Tank

It is commonly understood that the nature of international politics is anarchy which simply mean that there is no hierarchical global authority which can establish and maintain regulation to create order in international affairs. The anarchical condition exist because sovereign states as the most important player in world politics are autonomous and independent. Thus, international politics, each state presumably will behave by their own interests. And states behaviour in pursuing their own interests and their relations to other states respectively shape international politics. To answer the above mentioned question, this paper will follows the logic that the condition of anarchy defines states’ behaviour, and states’ behaviour shape the international politics. Within that logic, this paper will examine the realism and liberalism tradition in respond to the anarchical nature of international politics.

Realism and Liberalism are agree that international system is the condition of anarchy. Realism theorists assert that the anarchical international system dictates states to put security as their main interest because other states tend to look opportunities to take advantage of each other by any means, including military force. This notion derived from the philosophy of necessity which view states behaviour as a result of inevitable condition. Further, realism view states ruthlessness as a consequence of the prevalent power struggle in international system. As Morgenthou said, “International politics is struggle for power” (1985;31). Within this conditions the daily life in international system is always characterize by competition among states with the possibility of war in the background. This pessimistic view according to Mearsheimer (1995:10) derived from the five realism’s assumption about the international system. First, that the international system is anarchic. Second, states inherently possess some offensive military capabilities. Third, states can never be certain about intention of other states. Forth, most basic motive driving states is survival. Five, states are rational actor which think strategically. These five assumptions dictate the behaviour of the state in following way: state fear each other; each state aims to guarantee its own survival; and states aim to maximize their power.

In the absence of global government, the notion of struggle for power could put any states on the brink of war with other states and each state is responsible for ensuring their own existence and survival (self help). Consequently, each state must continuously maximize their relative power capabilities. However, since security issue is inherently zero sum it create the so called security dilemma, in which the more power obtain by one state will make other state insecure and then seek to increase its power as well. In other word any attempt a state makes to increase its own security will actually decrease its security. One of the most obvious example of the security dilemma is the rivalry between US and Soviet Union during cold war manifested through nuclear contest. Both countries continue building up their nuclear arsenals after each had acquired a secure second strike capability (Mearsheimer, 2001:7).

In anarchical system, the basic motive of states behaviour is survival. In order to survive, states need to accumulate power in terms of actual power (military strength) or potential power (other aspects that support military strength such as economic and human power). However, states capabilities in pursuing power are vary greatly creating some state with gigantic military strength, some middle power states and weak states. The occupation of power also changing from time to time since states always pursue their power and compete each other. For example great powers formation in European continent has been shifted numerous times, since the era of In the late 18 century for example, French military power was the greatest in Europe and enabling her to dominate European continent for several decades. The Congress of Vienna in 1814 after the defeat of France, mark the shift from unipolar system (dominate by France) to a multi polar system, placing United Kingdom, Austria, Prussia, France and Rusia as the great powers. Major power shifts also occurred in the aftermath of the first and second world war. Austria-Hungaria collapsed after the first world war. At the end of World War II, the United States and Soviet Union emerge as the primary victors. In Asia, the fast growing economic of Japan, China and India in post war era, place the countries as the great powers.

Beside the Great Powers, other features in international politics that stem from the anarchical condition are Balance of Power, War, International Law and Diplomacy. According to Hedley Bull these features at the same time compose a kind of order amidst of anarchy (Bull, 1977). In other word, states respond to the anarchical condition of international system shape the international politics. And to certain extent states respond coincidently succeed to minimize the destructive nature of anarchy. The Balance of Power which refer to “a state of affairs such that no one power can lay down the law to others” (Vattel, in Bull, 1977:97), not only serve to prevent the existing system (preserving status quo) but also essential condition for the operation of international law. Tough, it also clear that the idea is paradox, while it is essential for the operation of international law, the step to maintain the balance often requires the breaking of these rule (Bull, 1977; 104).

