Week 15 - T2 Political Disputes · Anarchy War Trade ANARCHY Question of international politics: can states be bound by rules not backed up by force? For individuals, anarchic state of nature where each fends for himself, is necessary inducement to create a state (Hobbes) - result is hierarchy But for states this anarchy is not intolerable because states are not vulnerable in same way as individuals - result is international order without a sovereign to adjudicate disputes and enforce rules - no government over government International politics thus described as anarchic (absence of order not violent free-for-all) Realist thinker; Kenneth waltz (1979) - link between international politics and states behaviour - Waltz's key contribution to the realm of political science is in the creation of neorealism (or structural realism, as he calls it), a theory of International Relations which posits that the interaction of sovereign states can be explained by the pressures exerted on them by the anarchic structure of the international system, which limits and constrains their choices. The ideal situation for any state is to be as powerful as possible. To survive anarchy: . States must rely on their own power for security . Self - help more reliable than cooperation - as you can always rely on allies . But if too weak to provide for own security then they need alliances. Implications: · International system pushes states to be selfish · States prefer relative gains above absolute gains (i.e. most preoccupied with doing better than their competitors) . International law and IOs more beneficial to weak states . Powerful states will always be more difficult to control - harder to meet international obligations WAR Lord Palmerston's comment to Queen Victoria: "England has no eternal friends, England has no perpetual enemies, England has only eternal and perpetual interests"
Thoughts; - Some friendships and allies formed out of self-interests, e.g. NATO - US having shared interest by giving the Taliban weapons, armed and funded the mujahideen, in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989 during the military intervention by the USSR. - However, when countries give aid - does not mean it's for self interest Reasons states enter into armed conflict · Self - defence · To prevent a competitor getting stronger (balancing) . Interests to do with territory or resources - England taking over many countries e.g. India · Ideology - to promote or defend a certain belief system War is inherently political · Carl von Clausewitz (1832) "War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means" . (Fearon 1995) "War is costly and uncertain, but not necessarily irrational: finding peaceful compromise can be impossible because who would enforce it?" . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOsnEeFvfqg - Perhaps there is improvement in the way states deal with conflict and war, as less violence is being used, less deaths. Deaths in War, 1900-2005 300 2,50 200 30 Battle deaths per 100,000 people per year 15D