Anarchy has always been central to realism. Helen Milner provides us different perspective of this assumption to understand its relevance with international politics by comparing how different political scientists define anarchy.
The definition of anarchy is an important and first step before we claim whether it does prevail in the international system or not. Does anarchy refers to a proper defined bureaucratic/hierarchical division of power or an existence of common governance or desire to become more powerful in an arena where every states fighting each other. Another interesting question raised in article was under what circumstances coordination is possible in an anarchic international system? And to answer let assume a Prisoner’s Dilemma. Interestingly, the explanation of this prisoners’ Dilemma solution turns out to be useful to understand the tension between potential threat and war. States are rational entity which always tries to maximize its security and ensure survival. They are not prone to take such steps that could lead them to more insecure level.
The definition of anarchy is an important and first step before we claim whether it does prevail in the international system or not. Does anarchy refers to a proper defined bureaucratic/hierarchical division of power or an existence of common governance or desire to become more powerful in an arena where every states fighting each other. Another interesting question raised in article was under what circumstances coordination is possible in an anarchic international system? And to answer let assume a Prisoner’s Dilemma. Interestingly, the explanation of this prisoners’ Dilemma solution turns out to be useful to understand the tension between potential threat and war. States are rational entity which always tries to maximize its security and ensure survival. They are not prone to take such steps that could lead them to more insecure level.
The argument that interdependence led to coordination between the states but it does not conclude that anarchy does not prevail in international system. The cost-benefit analysis of interdependence and war does support the practice of coordination. However, there could be a situation in which state might have chances to gain benefits from war. The criticism to this could be open and severe wars were existed in history only. In this case, we cannot forget to take in account the advent of nuclear weapons which led to coordination. Otherwise, we know what is happening between Israel and Palestine where one state is not a nuclear power.
Your writing is stream of conscious and unfocused. Milner argues for both interdependence and anarchy, but it's unclear what your perspective is on this. While I appreciate that you've started using paragraphs, please focus your thoughts and write in a more clear and cogent manner.
ReplyDelete