Is The Anarchic System The Cause Of International Violence?

he theory that I intend to put forward in this essay is that, for the most part, the Anarchic system is indeed the

cause of international violence. However, I also intend to propose the views that it is not the sole cause, and

also that it can be a cause of peace within the international system. I shall begin this essay by defining one or

two key terms within the question, then move on to present my argument that Anarchy in the international

system can cause violence, but does not always, and is not the sole cause.

As with any term within the social sciences, there is rarely agreement on a concrete definition for a concept,

even (or perhaps especially) when it is a concept so basic and fundamental to the discipline such as Anarchy.

What is certain, however, is that when we take Anarchy in an international relations context it "does not

necessarily mean lawlessness and chaos"1. More often in international relations, especially if one takes the

realist view, Anarchy rather means "the absence of a formal system of government"2. To put it another,

Anarchy taken from an International Relations view points simply means that there is an "absence of

"hierarchical" political order based on subordination and authority"3. Simply put, for the purposes of this essay,

Anarchy simply means that "there is no higher authority above states".4

Having now defined the major term in the question to a degree necessary to provide an answer, I shall now

state some of the assumptions I shall make in the follow theory. Firstly, I shall be taking the realist view that

International Relations is state-centric. Secondly I shall be taking the view that states are rational, in that they

act logically after weighing up the options, and also that they are egoist in that they always act in way sure

the benefit themselves. Lastly, I shall assume that the primary objective for states in an anarchic system is to

remain sovereign, and therefore "the condition of anarchy makes security the first concern of states"5

One of the major ways in which anarchy has an effect on states is that it creates uncertainty. Perhaps the best

way of both demonstrating and proving how Anarchy generates uncertainty is through the security dilemma. John Snyder summed up the security dilemma as:

"Given the irreducible uncertainty about the intentions of others, security measures are taken by one actor are perceived by others as threatening; the others take steps to protect them selves; these steps are then interpreted by the first actor as confining its initial hypothesis that the others are dangerous; and so on in a spiral of illusory fears and "unnecessary" defences"6.

It is easy to see how a situation such as the one outlined above could escalate into violence. This, therefore is

one of the ways in which Anarchy in the international system certainly has the capability to cause violence.

However, the Security Dilemma, I argue, can also be a cause of peace through a Balance of Power. The

Balance of Power theory states that, under the Anarchic circumstances I have already described, states will

"Balance rather than Bandwagon"7.

Of course the Balance of Power, cause through Anarchic conditions, can also lead to violence. Jack Donelly

has explained that "whenever two dominant powers face each other, each is the only real threat to the other,

and they cannot but be enemies. Each must, whatever its preferences and inclinations, balance its power

against the other"8.

However, in my opinion, this is not a situation that always leads to violence and war. The most prominent

example of this would perhaps be the Cold War. There is a common consensus among realist scholars that

"This security dilemma is what fuelled the Cold War"9. The Cold War, while prolific with disputes, trade wars,

the threat of war and proxy wars never actually came to all out nuclear war. It is therefore my conclusion that

Anarchy is capable of creating circumstances such as the Security Dilemma, but these circumstances do not

always lead inevitably to violence. Clearly, through circumstances such as the Cold War, we can see that the

Security Dilemma, in forcing states the arm to the point where any war would be cataclysmic for either side,

can create a sort of peace. This is perhaps more properly known in the context of the Cold War as Mutually

Assured Destruction Theory (MAD) where "if our enemy had a bomb, and we had a bomb, then neither of us

could use it on the other because we would both be dead in an instant"10.

The Cold War, of course, existed in a Bipolar System, where the two hegemons were the United States and

the USSR. In the following paragraph I shall move on from looking at isolated theoretical concepts such as

MAD and the Security Dilemma and look at how Anarchy can bring about different polar system such as

Multipolar, Unipolar or Tripolar and further examine their ability to bring on, or suppress, violence.

In an Anarchic system with no overriding governance states are free to make and break what alliances they

wish to. It is my theory that a Multi-polar System is more less stable, and therefore less peaceful, than a

bipolar one. Kenneth Waltz described an International System as stable if it "remains anarchic and "no

consequential variation takes place on the number of practical parties that constitute the system"11 . There are

two points I wish to draw from this.

Firstly, Waltz argues that for a system to be stable and therefore peaceful (For stability has been defined as

""the probability that the system retains all of its essential characteristics; that no single nation becomes

dominant; that most of its members continue to survive; and that large-scale war does not occur"12). Therefore

for a system to be peaceful, it first needs to be stable, and it therefore needs to be in Anarchy. Another

definition, and one that links Waltz`s assertion above that for a system to be stable it needs to exist in

conditions of anarchy, might be a system where there is an "absence of wars and major crises"13

Secondly, I wish to expand upon Waltz` comments to put forward the argument that under Anarchy, a bipolar

system is more likely than a multi polar one. I shall then expand this argument to explain why a bipolar system

is more stable, and therefore peaceful. Through this I hope to build upon my argument that Anarchy , far from

being the primary and inevitable cause of violence in the international system, can in face cause and maintain

peace.

