Helen Milner, in her critique of the assumption of anarchy
in international relations theory analyses the dichotomy between domestic and
international politics and aims to reach a resolution between the two by
emphasizing both anarchy and interconnectedness. Helen Milner finds the realist
approach preached by Waltz to be overly one-dimensional. She questions the
looseness of the term ‘anarchy’ as used in international relations theory and
attempts to define it empirically. Anarchy can be classified as utter chaos and
a constant threat of war. But Milner argues against this by saying that there
is some extent of order in the international system. For example, the people of
the Federated States of Micronesia do not fear imminent attacks from their
neighbors. Also, there is a common framework of rules and principles among most
states, as well as an existing balance of power which enforces order.
Anarchy as lack of government
does not work either because government implies laws and the presence of
institutions. However, it is clearly not the case since there is a whole range
of institutions such as IMF and World Bank as well as the International
Criminal Court. Government can be considered as a monopoly over legitimate use
of force, but this Weberian idea flounders when we look at a country like the
United States where the citizens have rights to protect themselves from the
government. Government then is more related to maintaining institutions and
norms and providing resources; it is not just a tool which can wield force
legitimately. However, institutions and international laws do exist but they
have little power in the international system so the realists do refer to the lack
of legitimacy when talking about anarchy. This overreliance on anarchy makes
the realists overlook the interdependence between nations.
Milner goes on to say that the distinctions drawn between
domestic and international politics are hard to reconcile with actual data. All
of IR theory has been predicated upon this assumption of anarchy but it fails
to make any relation between useful political science data from the domestic
sphere and ignores its presence within the international system. Moreover, the
assumption of anarchy leads us to view all states as being alike which could
not be further from the truth since there is a spread of capabilities across
states. Hence, it would be useful to develop a continuum which can reconcile
the commonalities between the domestic and international system and may even
enrich international relations theory. Milner goes on to explain that
interdependence and anarchy are not polar opposites; that they both exist in
different aspects of the international system. The amount of anarchy may not
affect the interdependence and vice versa. Looking at the international system from
the lens of strategic interdependence could be key for the future of
international relations.
Excellent post. A few points.
ReplyDeleteFirst, good job unpacking Milner's arguments and highlighting the deficiency of focusing exclusively on anarchy. There indeed is some order to the international system, in spite of the fact that there is no overarching authority.
Next, you note that, "The assumption of anarchy leads us to view all states as being alike which could not be further from the truth since there is a spread of capabilities across states." I don't think scholars who emphasize the anarchical nature of the international system would necessarily agree with this, as Waltz noted that states have a range of capabilities which, depending on their capabilities, leads them to balance and/or bandwagon. In spite of the fact that realist scholarship argues that the international system is anarchic, the vast majority of realists recognize the variance of capabilities that exist between states.
Ultimately, I agree with you that the lens of strategic interdependence is a useful addition that helps us better understand the international system. Good post!