Module 5: Anarchy, Security, and Global Order

In modules 2-4, we introduced the mainstream theories of global politics, the outside-the-box approaches, and the levels of analysis approach. In this module, we will be using both the theories of global politics and the levels of analysis approach to understand the concepts of anarchy and security.

The concept of anarchy is foundational in global politics. The most neutral definition simply refers to the absence of overarching authority in a given polity. However, anarchy is understood and operationalized very differently by different approaches to global politics. For some, it is equated to a perennial source of potential conflict. For others, it is a completely neutral concept that only takes on the meaning attributed to it. And for still others, it is a structure or discourse that legitimates the exercise of power. Likewise, the concept of security is contested. The search for security is at the core of the discipline of global politics. Security refers to freedom from threat. But it is unclear what types of threats are operative in global politics. We can parse the concept of security by applying our levels of analysis approach, looking at state security, individual/human security, and systemic security. By combining the different understandings of anarchy and security, we can see different mechanisms at work in global politics that influence global order. These include security dilemmas, collective security, security communities, and discursive security practices. Taking all these parts together, we can better understand the dynamics of global politics.

Anarchy is a concept that we have encountered several times so far in this course. It is a concept that has significant implications for understanding and acting on issues in global politics. Therefore, it is useful to look at the differing understandings of anarchy through the theories and approaches to global politics we have so far covered. Realists, and most specifically Structural Realists, consider the condition of anarchy as a foundational and enduring concept of global politics. It represents uncertainty and danger. It requires state leaders to eschew common sense notions of morality. Instead, leaders must define their moral obligation as the protection and preservation of the sovereign state above all else. The sovereign state is the thin line between order and disorder. It allows particular cultures and people with shared historical experiences to define for themselves the good life. In the end, for Realists, anarchy requires leaders to adopt an ethic of prudence, focus on the development of hard power, and rely on self-help. And as anarchy is a foundational and enduring concept of global politics, so are these Realist prescriptions. To do anything less is to court existential threat, as the Melians did, and to potentially share their fate. For example, if you are Taiwan facing China, Kashmir caught between India and Pakistan, or the Kurds in Northern Iraq, the Realist understanding of anarchy is all too real.

Liberals agree that anarchy is a defining feature of global politics. They also agree that anarchy represents the possibility of threat, disorder, and war. But they disagree with the Realist assumption that the condition of anarchy means that violence and chaos are ever-present in global politics. Instead, Liberals argue we must apply our inherent rationality to overcome the danger of anarchy and create a global order that encourages cooperation and prosperity. They claim we can tame anarchy, or at least regulate it, by fostering familiarity, shared purpose, and interdependencies through institutions and focusing on individual freedom. In the end, for Liberals, the violence and disorder historically associated with anarchy is a problem to be overcome. Doing anything less, to paraphrase the United Nations preamble, would be to curse future generations to suffer under the indefinite scourge of inequality, inhumanity, and war. For example, Liberals would point to the European Union, which went from ground zero of two global and utterly devastating world wars to the world’s largest trade bloc, defined by the freedom of movement between the 27 member states.

Constructivists argue anarchy is neither cooperative nor conflictual. Instead, they posit anarchy as a concept with meaning derived through social interaction. Anarchy is not natural, not essentialist. It is a social construct. Therefore, anarchy as a concept can have multiple meanings for different actors, perhaps even simultaneously. The meaning attached to anarchy can also change over time. The meaning of anarchy for a Realist is deeply influenced by the belief that the world is inherently dangerous. The meaning of anarchy for a Liberal is deeply influenced by the belief that progress is possible – that the absence of overarching authority does not mean violence is an omnipresent threat. Others, like the English School, put anarchy on a continuum. Some actors, like the EU, have intensely regulated the meaning of anarchy within the Schengen Area. Others, like  China and Taiwan or India and Pakistan, live in the shadow of existential threat. Anarchy, therefore, is contextual and exists on a continuum. In the end, for constructivists, anarchy is what we all make of it.

