Milner: The Assumption of Anarchy in International Relations Theory

Milner, H., 1991. The Assumption of Anarchy in International Relations Theory: A Critique. Review of International Studies, 17(1), 67-85.

“In much current theorizing, anarchy has once again been declared to be the fundamental assumption about international politics” (67).

“First, I examine various concepts of ‘anarchy’ employed in the international relations literature. Second, I probe the sharp dichotomy between domestic and international politics that is associated with this assumption. As other have, I question the validity and utility of such a dichotomy. Finally, this article suggests that a more fruitful way to understand the international system is one that combines anarchy and interdependence” (67).

“It is once again time for a reminder that anarchy is an ambiguous concept and that dangers exist when it is exaggeratedly seen as the central fact of world politics” (67).

“Anarchy ahs at least two meanings. The first meaning that anarchy carries is a lack of order. IT implies chaos or disorder…But are chaos, lack of order and constant threat of war what scholars mean by the anarchic nature of the system? It does not seem to be. Persistent elements of order in international politics have been noted by many” (69). “The second definition of anarchy is the lack of government. It is the first meaning of anarchy given in the Oxford English Dictionary and is common among political scientists” (70). The distinction drawn by those who highlight the a-governmental nature of international society tends to breakdown into the understanding of government as being a monopoly, the legitimate use of force or a conflation of domestic and international policies.

Government then gets represented distinctly whether it is domestic or international. Domestic government is highlighted by hierarchy. International government is primarily dominated by concepts of anarchy.

Milner argues that this dichotomy is false and that there are different degrees of hierarchy in domestic and international politics.

“Overall, the sharp distinction between the two realms are difficult to maintain empirically. More importantly, any dichotomous treatment of domestic and international politics may have heuristic disadvantages. First, the isolation of international politics as a realm of anarchy with nothing in common with other types of politics is a step backward conceptually…A second and related heuristic problem is the tendency implicit in this separation of the two fields to view all states as being the same…” (80-1).

The Assumption of Interdependence: “As other scholars have points out, such reductionism overlooks another central fact about international politics, namely the interdependence of the actors” (81-2).

“There are two related notions of interdependence. First, the notion of ‘strategic interdependence’; implies…a situation in which ‘the ability of one participant to gain his ends is dependent to an important degree on the choices or decisions that the other participant will make’…Interdependence is not the opposite of anarchy…this definition of interdependence also does not imply either that the actors’ interests are in harmony or that power relations are unimportant…if the international system is viewed as characterized by structural interdependence, then the mechanisms of the system look different from those in the neo-realist model” (82-4).