Anarchy Flashcards
Actors present in the international system
- States (governments, ministries, etc.)
- Sub-national bodies (regions, cities, etc.)
- Inter-governmental organizations (regional or functional)
- Non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
- Multi-national corporations/businesses/firms
- Transnational networks (advocacy networks, terrorist networks, etc.)
Definition of international system
A set of incentives and expectations that shape the identities and the behaviors of actors in international politics
- BUT there are multiple concepts (understandings) of the international system
- The system has effects on the actors and therefore if we only look at actors we won’t understand why they act the way that they do (context is key)
Why study the international system?
It has effects that cannot be explained simply by examining the actors and organizations themselves
4 concepts of the international system
- Anarchy
- Hierarchy
- Interdependence
- Capitalism
Definition of anarchy
The absence of effective central authority
Definition of international anarchy
The absence of effective central authority above states and other actors
- Mearsheimer 2001: “There is no government above governments”
- Anarchy =/= chaos, so anarchy and order may co-exist
3 interpretations/implications of international anarchy
- Anarchy makes cooperation difficulties
- Anarchy invites aggression by great powers
- Anarchy depends on identities
Anarchy makes cooperation difficulties supporter and their text
Kenneth Waltz. (1979). Theory of International Politics.
Anarchy makes cooperation difficulties key ideas
Anarchy -> states are insecure -> all rely on self-help to survive
- States cannot rely on international rules and institutions
- Two options: build arms and/or form alliances
- Due to self-help pressures, all states seek security so domestic politics don’t matter in international politics
Fear and mistrust -> security dilemma-> cooperation and institution-building are difficult
- Key variable: the distribution of power among states
– States focus on their relative power
– The number of great powers (polarity) determines international alliances and risk of war
- Due to insecurity systems within regimes become irrelevant therefore all states work in similar ways
– Cooperation difficult as you don’t necessarily trust your allies
Security Dilemma (Anarchy makes cooperation difficulties)
Anarchy -> insecurity -> defensive actions -> more fear and mistrust -> difficulty of cooperation
- States may build arms with defensive intentions due to insecurity but this may be perceived as aggressive
Relative gains problem (Anarchy makes cooperation difficulties)
When facing possible cooperation, states may either focus on:
- Absolute gains (how much do I gain?)
- Relative gains (how does my gain compare to other’s gain?)
Under Anarchy “relative gain is more important than absolute gain” (K. Waltz)
- Anarchy -> focus on relative gains -> cooperation is unlikely
Distribution of power, polarity (Anarchy makes cooperation difficulties)
Unipolar system: 1 great power
- Maximum certainty, clear leadership, easy domination
– But very rare, because states will build arms and alliances to balance against any major power
Bipolar system: 2 great powers, each has alliances with smaller power
- High certainty, competition for leadership, domination with alliances
Multipolar system: 3-5 great powers, shifting alliances with each other and small powers
- Low certainty, risk of leadership vacuum, less risk of domination
Anarchy invites aggression by great powers supporter and their text
John Mearsheimer. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.
Anarchy invites aggression by great powers key ideas
Anarchy -> opportunities for aggression by “predator” states
- All states seek to maximize their relative power
- International politics is dominated by the ambitions of great powers, regional hegemons
– As they have enough power to transform ambitions into actions
Rise and fall of great powers -> instability, likelihood of major war
- Everything else happening is background noise
Bambi vs Godzilla (Anarchy invites aggression by great powers)
“In the anarchic world of international politics, it is better to be Godzilla than Bambi” John Mearsheimer (2006)
- “Bambis” would not be vulnerable if we had a central authority and defense system
“Poor Mexico, so far from God, so close to the United States” Porfirio Diaz, President of Mexico (1876-1880, 1883-1911)
- During its formation the US wanted Mexico’s land and therefore took it
