Realism and Anarchy in International Relations

Theories of International Relations are an explanation of the structure of the international system. From causes to consequences, the theories try to explain every phenomenon to help us upgrade our studies from description to analysis, theories guide us through the upgrading process. They allow us to understand and try to make sense of the world around us through various lenses, each of which represents a different theoretical perspective. To consider the field as a whole for beginners it is necessary to simplify IR theory. 

Realism in International Relations

Realism is a well-established and very rich theoretical tradition that has produced some of the finest studies within the discipline. It is a tradition that essentially claims a monopoly on really understanding the realities of international politics. It is characterized by a strong sense of tragedy or, stated differently, a considerable degree of pessimism as regards the prospects of a more peaceful world. The tragedy is that we can know our fate without being able to do much about it. Hence, we are doomed to live with conflict and war. Most theorists within the tradition have an almost exclusive focus on ‘the political’ (as opposed to, e.g., economics, culture or religion). In addition, they employ a distinct conception of politics, defined as the kind of social action through which all human beings and states seek to exercise or maximize power. The tradition is characterized by a clear-cut distinction between domestic and international politics, and almost exclusive priority is given to the latter sphere of politics. The theories of Realism are all theories of conflict. If cooperation is considered at all, it is typically in the form of military alliances, or cooperation is seen as a reflection of the balance of power. Finally, tradition tends to cultivate a cyclical view of history, that is, power politics is considered to be an endless, repetitive form of social action to which there is no enduring solution. 

There are a few assumptions in the Realist Tradition. The first assumption of realism is that the nation-state (usually abbreviated to ‘state’) is the principal actor in international relations. Other bodies exist, such as individuals and organisations, but their power is limited. Second, the state is a unitary actor. National interests, especially in times of war, lead the state to speak and act with one voice. Third, decision-makers are rational actors in the sense that rational decision-making leads to the pursuit of the national interest. Here, taking actions that would make your state weak or vulnerable would not be rational. Realism suggests that all leaders, no matter what their political persuasion, recognise this as they attempt to manage their state’s affairs to survive in a competitive environment. Finally, states live in a context of anarchy – that is, in the absence of anyone being in charge internationally. The often-used analogy of there being ‘no one to call’ in an international emergency helps to underline this point. Within our states, we typically have police forces, militaries, courts and so on. In an emergency, there is an expectation that these institutions will ‘do something’ in response. Internationally, there is no clear expectation of anyone or anything ‘doing something’ as there is no established hierarchy. In other words, there is no enforcing agency of International Law. Therefore, states can ultimately only rely on themselves. 

As realism frequently draws on examples from the past, there is a great deal of emphasis on the idea that humans are essentially held hostage to repetitive patterns of behaviour determined by their nature. Central to that assumption is the view that human beings are egoistic and desire power. Realists believe that our selfishness, our appetite for power and our inability to trust others leads to predictable outcomes. Perhaps this is why war has been so common throughout recorded history. Since individuals are organised into states, human nature impacts state behaviour. In that respect, Niccolò Machiavelli focused on how the basic human characteristics influence the security of the state. In his time, leaders were usually male, which also influenced the realist account of politics. In The Prince, Machiavelli stressed that a leader’s primary concern is to promote national security. To successfully perform this task, the leader needs to be alert and cope effectively with internal as well as external threats to his rule; he needs to be a lion and a fox. Power (the Lion) and deception (the Fox) are crucial tools for the conduct of foreign policy. In Machiavelli’s view, rulers obey the ‘ethics of responsibility’ rather than the conventional religious morality that guides the average citizen – that is, they should be good when they can, but they must also be willing to use violence when necessary to guarantee the survival of the state. 

Anarchy in International Relations

Anarchy is a special concept for scholars of international relations. Some view it as the core organizing category of an autonomous discipline of International Relations which sets it apart from cognate disciplines such as political philosophy and political science. Within social theory more broadly, this category has been used in two generic senses In the first generic sense, it designates a condition of interaction between multiple individuals without a common superior. Typically this superior is an institution or government, so “anarchy” means the absence of a common government. This default meaning allows for a host of variations. It may refer, in a narrower sense, to the absence of a state (centralized government with a territorial base and population), and in a broader sense, to the absence of common authority (office of rule) or the absence of a common ruler (the meaning of the Greek term anarkhia). In its second generic sense, anarchy designates chaos and disorder. No conceptual (logically necessary) connection ties the two senses of the term: The absence of government need not entail disordered interaction or vice versa. That order is achievable in an anarchical environment is a premise adopted by certain theories of international anarchy or anarchy as it pertains to the relations of states, which is the theme of the present discussion. 

The idea of anarchy as the absence of a central government or state derives from the concept of a “state of nature,” developed by the 17th-century philosopher Thomas Hobbes in The Elements of Law, On the Citizen, and refined in Leviathan. The state of nature is a hypothetical condition of statelessness. It can be read in two ways: either retrospectively, as a condition of what human life would be like if we dismantled the existing civil state; or prospectively, as a condition in which we would be creating the civil state for the first time. The prospective view of anarchy is the standard one within IR. Among the rest of the classical contractarians, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Hobbes alone envisages a parallel between the domestic state of nature (among human beings) and the international state of nature (among sovereign states). Hobbes’s international state of nature is the closest analogue of international anarchy in present-day terms.

