Anarchy has been a fundamental assumption in International Politics theorizing. Milner, in her article examines the various concepts of anarchy as employed in literature and provides a critique to the dichotomy between domestic and international politics which is associated with the anarchy assumption, concluding with the idea that in order to get a heuristic understanding of the international system, combination of anarchy and interdependence is necessary.
The focus on anarchy has led to the distinction between domestic and international politics. Milner takes forth the three claims made by Waltz with regards to the anarchy assumption (1.Anarchy as a lack of central authority implies that international politics is a decentralized competition among sovereign equals; 2. It further implies that world politics is a self-help system reliant primarily on force, distinguishes international from national politics; 3. International politics is seen as the only true 'polities': National politics is the realm of authority, of administration, and of law) and critiques them exhibiting that no empirical evidence can be found for this dichotomy. The “dilemma is that two of Waltz's three central assumptions/ordering principles conflict. It is difficult to assume both that all states are equal (principles 1 and 2) and that all states are not equal as a result of the distribution of their capabilities (principle 3).”
If states are equal in function but not capabilities, and the latter shape a state’s action, then the difference over the degree of centralization of authority and variation among various units between nation states and international systems should be viewed in a continuum and not dichotomy.
Furthermore, the use of force in both arenas serves the same purpose; domestically, the concept of deterrence as a means of social control is similar to the use of sanctions, in the international arena as a means of enforcement of law internationally.
Lastly, the distinction between domestic and international politics in terms of power, struggle and accommodation in the international arena and authority, administration, and law in the domestic arena is the hardest to maintain. For instance, disputes among politicians and parties over national offices and resources are prevalent in nation-states as well and is no different than states quest for power internationally.
Milner, therefore, shifts our focus towards the idea of strategic interdependence among various states and emphasizes that it is a key structural feature of the international system. Interdependence implies that actors are linked. They are sovereign but their actions and attainment of goals are conditioned by the behavior of other actors and their expectations and perceptions about this. It focuses on communication and information sharing and how that shapes perception of actors which would impact a state behavior. Milner, rightly states that the overdependence on anarchy being the fundamental feature in international politics is reductionist in nature. The mere presence of anarchy does not determine the behavior of states, although it can be considered to be a key factor, strategic interdependence among actors is equally significant. Thus, it will be highly reductionist and exaggerated to pin down state’s actions based on the prevalence of anarchy in the international arena. The strategic focus on interdependencies necessitates that actors take an interest in factors which would determine their game plan in their relations with other actors.
The focus on anarchy has led to the distinction between domestic and international politics. Milner takes forth the three claims made by Waltz with regards to the anarchy assumption (1.Anarchy as a lack of central authority implies that international politics is a decentralized competition among sovereign equals; 2. It further implies that world politics is a self-help system reliant primarily on force, distinguishes international from national politics; 3. International politics is seen as the only true 'polities': National politics is the realm of authority, of administration, and of law) and critiques them exhibiting that no empirical evidence can be found for this dichotomy. The “dilemma is that two of Waltz's three central assumptions/ordering principles conflict. It is difficult to assume both that all states are equal (principles 1 and 2) and that all states are not equal as a result of the distribution of their capabilities (principle 3).”
If states are equal in function but not capabilities, and the latter shape a state’s action, then the difference over the degree of centralization of authority and variation among various units between nation states and international systems should be viewed in a continuum and not dichotomy.
Furthermore, the use of force in both arenas serves the same purpose; domestically, the concept of deterrence as a means of social control is similar to the use of sanctions, in the international arena as a means of enforcement of law internationally.
Lastly, the distinction between domestic and international politics in terms of power, struggle and accommodation in the international arena and authority, administration, and law in the domestic arena is the hardest to maintain. For instance, disputes among politicians and parties over national offices and resources are prevalent in nation-states as well and is no different than states quest for power internationally.
Milner, therefore, shifts our focus towards the idea of strategic interdependence among various states and emphasizes that it is a key structural feature of the international system. Interdependence implies that actors are linked. They are sovereign but their actions and attainment of goals are conditioned by the behavior of other actors and their expectations and perceptions about this. It focuses on communication and information sharing and how that shapes perception of actors which would impact a state behavior. Milner, rightly states that the overdependence on anarchy being the fundamental feature in international politics is reductionist in nature. The mere presence of anarchy does not determine the behavior of states, although it can be considered to be a key factor, strategic interdependence among actors is equally significant. Thus, it will be highly reductionist and exaggerated to pin down state’s actions based on the prevalence of anarchy in the international arena. The strategic focus on interdependencies necessitates that actors take an interest in factors which would determine their game plan in their relations with other actors.
I agree that it is a reductionist to argue that anarchy is the only central factor in the international system. I particularly liked how the author did not disregard the concept of anarchy altogether but instead argued for an addition of strategic interdependence to the study of international politics.
ReplyDeleteI think you hit the nail on the head by highlighting the importance of strategic interdependence. Waltz's theory is flawed and Milner does a good job of correcting some of the flawed assumptions in his theory as you note.
ReplyDelete