International relations put simply is the relations among States within and outside the framework of State-based international organizations. What is the nature of the relations among States? There are two traditions of thought concerning this question. One assumes that since these States are sovereign and independent of the other, they are formally equal and exist in a condition of anarchy .With international anarchy logically follow certain consequences : each and every State has its particular interests: raises the question of the means of realizing them since most times these interest conflict; it means some States realize their interests while others do not depending on the means available ;this introduces the question of power ; even though States are formally or legally equal, they do not have the means of realizing their interests to the same extent (these means are defined in terms of power ) ; it follows that States exist in a hierarchy; but to maintain the existence of relations among States, there must be a balance of power. The school of thought that so considers the study and practice of international relations is ‘Political Realism’. The other tradition also assumes that the world is a world of sovereign, independent and formally equal states. However, these States do not necessarily live in competitive world in which only a few actually succeed in achieving their interests while the majority are passive participants. Rather than international anarchy, these States constitute an international society by virtue of developing norms and rules by which their relations should be conducted. This tendency has been identified as the source of international peace. Even without government therefore, there is order. If the international political organizations are further strengthened, as well as international legal and judicial processes, the social and cooperative elements in interstate relations would have been further deepened and the problem of war removed from man’s consciousness. This is the tradition of thought characteristic of ‘Utopianism’. Political realism and Utopianism are not only intellectual/theoretical orientations (that is, adopted by those who study international relations/Diplomatic history and political science) but also policy orientations (that is, adopted by foreign policy planners and Statesmen).
INTERNATIONAL ANARCHY AND POLITICAL REALISM
What does it mean to say that states exist in a State of anarchy? In considering the ancestors of the modern international system, the Greek and Italian city-state systems were isolated as having a structural likeness with the modern system. The relationship lies in their being fragmented, that is, made up of a multiplicity of states or political entities each conscious of its independence, and all generally desirous of keeping the fragmented system. However, the cultural affinities among the citizens of these city-states were so significant that they regarded themselves as Greeks and Italians, that it in spite of their fragmentation.
These fragmented systems were episodic. That is, they neither lasted beyond a few hundred years nor did they influence or link up with any other fragmented international system after them. In fact, the most dominant form of international organization before 1648 is the world empire, a situation in which a people or a state swallowed up several other peoples or states to establish an international hegemony. Thus, in the European world since the classical Greek times, there have been the world empires of Alexander the great, of the Roman Caesars (the Roman Empire), of the Roman Church and, from the late 9th century A.D., the Holy Roman Empire. The twin political dominance of Europe by the Church and the Holy Roman Empire was challenged and weakened by the rise of national states as England and France, and by the Protestant Reformation of the early 16th century. But the Empire, or a semblance of it, was sustained by the Hapsburg dynasty which controlled Austria – Hungary and Spain. This dominance was challenged in the Thirty years war (1618 – 1648) by a combination of England, Sweden, the protestant princes of Germany and France. The war ended with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, the treaty that is argued to have laid the ground rules for the practice of modern international relations. It provided for a fragmented system of independent, sovereign and formally equal States.
Essentially, the principles established by the Treaty of Westphalia are the sovereignty and equality of the states to the extent that they have control over their internal affairs, and can relate as independent units with other such units , the mutual recognition of one another’s sovereignty by all states and non-intervention in one another’s internal affairs. Even though there have been several violations of these principles since 1648 – by Napoleon and Hitler, and the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, there is always a reversion to the state of fragmentation. It can therefore be concluded that the natural condition of states and of the international system since the emergence of the notion of the sovereign status of states with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 is one of anarchy.
What is meant by anarchy? Anarchy, as used in the description of inter-state relations, does not mean chaos or lawlessness or disorderliness. It simply means that there is no other government that is above sovereign States, that is, there is no world government, or central government of the world, in the sense in which there is a central government within states. If there is no government higher than these states, it also means that there are no laws comparable to those that exist within States and that are usually enacted by government. The condition of anarchy in international relations means that every State must project and defend its interests (for every State has its interests, the most important of which is its continuance as a sovereignty State). Since these interests must clash, war is unavoidable. Hence, it has been said that States in anarchy are in a state of war. Although because all states have sovereignty and respect one another’s sovereignty they are equal. (formally or legally equal), however, they differ in their abilities to realize their interests. This is so because the means at their disposal to realize their interests vary. These means are collectively described as the power of a State. Thus, what sovereignty makes equal, power makes unequal.
