Helner Milner deconstructs the idea of anarchy by providing us with a multidimensional understanding of the word anarchy and how within the domestic and international sphere the two can be understood in different ways. Milner claims that even though various concepts of anarchy are employed in the international relations literature, there is a sharp dichotomy between international and domestic politics. What was interesting was how the stereotypical perception of anarchy is chaos and lack of order, however, according to Milner and other international relations scholars such as Waltz, anarchy is essentially the first element of structure in the international system.
This line of thought goes hand in hand with the idea of the 'world of egoists' where today's nations interact without central authority and pursue their self interests in a self-help system. This is true when we apply it to the realm of international politics because during different times in the History of the world, there have been different powers who have acted as hegemons. However, what is interesting is that anarchy does exist, but how can Waltz argument be true that anarchy is the first element of structure? In the real world when there is a tilt in the balance of power, it leads to an outbreak of conflicts and the world wars- it is this anarchy which leads to chaos; there is no over arching system which exists that can control these powers.
If you look at the second world war, an international system did exist in the form of the League of Nations. However, as Milner claims it is not the existence of international governing institutions that matters, it is their capacity for commanding obedience. How can one gain obedience if you do not take a stand when there are instances which require firm and swift actions and stopping conflicts such as allowing Mussolini to attack Abyssinia. This lack of legitimacy of the League of Nations was due to the fact that they allowed countries to carry out their own personal territorial interests at the cost of others- a struggle for power existed in the international order and other institutions were not taken into consideration. Perhaps another reason for the lack of legitimacy was also because of the fact that the LON did not have the leading super powers as members and hence did not have the capacities to exert their power over other nations.
Even though Milner does aptly distinguish between the international and domestic arena, the idea put forward that "states behaviour is not guided by their norms or goals, but by structures beyond their control" is not true because it is imperialistic ambitions or the idea of glorification that guides the behavior of nations. In such cases, it is easy to bypass and dismiss international organizations as was done before the outbreak of the second world war and the submissive actions of the League of Nations was one of the leading factors that led to the appeasement of Hitler.
This line of thought goes hand in hand with the idea of the 'world of egoists' where today's nations interact without central authority and pursue their self interests in a self-help system. This is true when we apply it to the realm of international politics because during different times in the History of the world, there have been different powers who have acted as hegemons. However, what is interesting is that anarchy does exist, but how can Waltz argument be true that anarchy is the first element of structure? In the real world when there is a tilt in the balance of power, it leads to an outbreak of conflicts and the world wars- it is this anarchy which leads to chaos; there is no over arching system which exists that can control these powers.
If you look at the second world war, an international system did exist in the form of the League of Nations. However, as Milner claims it is not the existence of international governing institutions that matters, it is their capacity for commanding obedience. How can one gain obedience if you do not take a stand when there are instances which require firm and swift actions and stopping conflicts such as allowing Mussolini to attack Abyssinia. This lack of legitimacy of the League of Nations was due to the fact that they allowed countries to carry out their own personal territorial interests at the cost of others- a struggle for power existed in the international order and other institutions were not taken into consideration. Perhaps another reason for the lack of legitimacy was also because of the fact that the LON did not have the leading super powers as members and hence did not have the capacities to exert their power over other nations.
Even though Milner does aptly distinguish between the international and domestic arena, the idea put forward that "states behaviour is not guided by their norms or goals, but by structures beyond their control" is not true because it is imperialistic ambitions or the idea of glorification that guides the behavior of nations. In such cases, it is easy to bypass and dismiss international organizations as was done before the outbreak of the second world war and the submissive actions of the League of Nations was one of the leading factors that led to the appeasement of Hitler.
You sound like a realist! Bah international organizations, power - and the struggle for it - is what matters. I think that the U.S. would concur.
ReplyDelete