Jack Donnelly has argued that concept of anarchy is a ‘dead end’ for IR theorists. Do you agree?

intro

• this essay will begin by studying the development of anarchy as a theory for the international system, before exploring possible alternatives and the reason for their low number

• it will demonstrate that while anarchy should not be completely disregarded, it has heavily dominated international theory for too long, and this must be rectified

P1 - what is anarchy? (Waltz 1990)

• in order to understand why Donnelly views anarchy as obsolete, it is important to first examine its historic importance

• the first major theorist of anarchy was Hobbes, who describes it as the condition of the state of nature - an ungoverned realm where life is “nasty, brutish and short” (Williams, 2006)

• the strongest recent proponent of anarchy is Waltz, who believes anarchy is the driving force behind the world order

• he assumes that human nature is inherently conflictual and that states are “self-regarding” and “survival orientated” (Waltz 1990)

• Waltz theory of anarchy becomes popular and widely accepted, with little competition

P2 - limited alternatives to anarchy (Donnelly 2012)

• The popularity of anarchy means that alternative views are rarely explored

• Donnelly challenges this, conducting research to prove that while “forager societies” exist in a state of anarchy that lines up almost perfectly with Waltz’s theory, they do not experience any of anarchy’s supposed effect

• This suggests that there are other influencing forces on international politics that can better explain state behaviour

• He argues that the definition of anarchy must either be so wide it cannot create meaningful conclusions, but if it is made “thicker” it cannot be applied to all systems

P3 - why has anarchy become obsolete? (Donnelly 2012, Milner 1992)

• The lack of alternatives to anarchy does not accurately reflect the vast variances of the international system. Realists have become contented as a result of the widespread acceptance of anarchy as the sole factor on state actions which means they do not question the limitations of the tripartite conception of the international system.

• Donnelly therefore proposes a new way to view international organisation, terming it a “multidimensional framework”

• This is supported by Milner, who argues that anarchy has been used to justify a host of contradictory assumptions and outcomes

• This demonstrates anarchy has become a catch-all for state behaviour, and inhibits proper research on the subject

P4 - anarchy as one of many lenses (Milner 1992, Waltz 1990)

• Although I have shown anarchy has been overused in theory on the international system, I do believe it still has a place

• Milner’s article explains that anarchy-focussed theory bases its research on systemic factors, which is beneficial as it allows scholars to settle on set definitions of phenomena.

• When combined with domestic political theory, which Milner proposes to be equally important for understanding international relations, I believe anarchy serves as a useful theory for analysis

• If domestic politics theory can have multiple popular strands, so should international politics.

• Waltz’ (1990) article explains that anarchy allows us to recognise certain features, such as the mutual dependence of states, and policy makers can therefore make informed decisions. In this way, I believe that anarchy should serve as one possible outlook on the international system

• It is certainly a somewhat pessimistic one, but this therefore clearly shows space for the development of alternative theories which can help to shape policy from a different perspective

• Therefore, anarchy is not a “dead end”, but should share its significance with other approaches, just as is done for domestic political theory