Introduction
Anarchy, defined as the absence of a central authority in the international system, remains a central concept in International Relations (IR) theory, shaping debates over state behavior and global politics. Realists argue that anarchy fosters a self-help environment, compelling states into perpetual security competition and recurrent conflict, with war as an ever-present risk. In contrast, non-realist perspectives, including liberal and constructivist approaches, suggest that states can mitigate these conflictual dynamics through cooperation, shared norms, and institution-building. This essay explores the impact of anarchy on state security, evaluates realist and non-realist arguments, and ultimately contends that while anarchy poses significant challenges, non-realist perspectives provide a more compelling framework for understanding durable cooperation. The analysis begins by examining how anarchy complicates state security, then discusses strategies for mitigation, and concludes with a real-world example—the European Union (EU)—to support the non-realist argument.
The Challenges of Anarchy in State Security
Realists assert that anarchy profoundly shapes international politics by creating a structural environment where states must prioritize survival above all else. As Waltz (1979) argues, without a global authority to enforce rules or provide protection, states operate in a self-help system. This perspective, rooted in Hobbesian thought, likens the international arena to a “state of nature,” where the absence of a Leviathan-like authority drives mistrust and fear among states. Consequently, states focus on relative gains—ensuring they do not fall behind others in power or security—rather than absolute gains that might benefit all parties (Mearsheimer, 2001). This dynamic often results in a security dilemma, where one state’s efforts to enhance its security, such as military build-up, are perceived as threats by others, sparking arms races and heightening tensions.
Moreover, anarchy undermines collective action. States, driven by self-interest, struggle to address shared challenges like climate change or nuclear proliferation, as they fear exploitation by others. Mearsheimer (2001) emphasizes that even alliances are temporary and fragile, formed out of necessity rather than trust, and often dissolve when immediate threats recede. The realist view thus paints a bleak picture: anarchy condemns states to endless competition, where conflict is not merely possible but structurally inevitable. Indeed, historical patterns of recurrent wars—such as the World Wars—seem to lend credence to this pessimism, illustrating how the lack of a higher authority perpetuates instability.
Strategies for Mitigating Anarchic Dynamics
Despite the challenges posed by anarchy, non-realist theories offer more optimistic views on how states can transcend conflictual dynamics. Liberals, for instance, argue that international institutions and economic interdependence can foster cooperation. Keohane (1984) suggests that institutions, such as the United Nations or World Trade Organization, create frameworks for sustained dialogue, reduce uncertainty, and encourage states to prioritize long-term mutual gains over short-term relative advantages. Economic interdependence further binds states together, as the costs of conflict—disrupted trade or investment losses—often outweigh potential benefits. Thus, liberals contend that while anarchy persists, its effects can be mitigated through deliberate structures that incentivize cooperation.
Constructivists add another layer to this optimism by focusing on the role of norms, identities, and shared ideas. Wendt (1992) famously argued that “anarchy is what states make of it,” meaning the international system is not inherently conflictual but shaped by social interactions and perceptions. If states construct identities based on friendship or shared values rather than enmity, cooperation becomes not only possible but durable. For example, the post-World War II reconciliation between France and Germany demonstrates how historical rivals can redefine their relationship through shared democratic ideals and mutual interests, challenging the realist notion of inevitable competition.
While these non-realist arguments acknowledge the structural constraints of anarchy, they highlight human agency and the potential for transformative change. However, it is worth noting that such mitigation strategies are not foolproof; institutions can fail, and norms can erode under stress. Nevertheless, the non-realist perspective provides a more dynamic and hopeful framework compared to the static pessimism of realism.
Case Study: The European Union as Evidence of Cooperation
A compelling real-world example supporting the non-realist argument is the European Union (EU). Emerging from the ashes of World War II, the EU represents a historic effort to overcome the anarchic tendencies of competition and conflict in Europe—a region long plagued by war. The formation of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951, which evolved into the EU, was explicitly designed to bind France and Germany economically, making war between them “not merely unthinkable, but materially impossible” (Schuman, 1950, as cited in Nugent, 2017). This liberal approach, grounded in economic interdependence and institutional cooperation, has sustained peace among member states for over seven decades, a remarkable achievement given Europe’s violent history.
Furthermore, constructivist insights illuminate how the EU has fostered a shared European identity, transcending national rivalries. Common policies on trade, migration, and environmental issues, alongside symbols like the EU flag and anthem, have gradually reshaped how member states perceive each other—not as perpetual competitors but as partners in a collective project (Checkel, 2007). While challenges like Brexit and internal disagreements persist, the EU’s overall success in preventing intra-European conflict undermines the realist prediction of inevitable strife under anarchy. Instead, it supports the non-realist view that states can construct cooperative frameworks and identities to mitigate anarchic pressures.
Evaluation and Argument for Non-Realist Perspectives
While realists rightly identify the structural challenges of anarchy—self-help, security dilemmas, and mistrust—their framework appears overly deterministic, leaving little room for change or agency. The non-realist perspective, combining liberal institutionalism and constructivist ideas, better accounts for the complexity of international politics. It recognizes that while anarchy poses significant hurdles, states are not doomed to endless conflict; through institutions, interdependence, and norm-building, they can forge durable cooperation. The EU exemplifies this potential, demonstrating that even in an anarchic system, states can redefine their interactions and prioritize mutual benefits over zero-sum competition.
Realists might counter that such cooperation is fragile and contingent on specific historical or material conditions, pointing to rising global tensions—such as US-China rivalry—as evidence of enduring competition. However, this critique underestimates the cumulative impact of non-realist strategies. Cooperation, once established, often creates path dependencies that make conflict less likely, as seen in Europe. Therefore, while acknowledging the constraints of anarchy, this essay argues that the non-realist perspective is more correct in its assessment of international politics, offering both explanatory power for past successes and practical guidance for future stability.
Conclusion
In conclusion, anarchy undeniably complicates state security by fostering a self-help environment that realists argue leads to perpetual competition and conflict. However, non-realist theories—liberalism and constructivism—provide convincing arguments that these dynamics can be mitigated through institutions, economic ties, and shared identities. The European Union stands as a powerful testament to this possibility, illustrating how states can overcome historical animosities and build lasting cooperation. While challenges remain, the non-realist perspective offers a more nuanced and hopeful understanding of world politics, recognizing the potential for human agency to shape a less conflictual international order. This debate has broader implications for policy, suggesting that fostering cooperative structures and norms could be key to addressing contemporary global challenges, from climate change to geopolitical tensions, in an anarchic world.
References
- Checkel, J. T. (2007) International Institutions and Socialization in Europe. Cambridge University Press.
- Keohane, R. O. (1984) After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton University Press.
- Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001) The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W.W. Norton & Company.
- Nugent, N. (2017) The Government and Politics of the European Union. Palgrave Macmillan.
- Waltz, K. N. (1979) Theory of International Politics. Addison-Wesley.
- Wendt, A. (1992) Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391-425.
[Word Count: 1042, including references]
