Student: Toni Cerkez

Professor: James Marquardt

April 14th, 2015
Theories of International Relations
Does international anarchy have a single meaning or multiple meanings? Why?
International anarchy is indeed a topic of many theoretical debates. What is international
anarchy? Is there truly an international anarchy? And so on and so forth. However, most of
theories (or at least, the most influential ones: neo-liberalism and neo-realism) agree that the
structure of the system of states is indeed anarchic. However, what does that mean? I will argue
that international anarchy, depending on the theoretical approach, has multiple meanings because
every theory approaches it from a different angle. Even though some of those theories may agree
that there is an existence of international anarchy they still view it differently. I will focus on
three major theoretical traditions; realism, liberalism and constructivism.
Joseph Nye, in What is International Politics? describes the international politics
through its historic phases (from imperial world system to feudal system, to international
anarchy). Nye states that we define international politics as politics in the absence of a common
sovereign, politics among entities with no ruler above them. International politics is a self-help
system (Nye, 8). Nye posits, because there is an absence of common sovereign, there is
international anarchy. However, after writing such a statement Nye goes on to demonstrate that
liberalism and realism have different views of anarchy. Even though it is accepted by both neoliberalism and neo-realism that anarchy means the absence of the common sovereign, Nye
writes, these political philosophies differ in their interpretation of the meaning of this anarchy.

For neo-realists, who base their intellectual theoretical tradition off of Thomas Hobbes political
philosophy (Leviathan), anarchy is the state of nature (Nye, 8). Anarchy, according to Hobbes
is characterized by insecurity, violence, coercion and mere survival of individuals. Realists, and
more modern neo-realists, base their view of the international system off of Hobbesian claims.
Nye states that neo-realists view the system of states as anarchic, where states are the main
actors. For both neo-realists and realists, states (and individuals) are in perpetual danger because
of the uncertainty of actions of other states/individuals. They both focus on material power and
relative gains of states. Therefore, they focus on military strength and economic power (or
benefit) of states in the system. Neo-realists would say, generally, that if one state has the
dominance in the international system of states, the other states will perceive it as a threat
because they cannot predict, or limit, the behavior of the stronger states. Because of this, other
states will start uniting more against the strong one in order to counter its strength (balance it).
For neo-realists, anarchy of the system is an unchanging condition, filled with uncertainty and
power-seeking, to which humans are subjected to (Folker, 119).
On the other hand, Nye writes, liberals base their view of anarchy from John Lockes
writings (Immanuel Kant and Baron de Montesquieu also have influenced liberalism greatly
(Nye, 8). Liberals have a more optimistic, so to say, view of the world and the international
system of states. Liberals (well, neo-liberals) state that the system is indeed in anarchy, but that
this anarchy is a vacuum in which human condition changes because humans influence it through
human contacts and creation of international institutions which foster reiteration of contact, free
trade and universal human rights (Folker, 119). Nye writes that: Liberals complain that realists
portray states as hard billiard balls careening off one another in the attempt to balance power,
but that is not enough because people do have contacts across borders and because there is an

international society (Nye, 9). Liberals also argue that because of the Hobbesian state of nature,
which focuses predominantly on war, realists miss the growth of the economic interdependence
and the evolution of a transnational global society which influence anarchy overwhelmingly
(Nye, 9). In overall, the difference of meaning in anarchy when it comes to realism-based
theories and liberal-based theories (in this case realism, neo-realism and liberalism NLI,
respectively) is that they view the behavior of states and individuals under anarchy differently.
For both it is a self-help system, but for liberals out of that self-help system arises the possibility
of evolution of cooperation and progress, whereas for realists this self-help nature is
unchangeable and very negative for states/individuals.
Third theoretical tradition I wish to touch upon in this essay is constructivism.
Constructivism is very much different than both realism and liberalism are and thereby has a
very different interpretation of what anarchy is (and if the system is anarchic at all). Fierke writes
that constructivism gives an idea of social construction in international relations (Fierke, 179).
He states that constructivists highlight several themes in the international relations; social
construction (difference across context rather than a single objective reality), social dimensions
of international relations (norms, rules, language differences), and process of interaction
(where agents/individuals matter) (Fierke, 179-180). So, unlike neo-realism and neo-liberalism
which are a third-image theories, constructivists emphasize the individual and how the process,
rather than the structure influences the behavior of states (Wendt, 434). Wendt writes that
anarchy in the eyes of neo-liberals and neo-realists is a behavioral concept which analyzes
behavior of states in the system exogenously (meaning without any regard for the internal
processes) (Wendt, 434). Even though he states that neo-liberals put more emphasis in the
process (interaction, universalism), he states that neo-liberals still agree with neo-realists on

some of the basic, self-help, tenets of states which are, according to constructivists, not so
relevant (Wendt, 435). Wendt states that Waltzs three dimensions of political structure (ordering
principle, distribution of capabilities and principles of differentiation) are not enough to predict
the behavior of states in the system (whether they will be friends or foes (Wendt, 437). He
attributes the mutual perception of states as potential enemies to intersubjectivity which is
basically entrenched in identity and interest which then influence behavior of states toward each
other (Wendt, 437). Wendt writes that: The distribution of power may always affect states
calculations, but how it does so depends on the intersubjective understandings and expectations,
on the distribution of knowledge, that constitute their conceptions of self and other (Wendt,
437).
Wendt also writes that interests in neo-realism and neo-liberalism are described as
something that states inherently have, independent of social context (Wendt, 438). He states, on
the contrary, that identity is the basis of interest (Wendt, 438). This argument is then extended on
to the self-help nature of the anarchic system. Wendt writes that self-help is not a system, but
rather an institution, which is not a constitutive feature of anarchy, which is constructed of
different identities and interests existing under anarchy, and which emerges from social processes
where anarchy plays only a permissive role (Wendt, 438 and 440). Because of this, states have a
different perception of security than in neo-realism and neo-liberalism. Security is defined
according to someones identity and the cognitive identification of the self with the other (Wendt,
439). An interesting real-life example for constructivists is the US relationship with Cuba, as
opposed to US relationship with Canada where Cuba is perceived as an enemy, despite its
material insignificance in the past twenty-five years because of intersubjective reasons

(perception of communism), but Canada is perceived as an ally despite the fact that it is
economically very strong and militarily much more capable than Cuba.
Finally, we can conclude that anarchy has different meanings in different theoretical
traditions. Even though neo-realism and neo-liberalism come close to interpreting anarchy and
self-help system of states, we can see how vastly different they are as soon as the argument goes
in depth. Neo-liberals view anarchy as a vacuum where states cooperate and create institutions
that allow for creation of positive relations whereas neo-realists think that anarchy is
unchangeable. On the other hand, constructivists come into the debate with a completely
different vision of what anarchy and self-help are. Constructivists dont even give much
significance to both of these because they say that the social context is the most important when
trying to explain the behavior of states in the system (there is no material basis for international
politics). Anarchy, in their view is a component of a social structure and self-help is an institution
of anarchy which is built of social elements. Constructivists also talk about three different culture
of anarchy; Hobbesian, Lockean and Kantian. These three cultures go hand-in-hand with the
aforementioned three theoretical traditions (realism, liberalism and constructivism, respectively).
Bibliography
Wendt, A. Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics, 1999.
Nye, J. What is International Politics?, Moodle link
Folker, J. Neoliberalism in Dunne, T., Kurki, M., Smith, S. International Relations Theories;
Discipline and Diversity, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, 2007, New York pg. 116-135
Class notes