Session 10 - Enough of Anarchy?

The existence of anarchy as a central feature of international politics has characterized much of the theorizing in the realm of International Relations. Helen Milner in “The Assumption of Anarchy in International Relations Theory: A Critique” challenges this formerly undisputed assumption of anarchy as the basic principle behind the actions of states within an international system and attempts to unpack the neo-realist concept of anarchy. In addition, Milner also tries to diminish the divide between international and domestic politics and proposes the idea of “interdependence” between states as vital to understanding international relations.

“Nations dwell in perpetual anarchy, for no central authority imposes limits on the pursuit of sovereign interests”. Theorists adhering to the realist tradition have often defined anarchy as a state of chaos, lawlessness and disorder, often referring to the Hobbesian perspective of “war of all against all”, as the basic tenet of international politics. Anarchy in the international system has also been associated with the lack of government (central authority or hierarchical power structure) that can provide order in the continuous state of war. Milner believes that it is the balance of power in the international system that may create a “hierarchy of relations that make an orderly system” that helps prevent war. Further, Milner argues that if the lack of order implies an absence of an institutional framework which determines how states interact, then the assumptions of Realism may be flawed. However despite the presence of institutions such as the ICJ, which aim to regularize patterns of state behavior, the lack of order in the international system can be attributed to the institutions’ ineffectiveness or inability to “command obedience” rather than absence of institutions themselves. Therefore, the lack of legitimacy awarded to these institutions is what Milner defines as anarachy in the international system.

Despite efforts from theorists such as Allison and Halperin to include the internal workings of states while theorizing in international relations, the prevalent theme distinctly divides domestic and international politics. According to Waltz, centralization in domestic politics vs. decentralization of power in the international arena, the reliance on force as well as the association of power with international politics, serve to further entrench the dichotomy between the two arenas. Milner however, does not agree with the imposition of such a distinction.

Empirically, the division is difficult to maintain, and reduces all the states operating in the international system, to similar units, with undifferentiated interests. Milner argues against the concept of centralization of authority as a norm of domestic politics. Using the example of the United States, Milner shows that authority may be dispersed amongst different tiers of the government, which results in the decentralization of power. Similarly, although Waltz insists that power is highly decentralized in the arena of global politics, power is largely concentrated with the United States. Although the phenomenon of balance of power is largely fluid and subject to change, as can be observed in pre and post-Cold War politics, Milner’s suggestion that domestic and international politics ought to be viewed in a continuum, rather than as a dichotomy.

While the government enjoys the monopoly over the legitimate use of force within the state, the international system can partially be defined by the lack of such ‘legitimacy’. However, violence in both arenas is employed largely for the maintenance of social control and therefore, this distinction may not be as clear as it is claimed. Lastly, while domestic politics is characterized by authority and the rule of law, international politics presents a “power, struggle and accommodation”. According to Milner, Waltz ignores the fact that power struggles may also exist at the level of domestic politics, which may manifest itself as the competition between political parties and accommodation of political views and ideologies at a local level.

Milner also proposes an alternative way to conceptualize international politics. The concept of “interdependence” between states as a key structural feature in international politics. . Interdependence implies that while states are sovereign, they do not act in isolation – their actions are determined by the actions of other states. Furthermore, interdependence does not disregard the existence of power dynamics, but propagates the idea that cooperation and harmony are widespread, despite conflicting interests. In fact, power can be exercised as a result of this interdependence. Pakistan was politically and economically isolated at the time of 9/11 and therefore entirely dependent on the United States to pluck the country from its position as an international pariah at the advent of the War on Terror. Although the interests of the two countries weren't always aligned, Pakistan’s involvement in the war included mutual gains for both. However, in their interdependent relationship, USA was able to wield its position of power to its advantage and ensure that Pakistan obliged by the former's demands.

To the realm of IR theory, Milner’s work has been of particular importance as it provides the break from the traditional realist approaches that claim that anarchy is the only way to explain why states act the way that they do. What is also interesting is that Milners has also taken a similar approach to that of Waltz, using market structures as being analogous to political units in order to explain the role of interdependence in the workings of international politics. Therefore, although a substantial time is spent critiquing Waltz's work, it is evident that Milner regards the former's contribution as worthy of recognition.