ð (1) Examines the various concepts of anarchy in IR (2) probe the sharp dichotomy between domestic and international politics that is associated with this assumption (suggests that the more faithful way to understand the international system is one that combines anarchy and independence)
ð The article is inspired by 1960`s like Inis Claude and James Rosenau.
CONCEPTS OF ANARCHY
ð Robert Art and Robert Jervis assert that anarchy is the fundamental fact of international relations.
ð Gilpin defines the fundamental nature of International Politics as a recurring struggle for wealth and power among independent actors in a state of anarchy.
ð Waltz defines anarchy as the first element of structure in the international system.
ð Robert Axelrod belives anarchy is specially relevant to international politics since today nations interact without central authority.
ð Keohane describes the initial international environmental as one peopled by egoistic, anomic states, pursuing their self-interests in a self-help system without any centralized authority. He shows that even in this environment, which resembles single-play PD, states can find cooperation to be in their narrow self-interests.
ð Concludes that anarchy has at least two meanings:
1) Lack of order which implies chaos or disorder.
a. Hobbesian anarchy.
b. International system didn`t seems to fit this description because it presents some elements of order or a pattern of activity that sustains the elementary or primary goals of a society of states, or international society.
c. So, that`s not what most IR authors mean by anarchy.
2) Lack of government
a. Waltz, for instance, associates anarchy with lack of government, which deals with the means used to organize how and when force can be employed. Government, for him, has a Weberian cast that implies the monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
i. 3 problems with this definition:
I. How much of a monopoly of force must a government have to exist?
II. What legitimacy means and how is it determined?
III. It reduces both, international and domestic level politics, to the use of force.
b. For others government denotes something likes associated with the use of force and more concerned about the existence of institutions and laws to maintain order.
c. For others it means the absence of a central authority to enforces states adherence to promises or agreements.
§ Government in this standard definition centrers on three notions: institutions, law, and legitimacy.
ð The provision of order may not require formal institutions or laws. But suposedly the maner in which order is provided is what distinguishes the two areas. Within the state, law and hierarchy prevail; within the international system, poower without legitimate authority dominates. Anarchy is equated with lawlessness.
ð Weack states and cases like the European Concert show us that there`s no such rigid dichotomy between domestic and international politics.
DICHOTOMY BETWEEN DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL POLITICS
ð 3 traditional lines dividing these fields:
1) Centralization prevails in domestic politics.
a. Criticizes saying that authority even in the domestic field is not highly concentrated, is diffused.
i. Says that states exhibit a very broad range of values along this continuum, and not all of them – or perhaps even the majority – may be more centralized than the international system.
b. To what extend the international system is decentralized? (depends also from the time under anilyse)
i. Waltz himself does not find the assumption that all states are equal and thus that power is highly decentralized to be either empirically true or heuristically usefull. As a good realist he focused upon the few strong powers in the system. (wich tend to be decentralized).
ii. The dilemma is that of Waltz three central assumptions principles conflict. It`s dificult to assume both that all states are equal and that all states are not equal as a result of the distribution of their capabilities. Waltz might claim that they are equal in fucntion but different in capabilities. However, as he states, one`s capabilities shape one`s functions.
MISSING PART...TO BE CONTINUED...
2)
No comments:
Post a Comment