From the definition of stability gained from Waltz I have given above, it could be possible to come to the

conclusion that Multi-polar systems are more stable than Bipolar ones. Indeed it has often been noted that the

European "multi polar system lasted three centuries"14 whereas "The bipolar Cold War system....lasted half a

century"15. However, as noted by Copeland "it has been widely accepted that Bipolar systems are more stable

than multi polar systems"16.

There are many reasons for this, but I would argue that the most basic one is that two major Superpowers "are

less likely to fall into a major war"17. Bipolarity leads inexorably to peace, according to Waltz, because two

great powers "can deal with one another better than more can" and therefore there is a "simplicity of relations

in a bipolar world"18 that leads to and increased chance for stability, and therefore peace.

However, in a multi polar system there are more actors, possibilities, events and alliances to keep track of and

as Waltz himself continues: "in the great-power politics of multi-polar worlds, who is a danger to whom, and who can be expected to deal with threats and problems and matters of uncertainty." therefore " dangers are defused, responsibilities unclear, and definitions of vital interest easily obscured"19

from this we can see that instability and from it war and violence are more likely in a multi-polar system.

Anarchy, therefore has the capability to create both unstable and stable International systems. It follows that

anarchy cannot be said to be an inevitable and sole bringer of violence in the international system.

The arguments listed above are mostly realist ones, and they rely on the assumption given at the start of this

essay that survival is "the most basic motive driving states"20. This main reason for this assumption comes

from the assertion of uncertainty caused by Anarchy in the international system. In the past, realists often

"conflate survival with independence"21.

However states can "survive in anarchy without being sovereign or independent, just as individuals can survive

when enslaved or imprisoned"22. Once we remove from consideration the assumption that he primary goal of all states is to survive what ever the cost then several new reasons arise, such as human nature and the idea

of states acting as social entities as in structural constructivism and with it the idea that states conform to

norms.

I lack the space in this essay to go into detail about these theories, however I am able to give an example of

the most prominent one, and one that was a very prominent theory up to the evolution of Neo-realism in the

late 20th Century.

The idea of Anarchy being a major cause of violence is a Structural or Neo-realist one. Classical realists,

however, "acknowledge that their theories of world politics are rooted in specific assumptions about human

nature"23. These assumptions of human nature as barbarous, egotistical and violent do not rely on the

international system being in anarchy, but merely that there are people involved.

In conclusion therefore, I set out at the beginning of this essay to prove my theory that Anarchy, while it has

the ability to cause violence, it can bring about peace, and it is not the only cause. The theory that Anarchy

inexorably leads to Anarchy is based mainly on the basic realist assumption that the primary goal of states is

survival.

I then cited the security dilemma as a prime example of how violence can come about as a result of the

uncertainty caused be Anarchy. However, as we can see for the example I have given of the Cold War, it can

also bring about a (rather shaky) peace lasting for decades.

Anarchy can also be responsible for the nature of the system states find themselves in, and how stable it is.

After attempting to give a definition of stability, an examination of the relative stability (and therefore likelihood

of violence) of Bi-polar systems and Multi-polar ones was undertaken. The conclusion I draw from this is that

different types of systems can be brought about under Anarchy, and these can have a greater role in informing

instability, and therefore violence, than anarchy.

Finally, I put forward the final part of my theory: that there are other reasons for violence than Anarchy. The

most prominent of these is human nature. Although human nature steadily evolves over time, as long as there

are humans in the international system some of the egotism and violence is sure to remain. From the

arguments given in the pre-ceding paragraphs, I therefore conclude that while Anarchy can certainly give birth

to great violence, suspicious and uncertainty, it can also nurture peace, and other factors may be to blame in

the bringing about of war.

Bibliography

Books and Journals

Brown, C :"Understanding International Relations", Basingstoke: Palgrave (2005) P3

Copeland, D: "Neo-realism and the Myth of Bipolar Stability: Toward a new dynamic realist theory of major war", "Decurity Studies" , Vol 5 Spring 1996 P29-89

Crawford, N: "Human Nature and World Politics: Rethinking "Man". "International Relations" Vol 23 No 2 (2009) P271-288

Deutsch,K and Singer, K, Multipolar Power Systems and International Stability, World Politics No 16 Vol 3 (1964) P390

Donelly, J: "Realism and International Relations". Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2002) P10

Mearschimer, J :The False Promise of International Institutions," International Security, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Winter 1994/1995), pp. 5-49.

Nye, J:"Understanding International Conflicts: An Introduction to Theory and History" Longman: London (2002) P4

Omario Kanji: "Security" http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/security/ (2003) Accessed 01 Dec 2010

Posen, B:The Security Dilemma and Ethnic Conflict, "Survival" Vol 35 No1 (1993) P27

Preston, P "A nuclear Iran is not as problem: Whatever happened to the Theory of Mutually Assured Destruction?", The Guardian 07/02/2005

Snyder,G:"Alliance Politics", Ithaca: Cornell University Press (1997) P17

Waltz, K :"Theory of International Politics" New York: Random House (1979) P162