We live in a state of anarchy. Some people might read anarchy as a world full of absolute chaos and horror but that is not the reality in all parts of the world. We live in a state of anarchy on the international scale. This means there is no international government. To say there is no international government does not mean there is no international organization and structure, it only means there is no international authority to enforce promises or provide protection to states. Different political scientists view this concept differently and offer various avenues to explain state behavior and offer solutions to global problems. There are three main approaches to view the consequences of anarchy for the behavior of states: realism, liberalism, and constructivism. For realists, “international anarchy fosters competition and conflict among states and inhibits their willingness to cooperate” (Grieco 1988, 485). Realism is centered around the belief mankind is self-centered and competitive. This approach believes wars occur because there is nothing to prevent them and states act the way they because of the anarchic structure they reside in. Some realists agree with is but not all.

Liberalism, on the other hand, finds a different approach to the anarchical structure of states. It is instead centered around individuals and the harmony of interests they all share. There may not be a world government but international institutions have the ability to encourage cooperation and collective problem solving among states. Liberals see the world as a garden full of harmony whereas realists see the world as a jungle full of inevitable conflict. Constructivism is a bit different than realism and liberalism and believes it is how states carry and present themselves that determines the quality of their interactions under anarchy. Constructivists focus on state identities and relationships in the international system and propose states can have different identities and interests with different states, leading to different relationships. Realism is a more conservative approach to the concept of anarchy and views states as constantly drifting on a balance-of-power equilibrium. Liberalism is more optimistic and sees opportunities for states to form institutions and encourage cooperation. Constructivism is situated on states forming relationships with each other and behaving based on those relationships, similar to how individuals behave with each other.

To begin with, realism encompasses five major assumptions. First, states are the major actors in international politics. Second, states are sensitive to costs and behave as rational agents of policy. Rational behavior means states act in their own self-interests. Third, the anarchic international structure is the guiding force shaping the motives and actions of states. There is no higher power above states and so states must interact with other states on their own. Due to international anarchy, states exist in a constant balance-of-power with other states. Fourth, states are preoccupied with power and security (survival) so conflict and competition are more important than cooperation even in the face of common interests. “Only if survival is assured can states safely seek such other goals as tranquility, profit, and power” (Waltz 1979, 126). Last, international institutions only affect the probability of cooperation marginally. Realists are skeptical of international cooperation because of the absence of a higher power above the states. States would have to sacrifice their own self-interests to follow principles under international order. In sum, realists tend to be pessimistic of international cooperation and order because of the global state of nature.

Realists believe states can never know the full intentions of other states. Because of this, all states are under the Prisoner’s Dilemma “because each player in the game is assumed to be a self-interested, self-reliant maximizer of their own utility” (Grieco 1988, 496). States act in their own self-interest and assume all other states act the same way. States never know what other states are up and cannot determine if a state builds up a military for defensive or offensive purposes, for example. Survival is the most important objective in international politics and so states tend to fear each other. Great powers especially fear each other. In a world where great powers have the capability to attack each other, states bent on survival must be suspicious of other states and reluctant to trust them (Mearsheimer 2001). When states do not trust each other, cooperation is limited and power becomes important. The existence of anarchy defines much of states’ interests and behaviors. “The lack of an ultimate international authority and thus the absences of any guarantee that a state will not be invaded, overrun, conquered, and pillaged” (Kirshner 2010, 55) causes states to act the way they do.

Realists believe states act in a self-help system, or an every-man-for-himself ideology. In this system, those who do not help themselves will suffer, they will open themselves to dangers and fail. Those states who help themselves and strengthen their power relative to other states will prosper and survive. “God helps those who help themselves” (Mearsheimer 2001, 33). Again, survival is key because there is no international protection from other states. When states are relatively more powerful than other states, survival will less likely be at risk. States seek security relative to other states by looking out for only their own interests and well-being. “How secure a country is depends on how it compares in the quantity and quality of its weaponry, the suitability of its strategy, the resilience of its society and economy, and the skill of its leaders” (Waltz 1988, 627). When states are seeking security from other states, they seek to strengthen their military and economy which causes realists to focus on weapons systems, technology, and intelligence, among others. States with a strong military can focus less on their own survival and the actions of other states and more on the well-being of its citizens. States who do not have a strong military fear for their own survival and are less likely to have a decent standard of living and domestic institutions for its citizens.

