In this article by Helen Milner, who is the professor of
International Relations at Princeton University, we see a new take on the ideas
of anarchy that seem so entrenched within the theory of International Relations.
She sums up her ideas on anarchy in this
article and presents a new theory of interdependence as a necessary variable in
international relations.
Helen Milner sets her sights on the conceptual view of
anarchy within IR theory and attempts to deduce what exactly is meant by
anarchy. She tries to visualize anarchy as a loss of order but what she ends up
proving is that order is inherent in the international system. Order is
maintained by the balance of power. In fact, the balance of power is a
necessary evil that is good for maintaining order, according to Morgenthau. It
is similar then to the Lockean view of the state as a necessary evil which
maintains order. Also, anarchy cannot be classified as a lack of government
institutions or laws because there is a system of international laws and
institutions such as the EU and the Bill of Rights. How effective are these
institutions then? This is the real question to ask. Legitimacy of force in
terms of laws and institutions is the real power force in the domestic and
international system.
The link between legitimate use of force in the domestic and
international realms segues into the concept of interdependence. She talks
about the dichotomy between international relations and domestic politics and
how they should be reconciled as part of a continuum. Small changes on the
domestic level change large things on the international arena which is why including
domestic politics would enrich rather than inhibit IR theory. This leads her to
present a theory of strategic interdependence between states which operates
alongside and not against anarchy. Interdependence highlights taking shared
interests into account because changes to one state can affect the actor state.
Milner’s analysis is very effective and there needs to be an opening up of IR
theory. Waltz seeks to simplify International Relations, which is what Milner
strongly disagrees with. Her idea of interdependence makes sense going forward,
because as we studied last week, policy cannot take place in a vacuum.
I strongly agree with your conclusion. The reason why it was impossible for me to take Waltz seriously is that he attempts to simplify International Relations and skips all the complexities and formalities behind the concepts and notions related to International Relations and policies.In reality, it is not that simple and it is necessary to take those complexities into account in order to understand the policies of International Relations and case studies clearly and effectivel. This is where Milner and her idea of interdependence is important. After reading her article I think she believes in explaining in length and in details and it is true that policies arent made in vacuum.
ReplyDeleteI think it is apparent from a variety of posts and comments that it is simply too simplistic to think of the international system as purely anarchic, especially since hierarchies exist within it. Adding the concept of strategic interdependence helps us better understand the international system. Furthermore her astute analysis of how domestic politics are not necessarily hierarchical further challenges Waltz's thesis. Good post and good comment Taha.
ReplyDelete