The current anarchy debate dates back to the period between the two World Wars, when theorists and practitioners in IR gradually realised the meaning and significance of anarchy for the study of International Relations. While the concept of anarchy was gradually developing and evolving, IR professionals could not find a relevant agreement as for what anarchy is and whether it can be overcome. A wealth of literature was produced to reflect the hidden implications of this continuous debate. Some professionals were confident that under the influence of a higher governmental authority like the League of Nations, states will be more reluctant to cross the boundaries of their legal conduct. Others did not believe that states would ever be willing to overcome anarchy and to sacrifice their selfish economic and political interests. In light of everything that was written and said about the topic, and given the complexity of the issue, it is obvious that anarchy is not only what states make of it (Wendt 1992, p. 391), but also what states make, and they can never overcome anarchy because, as proposed by Bryce (1927) and later supported by other IR theorists, they will always remain in condition of savageness toward each other, recognising no legal rights and duties, but seeking to use anarchy as the direct pathway to political and military domination.
Trying to analyse the theoretical and practical implications of anarchy and its place in the theory of IR, one cannot disregard the relevance and the significance of the idea that the whole international society is made of states. This can be fairly regarded as the starting point and the basic idea of the current analysis. The main idea of states being the units of the present day society “is based on the two connected claims about common interests and shared values. At the most basic level, states take into account the impact their decisions have on other members of society” (Dunne 2003, p. 303). However, this desire to take into account the interests and motivations of other states is nothing else but the result of prudential considerations, which states successfully utilise for the sake of achieving their political objectives (Armstrong 1993, p. 32). In simpler terms, and as compared with the basic ideas of human evolution, such sharedness of ideas and attitudes is driven by each state’s desire to survive, because security and survival of all states depends on the survival and security of each member-state. But the idea of states being the basic units of international relations is not limited to the assumption that they take into account others’ decisions. Rather, it is continued to cover the concept of sociality, which states manifest through the continuous diffusion of ideas and interests, and their continuous or relatively continuous commitment to higher rules of authority (Dunne 2003, p. 306)
![[Valid RSS feed]](http://www.ezine-articles.co.uk/images/icon_Rss.png "XML Feed For RSS"){kind=icon}
Category Rss Feed
Print This Article
Add To Favorites