Yet, the international system must be maintained in its fragmented state. Previous attempts by Napoleon and Hitler to attain world domination had been countered by anti-hegemonic coalitions. It means that no one State can be so strong as to dominate other States, but if indeed one State becomes this strong other States combining their powers can bring down the strong State and therefore restore the system to its fragmented state. This is the viewpoint of political realism, claimed to represent a realistic view of international relations, international relations as it is and as it has been, rather than as it should be.
Political realism has been defined by Jack Donnelly in “Realism and International Relations” as “the tradition of realpolitik or power politics”, while power politics has been defined by Hans Morgenthau in “Politics among Nations “as “a struggle for power” since “international politics is of necessity power politics”. By ‘a struggle for power’, Morgenthau, the arch-realist, means a struggle to dominate other States or the international system as a whole. Hence Ian Clark in the “Hierarchy of States” describes realism as “associated with the fearsome and depressing world of power politics in which states have to be permanently on their guard if life is not to be ‘nasty, brutish and short’’’.. there is however a less extreme view of political realism that does not prescribe offensive, aggressive or imperialistic behaviour as a consequence of the condition of anarchy.
Thus, according to Michael Nicholson (“realism and Utopianism revisited”, Review of International Studies), the four basic principles of realism are:
1. The main actors in international relations are States which seek to maintain their existence and general security;
2. The system of States is anarchic since no government exists to control states;
3. The bases of interaction revolve around power and security; and
4. While some States are satisfied with merely maintaining defensive security, for others with the requisite power they may embark on predatory behaviour and seek to dominate less powerful states.
Much of the language and logic of political realism has come from the Hobbes analogy.
THE ANALOGY OF THOMAS HOBBES
The characterization of man in a hypothetical state of nature, or natural condition, by Thomas Hobbes (particularly in the Leviathan, first published in 1651), and his depiction of international relations as akin to the relations of men in a state of nature have significantly affected the way states and their interests are perceived, and how their interaction is described. According to Hobbes, nature has created mean so equal that even though there may be differences in physical strength and mental capacity these do not detract from the fact of equality. Thus, that the weakest man has strength enough to kill the strongest man either by allying with other weak men or by some secret device, and the fact that mental ability is not innate but experiential and therefore theoretically within the reach of all men go to demonstrate the natural equality of men.
From this natural equality of men arises an equality of hope in achieving the objectives each man set for himself. Therefore, if any tow men seek to achieve the same objective, or desire the same thing, and yet they cannot both have that thing at the same time, they become enemies and attempt to kill or subdue one another. The most important thing any man can desire is the preservation of his life. Hence, where an aggressor has no single man to fear, or a group of aggressors trust in its capacity to subdue another group, these aggressors or invaders could seize the property of another, including life or liberty. But on like manner can a much stronger aggressor or a collection of men or groups so treat this aggressor.
If follows from the above that no man can be certain about this capacity to secure himself or his property other than by anticipation, that is, the development of a capacity for force or stratagem such that he can prepare against the possible invasion from men negatively disposed to him and likely to attack. Moreover, in the state of nature, everyman thinks highly of himself and wants others to so regard him, yet he does not so regard other men.
Hobbes goes on to identify three sources of conflict inherent in the nature of man as competition, lack of self-confidence and the search for glory. Competition makes men to invade for the purpose of adding to what they already have, and use violence to make themselves masters of others and their property; lack of self-confidence makes men invade for the purpose of guaranteeing their own safety and are willing to employ violence to ensure their defense; and the search for glory makes men to invade for the purpose of enhancing their reputation and use violence against anyone that directly or indirectly attempts to undervalue them.
Although Hobbes conceded that there was no time when men were generally in a state of nature or condition of war, “Yet in all times, kings, and persons of sovereign authority, because of their independency, are in continual jealousies, and in the state and posture of Gladiators, having their weapons pointing, and their eyes fixed on one another; that is, their forts, Garrisons, and Guns upon the frontiers of their kingdoms; and continual spy’s upon their neighbours; which is a posture of war”.
A consequence of the war of every man against every man is that nothing is done to secure a man’s life and take another’s life can be unjust. A thing, act or method can be neither right nor wrong, just nor unjust for where there is no common power over all there can be no law; and where there is no law, no injustice. The two essential virtues in the condition of war are force and fraud.