E. H. Carr in his book, The Twenty Years’ Crisis (1939), explained never, under any circumstances, will there be an order where every state will benefit equally; some states will benefit from the status quo and some states will benefit from changing the rules. There is no international government to share wealth, prosperity, and security and so every status quo will be filled with injustices. “International politics involves conflicts between those who want to keep things the way they are and those who want to change them” (Michalak 2001, 45) Realists argue conflict will always be inevitable under anarchy because states will never be satisfied equally. Especially today, “in a multipolar world, dangers are diffused, responsibilities are unclear, and definitions of vital interests are easily obscured” (Waltz 1988, 622). There are relatively no consequences for state behavior and the powerful states are the dominant forces driving international order. All states should seek relative power over other states and pursue regional hegemony (Mearsheimer 2001). Although, according to Waltz, pursuing hegemony is irrational because in turn it will make other states more powerful and you less powerful in comparison. Offensive realists believe the ultimate aim of international politics is to be the hegemon. Consider the United States, for example, no other state in the Americas is as powerful both economically and militaristically as the U.S. and so it has achieved regional hegemony. The United States does not have to fear its survival from neighboring states as some second and third world states surrounding it have to.

Next, liberalism is centered around the belief all individuals share a harmony of interests. Liberalism does believe states are in a state of anarchy but this does not cause a balance-of-power dilemma instead more pressure to form an international community. “Liberals anticipate a growing role for the international community in the functioning of the global [anarchic] system” (Ikenberry 2009, 81). International liberals are more optimistic of cooperation than realists. They view international institutions as a higher authority above states. The World Trade Organization is already one of these institutions because it does not give special rights or privileges to states under international trade law. Rules and agreements between states also reinforce cooperation and collective problem solving, therefore, reducing the likelihood of conflict. Realists view the anarchic world as a place of inevitable conflict because the system will never satisfy every state equally but liberals view it as a system full of institutions to enforce rule of law, opportunities for collective security and open markets to encourage change and innovation.

Liberals say once individuals realize their universal harmony of interests which exists among all people, it will be in their best interest to cooperate and eliminate conflict. Many international liberals have studied the relationship between the likelihood of conflict and democracy. These political scientists believe states are more likely to be peaceful with each other when they share international institutions, and many times they are created between democracies. President Wilson, in his 1917 war message to Congress said, “a steadfast concert of peace can never be maintained except by a partnership of democratic nations” (Russett 1993, 5). Again, when states form alliances along shared interests they are less likely to go to war. Also, wealth or economic interdependence increases the probability of peace. Some scholars argue the United States and China will never go to war because of how economically tied the two states are to each other and how costly it would be to the global market, even though there is no world government preventing them from doing so. This interdependence theory implies a world where force is no longer a constant threat and encourages cooperation and non-military forms of diplomacy.

States should also not compete for power and resources, but are better off cooperating, according to liberals. They push for regional and international organizations to help facilitate such interactions. “The logical move would be to turn to the authority of the United Nations” (Ikenberry 2009, 81), an already existing international organization full of coalitions and institutions. These regimes build trust among states in a world of ungoverned anarchy and incentivize cooperative habits and compliance. International institutions have shaped state behavior. The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTFY), The European Court of Human Rights, and the International Criminal Court (ICC) are a few institutions which have altered the natural trajectory of state interactions. International organizations are also fueled by moralism “which is endemic to liberalism and reflects one of its strengths” (Keohane 2012, 131).

Liberals see individuals as the primary international actors, whereas realists see states as the primary actors. States act in a pluralistic way and change their preferences and views based on their individuals and groups. Liberals also say these preferences change over time. Conflict is not inevitable as realists would argue because humans are not naturally violent-prone with each other. According to Burchill (2005), democracy and free trade are the twin medicines of the disease of war. “War was a cancer of the body politic. But it was an ailment human beings had the capacity to cure” (Burchill 2005, 59). In theory, democracies would influence states to be ruled by the people and not by powerful elites. They would be viewed as “reasonable, predictable, and trustworthy” (Owen 1994, 95). Free trade and commerce would eliminate artificial barriers between individuals and states. Liberals do realize we live in a state of anarchy although this type of anarchy does not cause inevitable conflict among states but rather endless opportunities for cooperation and peace.

