon Oerding (eds.), Introduction to International Relations. A textbook . Budrich, Opladen 2014, pp. 101-109. here p. 105.
  5. ↑ Erik Antoncyk, The Security Dilemma . In: Susanne Feske , Eric Antonczy, Simon Oerding (eds.), Introduction to International Relations. A textbook . Budrich, Opladen 2014, pp. 247–252, here p. 250.
  6. ↑ Alexander Wendt : Anarchy is What States Make of It. The Social Construction of Power Politics . In: International Organization (IO), number 46, 1992, pp. 391-425, here p. 395.