I would be surprised be to know if i found out that any political student does not know what anarchy is. It is one of the first concept being taught when studying about politics in the International Arena. But what is anarchy? . Different people see it differently. But the most common idea of anarchy is not having a centralized body controlling the power of the states. The concept of anarchy goes as back as Hobbes who described the anarchic nature of international relations where the states are in a state of war against each other. But that's not our concern here. The fact that this concept has been so long lived and been studied over so many years, it is so ingrained in the study of international Politics that it is taken for granted now which shouldn't be the case. And that is exactly what Helen argues for. That the theory has become a such a major concept with in International Relations that its criticisms are not being pointed out.
And I have to say I agree with the author. As a student, I have taken 11 Political Science courses with anarchy being discussed in one way or the other in all of them. Which shows how central this theory has become to Political Sciences as a whole. Helen in her article mentions how there exists a balance of power which automatically an orderly system. What i want to point out is that this balance of power is even evident in the somewhat centralized organizations intended to have some power over states. For example the United Nations. By far it is the closest we have to a centralized organization aimed to end the existence of Anarchy. But when you look at the structure with in that organization it is just balance of power. The top 5 most powerful have veto power over all the other states. If that's not balance of power then I am not sure what exactly is. It is important to talk about the legitimacy of organizations such as the UN. Are they just shaped by the balance of power which is in turn shaped by sovereign interests? And do powerful states even listen to these organizations? We do have numerous examples demonstrating how states can ignore the sanctions or restrictions imposed by the UN. But the attach on Iraq by the United States without United Nations approval is by far the most concrete evidence there is which shows how the United Nations is not being able to fulfill their role anyway. Therefore, in my opinion when studying Anarchy, it is also important to understand the type of centralized authority required to deal with anarchy.
And I have to say I agree with the author. As a student, I have taken 11 Political Science courses with anarchy being discussed in one way or the other in all of them. Which shows how central this theory has become to Political Sciences as a whole. Helen in her article mentions how there exists a balance of power which automatically an orderly system. What i want to point out is that this balance of power is even evident in the somewhat centralized organizations intended to have some power over states. For example the United Nations. By far it is the closest we have to a centralized organization aimed to end the existence of Anarchy. But when you look at the structure with in that organization it is just balance of power. The top 5 most powerful have veto power over all the other states. If that's not balance of power then I am not sure what exactly is. It is important to talk about the legitimacy of organizations such as the UN. Are they just shaped by the balance of power which is in turn shaped by sovereign interests? And do powerful states even listen to these organizations? We do have numerous examples demonstrating how states can ignore the sanctions or restrictions imposed by the UN. But the attach on Iraq by the United States without United Nations approval is by far the most concrete evidence there is which shows how the United Nations is not being able to fulfill their role anyway. Therefore, in my opinion when studying Anarchy, it is also important to understand the type of centralized authority required to deal with anarchy.
The attack on Iraq by United States without UN approval is proof that centralized organizations such as UN are only used as tools by the powerful countries to exert their influence on the weaker states. UN is the best example of a centralized authority and its failing to prevent conflicts begs the question whether centralized authorities have any sort of role or not in dealing with anarchy.
ReplyDeleteOf course anarchy is a complex idea that Milner and others bring up in their analysis of international politics. I like that you attempt to show how anarchy is such a predominant theme in political science. However, please make sure you tie your arguments together in a logical way and please spell check your piece before submitting.
ReplyDelete