The characterization of the nature of man in the state of nature, that is, in condition where there is no government, and therefore no law, and its overt use by Hobbes to characterize the nature of international relations is insightful. The constitution elements are the natural equality of men in spite of accidental differences and differentiating factors, the result that every individual defines its interests (chi amongst which is self-preservation) and the means with which to realize them (including combining with other individuals that have the same interests), the significance of the individual’s perception of his insecurity as a motivation for potentially aggressive behaviour (including arming himself) geared toward the reduction of the fear of attack from another individuals, and the inevitability of conflict.
It is obvious how these elements appear adaptable to the relations among states. The most important assumption in this regard is that in the system of states, there is no overriding or central government to which the states subordinate themselves, that is, they are sovereign or independent. By virtue of this, they are equal (the principle of the sovereign or formal equality of states) even though factors as population, natural resources, military capacity and quality of internal leadership (that is, power) are differentiating factors. Yet, weak states by some stratagem or by allying with other states with similar interests can defeat quite powerful states. From the independence of states arises interests and the contrivance of means (power) to achieve these interests. The most important of these interests in the preservation of the independence or sovereign status of a state. Because every state feels insecure to the extent that it fears the violation of its sovereignty, it prepares by arming itself beyond a level determined by its immediate needs. Since usually this leads to an arms race, a general condition of insecurity is a regular feature of the co-existence of sovereign states.
For Hobbes, the anarchy of international relations (and the uncertainty it generates) was sufficient reason why every State should have a strong government internally, even though strong government externally is virtually impossible. But he was not the first to characterize the relations among states in anarchic terms. Plato, in his book The Laws written in the 350s and 340s (BC), already took notice of the certain practice of organizing common meals which was thought useful in the event of war since circumstances would then dictate that men eat together. But war would always come since States “are all engaged in a never-ending lifelong war against all states”. In this sense, there cannot be peace for “all States are by nature fighting an undeclared war against every other State”. To this extent, a State exists for the purpose of ensuring “victory in war over other States”.
The structure of the international system is historical. It has not always been the same. Thus, for example, while these political entities have always existed, and interaction with themselves, the notions of sovereignty and modern statehood belong to the centuries after the demise of the idea of the universal church and universal empire. The early units of the emerging international system were sovereign states, and they were few. In the wars that followed the French Revolution, for example, the active members of the European states system were Russia, France, Austria, Prussia and England. Of course, the United States came into formal existence in 1776, but it was not a member of European circuit. It was the First World War that universalized the European system drawing in states from different continents (from Africa, Abyssinia, that is, modern Ethiopia became a participant). Since the Second World War and the independence former colonial territories, the state-members of the international system now exceed 170. what other forms this system will take is uncertain.
International Society and Utopianism
Even though states are sovereign, independent and separate; even though they compete and war with themselves subordinating common interests to national interests they have been claimed to constitute a society, that is, a society of states or international society. It has already been pointed out that although the Greek and Italian city-states were independent units, they however recognized that they were Greeks and Italians and this sometimes limited their freedom of action. More importantly is the fact that in relating with themselves patterns and traditions emerged in political and economical exchanges that made the pursuit of narrow national interests sometimes self-destructive.
In modern international relations with more political units and more interns interactions, even more stable patterns and traditions have been created making the survival of the individual state dependent on the existence of other states, the state becoming merely a part of the whole. It is within this circumscribed framework that state defines its interests. In addition, states are political units that have been endowed with attributes of personality – the US would not like so and so; Nigeria is shocked human rights abuses in country. In the end, however, these states are composed of, and led by humans. To this extent, central to the definition of their national interests is the consideration of the interests of humanity. This factor has led to self-restrained policies. What would it profit a state, borrowing the Biblical format, if it alone remained in the world having annihilated other states?
It is a fundamental fact of international relations that a state needs other states to exist. The consequent interdependence seems to challenge the anarchic conception of international relations as a state of war. Even though states war among themselves, to provide for the welfare of citizens they also maintain economic and cultural relations with other states. They have designed rules to facilitate a peaceful conduct of these relations, in treaties, diplomatic conventions and the charters of common organizations. These constitute international law. And from 1648, some basic principles of inter-state relations – sovereign equality of states and respect for treaties in particular – have become universally acceptable.