Last, constructivism is the remaining major approach to the study of anarchy and the behavior of states. Alexander Wendt put it perfectly when describing how constructivists views anarchy, “anarchy is what states make of it” (1992). This means states act the way they do not because of the system as realists argue, or because of individual preferences and interests as liberals argue, but because of relationships with other states. States act differently towards friends and foes and the ungoverned international system alone does not tell us which is which. In other words, states can have different identities and interests with different states, leading to different relationships. Constructivists believe identities depend on historical, cultural, political, and social contexts. This concept aims to bring culture and domestic politics to the international table.

Constructivists realize states live in an anarchic world like realists and liberals do but there is not always complete uncertainty of other states as realists propose. They argue through providing meaning and understanding of another state’s identity and culture, it will be easier to predict state behavior. “Constructivism’s empirical mission is to surface the ‘background’ that makes uncertainty a variable to understand, rather than a constant to assume” (Hopf 1998, 188). It strives to look at cultural makeup, history, religion, nationalism, gender, ethnicity, sexuality, alliances, among others to better understand or read a state and predict its nature, motives, interests, and attitudes. Any state identity is merely the product of social practices at home and within each state are cultural practices at work. These national identities which are socially constructed affect identities and perceptions abroad. Under Hobbes, “collective action is nearly impossible in such a system because each actor must constantly fear being stabbed in the back” (Wendt 1992, 400). If states can better understand each other and communicate with each other, this will not change the overall international landscape, but an anarchy of friends is more peaceful than an anarchy of enemies.

These scientists view the international system as one massive structure made up of hundreds of identities. They believe a world without identities is a world of chaos, a world more dangerous than a world of Hobbesian anarchy. This structure is a set of norms, practices, and understandings of all the states. These norms, practices, and understandings are established through social relationships made of shared knowledge and material resources. Four decades of cooperation have transformed a positive interdependence into a collective “European identity” (Wendt 1992), for example. This identity across Europe was caused by states learning about each other, understanding each other, and through sharing knowledge, practices, and material resources with each other. Identities such as this one are grounded on collective meanings and are always in the process of growing to new preferences, norms, and understandings.

Realists argue this anarchic world is a self-help system where states cannot trust each other and power and security are most important because there is no higher authority above states to enforce rules and provide protection. Liberals argue this anarchic world is made entirely of individuals who all share a common harmony of interests and once this harmony is realized between states, cooperation is possible. Constructivists argue the self-help system discourages altruism among states and although there is no governing body above the states, they build relationships and trust between each other. These relationships are built on the socialization of states, cognitive and social psychology, and political culture. It is how states understand each other that determines their behavior and interactions. These are the three major approaches to the concept of anarchy and how it impacts the behavior of states.

References:
Burchill, S. 2005. Theories of International Relations, Liberalism Ch 3 pp 55-83.
Carr, Edward H. 1939. The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919-1939.
Grieco, Joseph M. 1988. “Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism.” International Organization (Summer): 485-507.
Hopf, Ted. 1998. “The Promise of Constructivism on International Relations Theory.” International Security (Summer): 171-200.
Ikenberry, John G. 2009. “Liberal internationalism 3.0: America and the dilemmas of liberal world order.” Perspectives on Politics 7:71-87.
Kirshner, Jonathan. 2010. “The Tragedy of Offensive Realism: Classical Realism and the Rise of China.” European Journal of International Relations (August): 53-75.
Keohane, Robert O. 2012. “Twenty Years of Institutional Liberalism.” International Relations 26(2): 125-138.
Mearsheimer, John. 2001. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, Ch 2
Michalak, Stanley. 2001. A Primer in Power Politics.
Owen, John. 1994. “How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace.” International Security pp 87-125.
Russett, Bruce. 1993. Grasping the Democratic Peace, Chs 1 and 2
Waltz, Kenneth. 1979. Theory of International Politics, Ch 5
Waltz, Kenneth. 1988. “The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory.” Journal f Interdisciplinary History (Spring): 615-628.
Wendt, Alexander. “Anarchy is What States Make of It.” International Organization (Spring): 391-425.