The classical schools of thought in international relations agree on the anarchical nature of the world. The explanation however is different. 

REALISM 

The realist theory of international relations asserts that states are the main power players in international politics. Realists respond to the anarchic world system by assuming a “self-help” doctrine, believing they can rely on no one but themselves for security. They believe that in the anarchical system, the basic motive of a state’s behaviour is survival, which they see in relative terms; holding that the increased security of one state will necessarily lead to a decrease in security of others. Thus, states are forced to constantly take into account that others might have more power than them or are planning to gain more power and are so forced to do the same, leading to competition and balancing. 

LIBERALISM 

While liberalist theory acknowledges that the international system is anarchic, it contends that this anarchy can be regulated with various tools, most importantly: liberal democratization, liberal economic interdependence and liberal institutionalism. The basic liberal goal is a completely interdependent world. Liberalist theory asserts that the existence and spread of free trade reduces the likelihood of conflict, as “economically interdependent states are reluctant to become involved in militarized disputes out of fear that conflict disrupts trade and foreign investment and thus induces costs on the opponents”. Liberalists contend that it is not in a country’s interest to go to war with a state with which its private economic agents maintain an extensive exchange of goods and capital.

CONSTRUCTIVISM 

Alexander Wendt, the most influential modern constructivist thinker, is often quoted for writing, “Anarchy is what states make of it”. He asserts that anarchy is not intrinsically a self-help system, and the way states react to anarchy depends on how they perceive it. Wendt argues if the states can recognize that security can be cooperative or collective, whereby states can increase their security without decreasing the security of others, or recognizing that the security of other states can be valuable to themselves, anarchy would not lead to self-help at all. 

The State in Realism and Anarchy

The state is central to the study of international relations and will remain so into the foreseeable future. State policy is the most common object of analysis. States decide to go to war. They erect trade barriers. They choose whether and at what level to establish environmental standards. States enter international agreements, or not, and choose whether to abide by their provisions or not. International relations as a discipline is chiefly concerned with what states do on the world stage and, in turn, how their actions affect other states. 

Since the early 1970s much of the theoretical debate within International Relations has focused on the question of the state. Some discussion has been around the analytic primacy of the state as the constitutive actor in international relations, while some have focused on normative questions, of the degree to which the state can be regarded as the primary guarantor of what is good, within and between states. ‘State-centric’ realism has reasserted traditional positions on the state and has, through the emergence of neo-realism, affirmed new ones, especially in the field of international economic relations. Other paradigms have challenged the primacy of the state, either by asserting the role of non-state actors, as in theories of interdependence and transnationalism, or by asserting the primacy of global systems and structures over specific actors, state or non-state. All three of these approaches have been influenced by broader trends within political science: realism by mainstream political theory; transnationalism by the pluralist and behavioural rejection of the state in favour of studying actions; and structuralism by theories of socioeconomic determination.

In the traditional perception, the state plays the leading role in international relations. However, after the World War, with the rise of communications technology, the deepening of the international division of labour and the expansion of global trade, a good deal of international organizations were established. The international environment has changed due to globalization. It becomes easier for states to communicate with each other, which influences international political, economic, military and cultural to a great degree. The increasing number of these organizations is parallel to the increasing levels of political, economic, military and cultural transactions between individuals, societies and states. These kinds of non-state actors challenge the “state-centric” perception. 

There are two prevailing theories about the role of the state in international relations. Neorealism emphasizes the state plays the most important role in the international arena. On one hand, the state possesses sovereign power to ensure domestic security. On the other hand, neorealism also stresses the state’s influence economy in international relations. Neoliberalism not only indicates that the state is the main behaviour body in the international system but also affirms the role of non-states, such as international organizations, transnational organizations and other kinds of social organizations. As a by-product of the intensified globalization process, these kinds of organizations have become more significant determinants of foreign policies of the state. 

By looking at globalization, the proliferation of non-state actors is gaining international influence and position. Non-state actors can be divided into international intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and transnational or international non-governmental organizations (NGOs). International intergovernmental organizations are created by states. They have official documents of government agencies. On the contrary, transnational or international non-governmental organizations are established not by the state, but by some group of businessmen, individuals and other societal units. They have no legal connection with the state, so they are genuinely transnational. However, the state can restrain the activities of these kinds of organizations. 

There are a number of powerful organizations such as the European Union, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the United Nations. Though these organizations own strong power in international relations, they are entirely operated by states. Along with the intensification of globalization, the growth of so many kinds of non-state actors is bound to influence the status of the state in international relations. But they can not substitute for the state. 

The state is still the most important actor in international relations. Several strong points can be listed to get this conclusion. First of all, international organizations govern the globe, and these organizations consist of states. The state influences and powers over international organizations. Following this, globalization changes the international environment and leads to many kinds of non-state actors springing up. To a degree, these non-state actors are gaining status and influence in the global economy, politics and climate, but it is impossible to replace the position of the state in international relations. Any international affair is not a problem of one state but of the whole world. Taking into account the whole of these reasons, it can be concluded that the state is still the most important actor in international relations.