Session 9: Anarchy or Hierarchy in the International Arena?

Kenneth Waltz, in his book ‘Theory of International politics’, has successfully managed to distinguish the structures of the global political order. Supporting the Realist school of thought, Waltz claims that the international arena is governed anarchically, where countries trade and make their foreign policy based on self-interest, rather than on collective gaining. Domestic governments, on the other hand, are ranked according to hierarchy. Does hierarchy exist in the international arena also?

Moving a bit away from International Relations, other social sciences such as Anthropology and Sociology aim at dividing world power not only anarchically, but also hierarchically. Since the early modern period, the political arena has been subjected to colonialism. Colonization has managed to divide states in terms of their economic and political strengths, rather than pay heed to free trade and the sovereignty of a state. The British, a super-power of that era, established their colonies in countries where they would exploit and dominate economic and foreign policy, and manage to spread the influence of their western modern cultures, termed eurocentrism.

Western practices and beliefs have been so deeply embedded in post-colonial states, that remnants of them are visible till this day in countries like Pakistan and India. The terms ‘coloniser’ and ‘colonised’ themselves bring about the hierarchy that exists in the international arena. Dividing states as ‘post-colonial’, ‘First World’, ‘Third World’, ‘developing countries’, are all hierarchic in nature. The modern political environment has made it necessary for economically inferior nations to have to ally with countries such as USA and China, who are more economically and strategically dominant.

To avoid the anarchic structure that exists in the international arena, institutions such as the United Nations are used to defuse tensions between countries, but in reality, fail to do anything as predicted by Realists in their criticism of Liberalism. Even these institutions are divided by hierarchy, where some dominant countries have more influence than their other economically subordinate members.

Countries with economic, political and strategic power make sure that the international arena is governed anarchically, only so they can maintain their own hierarchy. Countries with lesser influence and power fight the anarchic structure, only so they can rise on hierarchy. It can be said that the line between anarchy and hierarchy is a very thin one in relation to the international arena.