Milner argues that the notion of anarchy is not
vividly comprehended as it is commonly implied which has resulted in variations
in the way the disciple of international relations is being studied. Since it
is accorded the pivotal role in the field, there is a need to reach a consensus
on the way it is defined.
“Nations dwell in perpetual anarchy, for no central
authority imposes limits on the pursuit of sovereign interests”.
Anarchy has multiple meanings. One of its definitions
associates it with a state of chaos and lack of order which ultimately seeps
into a state of war. The other connects it with absence of government that
organizes how and when force is to be employed in the international arena. However,
Milner argues against this by saying that some degree of order prevails in the international
realm since states act according to a set of patterned behaviour promoting
various goals and norms. Moreover, it would be unfair to ignore the fact that institutions
such as United Nations, International Court of Justice, World Bank etc are
determined and resolute to maintain order in the world. However, who vouches
for the legitimacy of these organizations?
Moreover, Helen criticizes Waltz claims of international
politics as the only “true” form of politics that implies that world politics
is self-helped system with the absence of central authority. She further states
that not all states may be centralized and questions the extent to which international
system is decentralized. Also, the concept of anarchy allows us to believe that
not all states are equal since there is an uneven distribution of resources and
thus capabilities that require proper governing mechanisms.
Furthermore, Milner explains that the current tendency
to overemphasize on anarchy as the focal point of international relations is
not a healthy way of conceptualizing international policies. Instead of
divorcing anarchy and interdependence, they should be amalgamated or to say a
delicate balance should be maintained between the two.
I love what your title conveys because it feels like you are trying to hammer the concept of anarchy into our brains much like the amount of theoretical work done on its importance that we have been encountering again and again and again. Milner's work was a well deserved and needed break from it, from the practically for granted assumption of anarchy to look at it from a more critical point of view.
ReplyDeleteThe author is correct in understanding the meanings of anarchy as one that lacks order and the absence of a central government. Moreover, her analysis are correct when she says that the states are given patterned behavior in the anarchic system even it is said that a central government is absent to constrain the behavior of states according to common rules and norms.
ReplyDeleteMoving beyond anarchy is useful when thinking about the international system. Yes anarchy exists to some extent, but there are a variety of international institutions and norms that give some stability to the international system.
ReplyDelete