This article by Milner aims to understand an assumption of Internation Relations: anarchy. First, it examines the various concepts of anarchy employed in the IR literature and second, it probes the dichotomy between domestic and international politics and lastly it suggests that a more productive way to understand the international system is one that combines anarchy and interdependence.
Milner comes up with two meanings of anarchy; first that there is lack of order. It talks about the Hobessian anarchy. International system didnt seem to fit this description because it presents some elements of order or a pattern of activity that sustains the elementary or primary goals of a society of states, or international society. So thats not what most IR scholars mean by anarchy. Secondly, Milner says that anarchy means lack of government. Waltz, for instance, associates anarchy with lack of government, which deals with the means used to organize how and when force can be employed. Government, for him, has a Weberian cast that implies the monopoly on the legitimate use of force. There are some problems with this definition; How much of a monopoly of force must a government have to exist ? What legitimacy means and how is it determined ? And, it reduces both domestic and international politics to the use of force.
Then it talks about the dichotomy between international and domestic politics. Milner criticizes that authority even in the domestic field is not concentrated, is diffused. She says that states exhibit a very broad range of values along this continuum, and not all of them- or perhaps even the majority- may be more centralized than the international system.
Milner comes up with two meanings of anarchy; first that there is lack of order. It talks about the Hobessian anarchy. International system didnt seem to fit this description because it presents some elements of order or a pattern of activity that sustains the elementary or primary goals of a society of states, or international society. So thats not what most IR scholars mean by anarchy. Secondly, Milner says that anarchy means lack of government. Waltz, for instance, associates anarchy with lack of government, which deals with the means used to organize how and when force can be employed. Government, for him, has a Weberian cast that implies the monopoly on the legitimate use of force. There are some problems with this definition; How much of a monopoly of force must a government have to exist ? What legitimacy means and how is it determined ? And, it reduces both domestic and international politics to the use of force.
Then it talks about the dichotomy between international and domestic politics. Milner criticizes that authority even in the domestic field is not concentrated, is diffused. She says that states exhibit a very broad range of values along this continuum, and not all of them- or perhaps even the majority- may be more centralized than the international system.
I think that you do a decent job of summarizing Milner, though some of the language you use and your structure mirrors other students' posts. Please ensure all of your work is your own and that you consult the texts when you want to write your posts, not other students.
ReplyDelete