War is another major element in world politics since in the anarchical system states competition among other always shadowed by the possibility of war. In Man, State and War, Kenneth Waltz defines anarchy as a conditions of possibility for or “permissive” cause of war, arguing that “wars occurs because there is nothing to prevent them” (Waltz:1959). Further, realism argue that war is necessary evil in the world politics and remain a basic determinant of the shape of the system. It is war and the threat of war that help to determine whether particular states survive or are eliminated. War also shifts the formation of great power, whether they rise or decline. As the Balance of Power, war also has paradox position in the world system. In the one hand war is manifestation of disorder while on the other hand war is a means of enforcing international law and preserving balance of power that sustain order.

While war has certainly been a recurrent feature in international system, because of this states attempt to liberate them shelve from the conditions of war. In this regard Bull points out three basic function of international law, which are; (1) To identify the idea of a society of sovereign states, (2) To state the basic rules of coexistence among states and other actor in international society, (3) To mobilise compliance with the rules of international society (Bulls, 1977:134-136). These three function are, indeed, essential to word order but international law not by itself sufficient to bring about international order. Using the economic term, the effectiveness of international law is ceteris paribus, it requires certain conditions and the fulfilment of these conditions are most of time beyond its control. While realists agree that the nature of international law is determined first and foremost by the self interested nature of state and the institutions such as international law are merely intervening variable because it only exist when they are created by the great powers.

The last feature stems from the anarchical international system is Diplomacy which Bull also recognized as pillar to create international order in the middle of anarchy. Though the world of diplomacy experiencing the downturn recently, it is largely the impact of wider decline in international order. Bull believe that along with other newly institutions in the world of diplomacy, professional diplomacy will continue to serve international order through its core functions; facilitates communication between the political leader of the state and other entities in world politics; negotiations of agreement; gathering information about foreign countries; minimisation of friction and act as symbolic function of the society of states (Bull, 1977: 163-166).

Liberalism tradition, especially the neo liberalism share some similar assumption with realism. Neo liberals also admit that international politics is anarchical conditions, states is the key actor (but not the only) in the international system, and states are rational actor. They also has similar question about how to respond the anarchical system. The difference between Neo liberal and Realism lies on the focus of study and the view of states behaviour. Liberalism focused on political economy, environmental issues and human right issues.

In the view of neo liberalists, the destructive nature of anarchical condition in international system can be minimize through cooperation among states. Thus, states should not only concern to the relative gain, but must be concerned with the absolute gain (Baylis & Smith, 2006:217). For example, war according to the liberalism, is not inevitable feature but can be prevent through cooperation. The formation of an international organization such as United of Nation, NATO, European Union, and other regional organization, according to Liberalism, are the example of such cooperation that could promote stability.

Further in their book of Power and Interdependence, Keohane & Nye highlights the current interdependence feature of world politics. Interdependence refers to situations where states or actors are determined by external events in a reciprocal relationship with other states or actors, jointly limiting their autonomy (Keohane & Nye, 1989: 7). It is created through the expansion of international transactions, insofar as the costs associated with them constrain political activity. While these relationships impose costs, the benefits may exceed them. Complex Interdependence characterized at least by three features (1) Multiple channels connect societies: informal ties among governing elites, transnational actors and organizations, and formal international channels; (2) The agenda of international politics consists of multiple issues which are not arranged in a clear hierarchy; (3) Military force is not used when complex interdependence prevails on a set of issues (Keohane & Nye, 1989: 21-29). To put it differently, neoliberal believe that as the international become more complex, the emergence of new actors and new way of conduct in international relations become inevitable. Though states are still the most important actor, they no longer dominate all aspects in the international relations.

To summarize, although realism and liberalism have different view in analyzing states respond to the anarchical nature of international politics, it can be conclude that the condition of anarchy shape the international politics by dictates states behaviour as the primary units in the system. In the realism view, states respond illustrates by the idea of balance of power, great power, war, diplomacy and international law. While in the liberalist’s view, states respond illustrated by the idea of international cooperation, collective security, interdependence, globalization, free trade, and new channel and actor in international relations. In short, states respond to anarchical conditions, whether in line with realism or liberalism traditions, depicts contemporary international politics. @

Picture taken from: