Lecture 2 – International Anarchy

The international system

 main types of ’actors’  but they don’t float freely
o they co-exist within a larger system that structures them and their interactions in particular ways
 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…)
 the international system = a set of incentives and expectations that shape the identities and the
behaviours of actors in international politics
 why study the international system?
o it has effects that cannot be explained simply by examining the actors and organizations themselves
o but there are multiple concepts/ understandings of the international system
 the four concepts of the ’international system’
1. anarchy
2. hierarchy
3. interdependence
4. capitalism

o what are the dynamics of the international system (that cannot be attributed simply to the preferences
of the actors and organizations within it)?
o what do the parts have in common, and what distinguishes them?

International Anarchy
 anarchy = the absence of central authority
 international anarchy = the absence of an effective central authority above states and other actors
o Mearsheimer (2001): ”There is no government above governments”
o anarchy ≠ chaos  anarchy and order may co-exist
o the ’billiard ball’ model of international relations

 the three interpretations/ implications of international anarchy

Interpretation 1 – Anarchy makes cooperation difficult (Waltz, 1979)

 anarchy  states are insecure  all rely on self-help to survive
o states cannot rely on international rules and institutions
o two options
 build arms
 form alliances
 because of self-help pressures, all states seek their own security  in the end domestic politics and ‘regime
type’ 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
o states focus on their relative power (power compared to others)
 this theory doesn’t consider small states  they are not powerful enough to have an impact
o the number of great powers (’polarity’) determines international alliances and the risk of war

 the Security Dilemma (Jervis, 1978)

o even when the state has defensive intentions (a.k.a.: no plans to attack others)
 anarchy  insecurity  defensive actions  more fear and mistrust  difficulty of
cooperation

o why is it a dilemma?
 the theory assumes that all states are inherently defensive
 but despite this assumption, states still think that other states are going to attack them

 Relative Gains Problem (Powell, 1991)

o when facing possible cooperation, states may focus on…
 absolute gains  how much do I gain?
 relative gains  how does my gain compare to other’s gain?
o under anarchy, “relative gain is more important than absolute gain” (Waltz, 1959)
 if two states would cooperate and both would gain something out of it, but state ’A’ would
gain more than state ’B’, then state ’B’ would feel like it lost to state ’A’ and will reject the
cooperation
 state ’B’ would have absolute gains, but it wouldn’t have relative gains through the
cooperation, thus would reject the cooperation
o anarchy  focus on relative gains  cooperation is unlikely
o question: will state ’A’ and state ’B’ favour cooperation
 (copy from slides)

 distribution of power (a.k.a.: ’polarity’)

o unipolar system: one great power
 maximum certainty
 clear leadership
 easy domination
 BUT very rare  states will build arms and alliances to balance against any major power
o bipolar system: two great powers  each has alliances with smaller powers
 high certainty
 competition for leadership
 domination within alliances
o multipolar system: 3-5 great powers  shifting alliances with each other and small powers
 low certainty
 risk of leadership vacuum
  less risk of domination

o some critical questions

 does less certainty produce instability or stability in the system?
 what happens when great powers rise & fall?
Interpretation 2 – Anarchy invites aggression by great powers (Mearsheimer, 2001)
 anarchy  opportunities for aggression by ‘predator’ states
o to understand international power politics it is enough to pay attention to the powerful states
 they have the ability/ power to convert their ambitions into reality
 all states seek to maximize their relative power
 international politics is dominated by the ambitions of great powers, regional hegemons
 rise and fall of great powers  instability  likelihood of major war
 ”In the anarchic world of international politics, is better to be Godzilla, than Bambi” (Mearsheimer, 2006)
o e.g.: Ukraine & Russia, China & Taiwan
o those states (Bambis) that are next to powerful states (Godzillas) are in an extremely vulnerable state
 these ’Bambis’ would not be in such a position if we had a ’force above’, which would have the
power to protect them from the ’Godzillas’
Interpretation 3 – It depends on identities (Wendt, 1992)
 international anarchy does NOT automatically/ necessarily produce self-help and insecurity
 both competitive and cooperative relations are possible
 relations under anarchy depend upon how states identify vis-à-vis each other
o negative identities (Other is not like Us)  competitive relations and conflict
o positive identities (Other is like Us)  cooperative relations and community
 identities are shaped by processes of interaction
o a.k.a.: how governments talk and act, what values they express
 significance  peaceful and cooperative relations do not require replacing anarchy with world government
o a.k.a.: no world government is needed for world peace because states are capable of developing
positive relations towards each other on their own

 reassurance may overcome fear (Gross Stein, 1992)

o logic  if fear feeds the security dilemma, which makes cooperation difficult, then reassuring words
and actions can promote positive identification and cooperation
o strategy  use words and actions (including self-restraint and de-escalation) to make the Other less
fearful and allow focus on shared interests (works best if reciprocated!)
Identities in international politics
 identities are understandings of the Self in relation to an Other  how are we similar/ different?
o they can change over time
o based on human action and interpretation
 international institutions can promote the development of positive identities
 illustrations
o Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev used actions (policy reforms) and language (‘Common European
home’) to convince the US and Western Europe that the Soviet Union was less ‘Other’ so could be
trusted
o France and Germany gradually replaced negative identification (during and after WW2) with positive
identification through joint construction of the EU community
 result: no fear of attack

 identities depend (in part) on domestic regime  democracies cooperate differently with each other (Risse-
Kappen, 1995)
o simple interpretations of anarchy suggest that powerful states will dominate international cooperation
and push around smaller states
  if a small and a powerful state would cooperate, the powerful state would dictate the terms
o historical cases show that among democracies small allies have great influence
o explanation  community of collective identity based on shared values
 problem-solving through dialogue
 openness to civil society
Aliens, anarchy and competition
 ”I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat
from outside this world.” (US President Reagan, 1987)
 coronavirus as aliens?
o like Reagan’s aliens, Coronavirus was an ‘outside, universal threat’ to humanity
 did humanity overcome its differences to cooperate against this threat?
 or did the international response to Covid-19 resemble an every-state-for-itself, self-help
system?
 were cooperation problems due to the ‘absence of effective central authority above states’, or
to something else
 Film: Arrival (2016)
o two intersecting anarchies
 relations between humans and aliens
- there is no ’power above’ among humans  no united front against the aliens
 relations between states