Anarchy in International Politics

Anarchy and Social Order

• Anarchy is a key concept in realist theories of international politics, but less prominent in liberal theories.
• Neoliberal authors also use the assumption of anarchy.
• However, neorealists and neoliberals don't necessarily agree on the meaning or consequences of anarchy.
• Anarchy is a complex and ambiguous term, often associated with chaos and disorder.
• In world politics, some order exists, even if neorealists and neoliberals disagree on its nature, extent, and causes.
• Most theorists define anarchy as the absence of government.
• This definition raises questions about what "government" entails.
• Many governmental activities have counterparts at the international level (e.g., welfare, economics, law, commerce, health, safety).
• This suggests alternative conceptions of anarchy that focus on missing governmental characteristics.
• There is not a universal agreement on the specific characteristics that define international anarchy.

Scope and Domain

• Debates on relative gains in international politics often lack precise definitions of "gains" (in capabilities).
• Power relations' causal connection typically affects behavior, attributes, beliefs, and propensities of other actors.
• To understand power, domain and scope need precise definition.
• "Country A has power" should be rephrased as "Country A causes [specific effects] with respect to [whom]."
• Specificity and clarity regarding the level of "scope" are important (e.g., "lots of things").
• The causal notion of power is rejected by some, highlighting alternatives.

Capabilities and Cooperation

• Power's definition in realist theory is controversial, with varied interpretations.
• Different theoretical approaches (neoliberal and neorealist) treat the concept of power differently.
• This can lead to different understandings of capabilities and consequences of anarchy.
• Social science research should investigate instances of social phenomena.
• Social scientists analyze social order using factors like exchange relations, threat systems, and image integration.
• These concepts are applicable to international relations.

Zero-Sum Problem

• The idea of power as zero-sum (one actor gains, another loses) is prevalent but often inaccurate,
• Zero-sum assumptions in the literature are frequently debatable.
• Power gains by one actor don't necessarily imply commensurate losses by others.
• Different examples, like international relations scenarios, illustrate that gains in one area can lead to different outcomes than conventional zero-sum theories suggest.
• This debate highlights the need for clarification when discussing and applying theories of power to international relations.