Anarchy or Order in the International System?

The international system is viewed differently from the realist and liberal points of view. Realists are inclined to believe that the international system is in a constant state of war and thus permits international anarchy. Liberals, however, believe that customs, laws, and institutions can preclude anarchy.

Realists are generally pessimistic about international cooperation, because of their view of human nature. They see humans as inherently "bad," self-serving individuals. By theorizing from the ground up, one could conclude that they might only join together when it suits their own interests. International anarchy is thus a valid assumption to this because if there are no outside predators of the international system, then there is no reason for an international governing body.

Complex realism views interstate relations as "a condition where war is always possible" (Doyle, 1999: 51). Thomas Hobbes, probably the most thorough of the realists on the international system, immediately begins by drawing a correlation between the international system and the state of nature, because both are without government. Doyle goes a bit further and notes that states "exist in a state of war in which there is not effective international law or morality; all have unrestrained rights, none has foreseeable duties" (1999: 116). However, because there are systematic differences between the individual and the "artificial sovereign personality" (Hoffmann, in Doyle, 1999: 116) "the international system may indeed be sufficiently safe and commodious that we may not be willing to establish a global Leviathan as a means of ensuring a truly global peace" (Doyle, 1999: 117). Structural realism also states that international systems vary according to the number of actors but constitutional realism goes one step further to emphasize they also vary "according to the domestic constitutional characteristics of the states that compose the system and the social density of the "regimes"-the rules and international organizations-that constitute international society" (Doyle 1999, 152).

Foreseeable improvement in the international system is similar but distinct to each theorist and their general philosophy. Thucydides felt that by embracing international anarchy one could end the historic cycle of war. Machiavellian fundamentalism believed in glorious imperialism to improve the conditions of the international system because it eliminates the need for alliances which are unreliable and quickly disregarded. Hans Morgenthau, a contemporary of Machiavelli's, believes that a balance of power is important because it is a "universal instrument of foreign policy used at all times by all nations who want to preserve their independence" (Lecture: Morgenthau and Mearsheimer). Therefore, by establishing a critical balance of power, one might be able to alleviate the effects of the anarchic international system. Another present day realist is John Mearsheimer. He concurs that a common threat is the only path to an international government. Finally, Rousseau suggests the use of domestic reforms to modify state behaviors in the realm of the international system and elsewhere to mitigate the effects of the universal anarchy.

Liberal views of the international system are a bit more optimistic that those of the realist nature. The common liberal assumptions of the international system show that there are customs, laws and institutions to control anarchic conduct. The most important fact is that these institutions are not just domestic but international, and some have even formed what may be referred to international regimes.

"World politics [in the liberal context] is at the minimum a heterogeneous state of peace and war and might become a state of global peace, in which the expectation of war disappears" (Doyle, 1999: 210). Liberal states are also believed to be less warlike with each other, depending on the purity of their political system. Their competition lies on a different plane than that of realism, they engage in healthy, good sportsman-like competition for wealth, culture, and pride because of their common liberal bonds.

International customs, laws and institutions are inherent in general liberal theory. Liberal theory shows that states with true liberal governments have similar interests in individual rights, and through acknowledging these bonds states can also then find other commonalities and thus create ways to improve relations for mutual gain. By enacting treaties and alliances states are able to attain both economic and political goals with more ease and efficiency. Essentially through these ties "[t]hey can come to appreciate that the existence of other Liberal states constitutes no threat" (Doyle, 1999, 211), a separate liberal peace. A timely example of one of the most applauded efforts towards economic and political consolidation is the European Union; an interstate organization of liberal states with underlying common interests.

John Locke and Jeremy Bentham hold an "image 1" (human nature) view of liberalism and their view the international system could be best described by the speech given by then-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev before the United Nations on December 07, 1988. "As awareness of our common fate grows, every nation would be genuinely interested in confining itself within the limits of international law. Our ideal is a world community of states with political systems and foreign policies based on law ... to make the world safer for all of us" (New York Times Press, in Doyle, 1999: 229). This quote shows that human nature is not entirely self-seeking, but considerate of others, and a mutually beneficial cooperative would be an important improvement in the international system. Their strategy for peace is to correct the inconsistencies Locke describes of the international system. Betham goes further to acknowledge particular corrective measures: an impartial common adjudication, education, and collective security including disarmament.

"Image 2" (domestic society) liberals are classified as so because of their interest in utilizing the pursuit of wealth as a method to moral perfection, a philosophy of Adam Smith (Winch, Hont, and Ignatieff, in Doyle, 1999: 232). Schumpeter claims that "domestic capitalism means free trade and a peaceful foreign policy because they are the first best solutions for the rational majorities in a capitalist society" (Doyle, 1999: 250). Internationally, these economic unions could be used as stepping stones to an international system favorable to peace and, potentially, more intense collaborations.

Immanuel Kant the "image 3" (international system) philosopher suggests three criteria for a stable state of peace. Those conditions are a representative, republican government, a principled respect for nondiscriminatory human rights, and social and economic interdependence. These conditions follow the general trends in liberal theory. Erasmus' proposal for improvement coincides with Kant in that he believed by creating a connection between all human beings one could preclude nationalistic and religious boundaries.

Once again, I side with the liberal point of view. I have been persuaded by the ability of the European nations to work together economically towards a common political goal. They have not only concluded just economic and potentially political history but are also endeavoring on a single European nationality. With the advent of globalization technologies and the European Union, the Eurobarometer shows a heightened sense of European nationalism over that of the sovereign states themselves.

Doyle, Michael W. "Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism, and Socialism." W W Norton & Co Inc. 1997.