Moreover, being conscious of the evil of war, states have acted to prevent its occurrence. Thus, either by a system of balance of power or collective security, aggressive states have been defeated and reduced in strength restoring stability to the international system. States generally seem to behave according to rules. How else can the condition described in the foregoing paragraphs be characterized if not as a society, as a society of states or international society?
According to Hedley Bull, international society exists “when a group of states, conscious of certain common interests and common values, form a society in the sense that they conceive themselves to be bound by a common set of rules in their relations with one another and share in the working of common institutions”. The notion of international society not only rests on the perceived existence of common interests and values among states, but also an awareness by these states of these interests and values, and a recognition of, and willingness to abide by the rules they have created for the operation of common institutions (the United Nations, FIFA, etc).
The use of the concept of society is intended to draw a parallel between the way people interact within a state and the way states interact themselves. Society is a sociological concept that describes the network of relationships that holds a specific aggregate of people together. Thus, an individual in society has multiple identities by virtue of belonging to several groups or associations at the same time. These groups may be ethnic, religious, social or recreational, and economic. This pattern of cross-cutting ties has been claimed to exist in the relations among states to justify the use of the concept of society to describe their interaction. Each state has multiple identities such that it is linked with other states, the closeness of the link depending on its cultural features and national interests. It is the complex network of inter-twining relations of all the state put together that sustains the use of the notion of international society.
It would appear that what has been suggested above is a society without government. While the fact that certain modes of social conduct within the state have become acceptable and traditional and usually sufficient to ensure that there is social stability, but this is no guarantee that accepted practices would not be subverted. But when rules take the form of laws with penalty for violation, then government is needed to enforce those laws. In international relations, there is no government to enforce the agreements entered into. Even though norms of humanitarianism and general morality restrain states, there have nevertheless been conducts that violated such morality (as genocide, for example). What obtains in international relations is international law without international government. How then is law maintained? The most plausible answer is that the fear of more powerful states or a combination of not-too-powerful states whose interest it is for such law to exist acts as a deterrent. But when an over mighty state refines on the law, it takes a major war, with no guarantee of defeating such a power, to reestablish the primacy of law. The view of Dean Acheson, one time US secretary of state concerning the extent to which international law can limit the actions of a great power, is worth recalling.
“The United Nations is only all of us – those who may be using force and those who may be resisting. It can have no force except what its members contribute and support. It has always been plain that the United Nations could not use force against a great power. The veto in the Security Council was put there to prevent the legal questions from ever arising and, as a practical matter; to attempt it would only bring on a major war”.
Ultimately, therefore, the only effective deterrent against the use of force against another State is the possibility of a counter-force.
Thus far, the notion of international society has been discussed without opposing it to international anarchy. In other words, international society is compatible with international anarchy. Indeed, for international society to exist, there must be international anarchy; anarchy provides the basis for society. Realists, generally, no matter how they stress the primacy of interests and power in determining the behaviour of a state, do not deny the existence of social or societal elements in international relations. However, there is a conception of international that sees in the termination of international anarchy as the basis of international society. This view rejects international anarchy or a fragmented system of international relations on account of its structural capacity to generate war. If states cease to exist, it seems to infer, wars would cease. A weaker form of this thought, which shall be called “utopianism”, is that states should surrender parts of their sovereignty to international institutions. The stronger version calls for the abrogation of the state, of sovereignty, of a fragmented system and their replacement with a universal state, as was the Alexandrian empire or Roman empire, and a world government. Then, there would be law, justice and order. Above all, there would be peace. Consider the view of Harold Laski, for example, that “the rules of international law should be made universally binding through the power to have them definitely interpreted by a recognized tribunal. It is only in that way that we shall escape from the tradition stated by Hobbes of regarding the law of nations as merely the law of nature disguised”. However, to attain this height, a government is needed to enforce the law. This body of thought constitutes ‘utopianism’.
While the validity of political realism is supported to rest on the evidence of the history of international relations and human nature (the proposition that man is essentially selfish and opportunistic), utopianism or utopian thought is based on the possibility if not the necessity of transforming an inherently conflictual and unstable system. It assumes that by creating new institutions and new environments, the current pattern of international conduct can be changed. If the best of the mechanism to prevent war among states – the balance of power – has failed to prevent war all the times, utopians commit themselves, according to Jack Donnelly to “using human reason and organizational ingenuity to replace the old order of national interests with a new order of common interests”. Whether a world government or universal state will ever be possible, or if possible, whether it would be able to outlaw war would always remain speculative.
No comments:
Post a Comment