Anarchy and the international jigsaw puzzle

For an IR Theorist, anarchy is the centerpiece of the jigsaw puzzle that he has to solve. It is the most important analytical phenomena that forms the backbone of systemic theories of International Relations (IR). To that end, anarchy is of incredible importance to the mainstream theories of International Relations.

Anarchy can simply be defined as the lack of an authoritative entity. In IR, the lack of such an entity in the international system is said to formulate the existence of the area of interest of this discipline. The concern with anarchy dates back to Hobbes, who advocated for the existence of a strong state that is formulated by a social contract between citizens. However, Hobbes was talking about the domestic scene in his native England in the aftermath of the English Civil War. Anarchy in an international system is somewhat different because the system's constituents are different nation-states that cannot agree to the existence of a supra-authority. In that sense, members of the international system are not able to sign a social contract (or at least the  one that Hobbes advocated for). All the mainstream theories of IR look at anarchy in different ways and attempt to explain how anarchy affects the behavior of various actors in the international arena (predominantly states).

There are two broad understandings of anarchy in the theories of IR, one is the Constructivist one and other is the Realist/Liberal one. The latter takes anarchy as a concrete phenomena and attempts to explicate its impact on international relations while the former takes anarchy as a malleable social phenomenon.  For a Realist or Liberal, states exist in an anarchical system and cannot trust each other as such. Although Realists and Liberals would disagree on how much anarchy can be managed, they will certainly agree to the basic nature of anarchy as a phenomena.  Constructivists, on the other hand, would say that Anarchy is not so much a scientific fact as much as it is a social fact of IR ( an intersubjectively created meaning as mentioned by Hopf). The example of India’s reaction to the brewing Russia-Ukraine war can act as a good snapshot on how each of these theories would attempt to explain India’s actions to the observer. 

India has taken a stance of subtle criticism but no overt actions against Russia, despite Russia violating the laws of sovereignty and invading Ukraine. The rationale for India’s actions can be explained in multiple ways. One way is through the Realist lens and the language of interest. Another way is by using the Liberal lens to explain why India is unwilling to burn its bridges with Russia. Last but not the least, one can also utilize the Constructivist lens and try to determine the perceptions that guided India to act the way it did.

The Realist (or neorealist to be more specific) would speak in the language of interest and say that India will not obtain anything by supporting Ukraine. India is dependent on Russia for importing and maintaining defense systems that are key to its national security, moreover, the government would not want to anger a large crude oil supplier like Russia during times of increasing domestic inflation. Thus, strategic ambivalence is the best approach. 

The Liberal would mostly tend to agree with the Realist but would attach great importance to India’s focus on resolving the conflict through diplomacy and within the confines of international law (even superpowers need rules and norms as per Keohane). For a Liberal, the articulation of such foci would be important because Liberalism attaches a great deal of importance to diplomacy and liberal international norms and rules. A liberal would say that India must do what is in its interest but should also take an active role in resolving the conflict through dialogue (which he would point out and say it has attempted to do by offering mediation).

The Constructivist would largely rely on a perception-based approach. He would say that India perceives Russia to be a stable partner (given the history of its relationship with the former Soviet Union) while America is seen as a fickle partner who has a more checkered record. If these perceptions are true, India would not be willing to criticize a country with which it shares a stable relationship (despite American pressure). Ukraine does not figure so much in the minds of India’s strategic community, so it does not hold any importance as such. While the relationship with America is only seen as a limited partnership with the rise of China being the primary concern (rather than Russia). For Constructivists, perception holds much more weight in the analytical framework. 

To conclude, each of these approaches only gives a certain kind of explanation for the actions of actors in the international arena. An agglomeration of all these explanations gives a far broader explanation than any of these theories by themselves would. Rather than looking at theories as mutually competitive explanations, an analyst should see these theories as giving a ‘potential’ explanation. After sifting through these explanations, analysts should make conclusions based on what they believe is the best explanation given the context (an analyst can also choose to believe all theories at once if they feel like it gives them a better picture). Theories are not like buttons on an EVM, they are rather like different types of cameras that click a different kind of snapshot. 

Bibliography 

 Theory talks: Theory talk #49: John Mearsheimer. (n.d.). Retrieved May 1, 2022, from http://www.theory-talks.org/2012/06/theory-talk-49.html 

Hopf, Ted. 1998. ‘The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory’. International Security 23 (1): 171.

Keohane, Robert. 1998. “International Institutions: Can Interdependence Work?” Foreign Policy 110: 82–96.