The critique of anarchy as the rigid underlying assumption of international politics serves to be a very insightful academic appraisal by Milner as she attempts to present a complication of and possible alternatives to anarchy which essentially aims to elucidate the ambiguity between the international and domestic order. By drawing tangents from numerous definitions of anarchy, proposed by esteemed writers, Milner aims to configure an almost tangible perspective of 'orders' that can be applied to International Relations; Economic and Political Interdependence which combine to form a new frontier of Strategic Interdependence.
Her dissertation questions whether force is the linchpin upon which the conception of order exists and why in particular the trajectory of I.R. theorizing proves to have a trend of force being the main determinant of domestic order and anarchy as the main determinant of international relations. Furthermore, Milner compares the socially constructed definitions of anarchy, government, order and force to the academically proposed definitions by Hobbes, Waltz, Bull and Jervais to come to the conclusion that while force and anarchy are undeniably present, they do not operate in isolation. This forms the fundamental critique of anarchy and critically reassesses the universal application of anarchy. To put things into perspective, the work of Alex Pritchard can be employed to buttress Milner's effort especially when he suggests that the world system is like an "order without an orderer" - To sum it up, there is order, but no orderer which essentially creates an illusion of the world being anarchic. This conforms to the idea that the behavior every unitary actor adopts is quintessential in determining the nature of the order; for instance, a government like the U.S., which behaves to not exert monopoly over violence under certain circumstances, essentially is seen to be not as orderly as a Statist regime which imposes more order.
Milner identifies the existence of anomalies further suggesting that the Prisoners Dilemma and game theoretical models do in fact recognize the presence of hierarchy and some semblance of order in the International Arena, without which "a state of nature would be evoked". The salient point to raise here is whether we are, as suggested, in a state of nature governed by anarchy. If yes, would we not be "in a perpetual state of war"? Moreover, are we perhaps in a perpetual state of covert warfare, with multiple wars being fought all around the world by nations to retain their sovereignty and security, or has the threat of nuclear destruction acted as a check and provided an arbitrary form of order?
What Milner aptly suggests is that peace and anarchy coexist in a spectrum and what shapes the order is this uneven balance between universal egoism and universal altruism which in a nutshell means that the behavior of states and non-state actors determine the nature of order, and that strategic interdependence and collusion enables the establishment of order in the global world.
Her dissertation questions whether force is the linchpin upon which the conception of order exists and why in particular the trajectory of I.R. theorizing proves to have a trend of force being the main determinant of domestic order and anarchy as the main determinant of international relations. Furthermore, Milner compares the socially constructed definitions of anarchy, government, order and force to the academically proposed definitions by Hobbes, Waltz, Bull and Jervais to come to the conclusion that while force and anarchy are undeniably present, they do not operate in isolation. This forms the fundamental critique of anarchy and critically reassesses the universal application of anarchy. To put things into perspective, the work of Alex Pritchard can be employed to buttress Milner's effort especially when he suggests that the world system is like an "order without an orderer" - To sum it up, there is order, but no orderer which essentially creates an illusion of the world being anarchic. This conforms to the idea that the behavior every unitary actor adopts is quintessential in determining the nature of the order; for instance, a government like the U.S., which behaves to not exert monopoly over violence under certain circumstances, essentially is seen to be not as orderly as a Statist regime which imposes more order.
Milner identifies the existence of anomalies further suggesting that the Prisoners Dilemma and game theoretical models do in fact recognize the presence of hierarchy and some semblance of order in the International Arena, without which "a state of nature would be evoked". The salient point to raise here is whether we are, as suggested, in a state of nature governed by anarchy. If yes, would we not be "in a perpetual state of war"? Moreover, are we perhaps in a perpetual state of covert warfare, with multiple wars being fought all around the world by nations to retain their sovereignty and security, or has the threat of nuclear destruction acted as a check and provided an arbitrary form of order?
What Milner aptly suggests is that peace and anarchy coexist in a spectrum and what shapes the order is this uneven balance between universal egoism and universal altruism which in a nutshell means that the behavior of states and non-state actors determine the nature of order, and that strategic interdependence and collusion enables the establishment of order in the global world.
I agree with your point of view. Milner talks about how in order to understand the international political system we must not look at it in isolation but rather combine anarchy as well as political and economic independence theories.
ReplyDeleteGood post. Interesting comment that perhaps there is a perpetual state of covert war. While there is some degree of order in the international system, states appear to advance their interests often through covert means, as can be seen by US actions around the world.
ReplyDelete