Critical Theories contextualize the concept of anarchy in history and highlight how anarchy privileges particular actors in the political, economic, and social structures of global politics. For example, Dependency Theory and World Systems Theory argue the Realist and Liberal understanding of anarchy legitimate the exploitation of emerging economies and marginalized labour by MNCs. For Feminists, the Realist understanding of anarchy subsumes the fight for women’s rights to the privileging of state security. For Environmentalists, there is a similar view that the Realist view of anarchy undermines environmental actors’ bargaining power by creating a hierarchy of needs with state and economic security above ecological concerns. In the end, for Critical Theories, the concept of anarchy is a product of history and creates structural privilege for the powerful.

Post-structuralism understands anarchy as a discourse that produces and reproduces relations of power. The discourse of anarchy naturalizes artificial divisions between ‘us’ and ‘them.’ It naturalizes that map of the world that separates people with thick borders and delineates sovereign powers. This discourse is legitimated through texts like Thucydides’ The History of the Peloponnesian War, Hobbes’ Leviathan, and Machiavelli’s The Prince. These texts support the narrative that order is the paramount goal of politics and that the ‘other’ is always a potential threat. This discourse of anarchy reinforces the status quo structures of power that maintain the privileges of the minority world and preclude alternate discourses that may better speak to the majority world’s lived experiences. In the end, for Post-Structuralism, anarchy is a discourse of power that acts as a gatekeeper for the privilege of the few over the many.

In the late 19^th century, for the first time, peace movements and human rights organizations began to advocate against the threat of war instead of against the outbreak of particular conflicts. For these activists, war was no longer a practical means to achieve the national interest. The increasing scale of war, the destructiveness of weapons, and the tendency towards mass mobilization meant the costs far outweighed any potential benefits. These fears came to fruition with World War One. This ‘war to end all wars’ was devastating in terms of human suffering, material cost, and European influence in the world. This devastation motivated the world’s leaders, especially the Great Powers, to form the League of Nations (LoN): an international organization established to promote international peace and security. The Great War also led to the establishment of global politics as a discrete academic discipline. In 1919, Aberystwyth University established the first chair of international politics with a mandate to solve the most pressing issue in global politics, the scourge of war. Both the institutions of global governance and the discipline of global politics share a core concern – peace. However, how to achieve peace was, and for many still is,  an open-ended question. Since global politics is anarchical, there is no overarching authority to act as an international police force. Despite attempts by the LoN and later the United Nations to outlaw war, legal instruments have proven inadequate in stopping aggressors. Yet, the destructive threat of war has only increased. For many, the debate on peace has transitioned to debates on security. If we cannot impose peace, perhaps we can foster security amongst actors. The idea is that if actors feel secure, they are less likely to become aggressors. This nexus between peace and security is recognized in the UN Charter, which states the organization’s purpose is to ‘maintain international peace and security.

Security is a more contested concept than peace. Peace refers to the absence of armed conflict or the absence of hostilities. Security refers to freedom from threat. However, this definition of security is underspecified. What defines a threat? Physical threats? Threats to prosperity? Threats to cultural values? And at what level of analysis are we talking about? Individual security? State security? International security? The levels of analysis approach helps to parse some of this ambiguity.

The predominant concept of security in global politics is found at the state-level of analysis. We have discussed the emergence of the state in global politics in previous modules, but it is important to recap this here. The contemporary form of global politics is rooted in the sovereign state system that emerged from the 15^th-century religious wars in Europe and, more specifically, the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. The state emerged as a sovereign actor that holds a privileged position in global politics. It has the right to use force to create and maintain order domestically and defend its borders against external threats. It alone has the right to commit its citizens to international agreements. As a corollary to this, state security also became privileged. Traditional state security focuses on territorial integrity, the ability to pursue an independent national interest, and the capability to protect national values. Implied in this definition is the role of the state in protecting its citizens. There is an implied threat that the citizenry will become victim to all kinds of deprivations if the state falls because of the danger posed by an anarchical world. Therefore, and somewhat counter-intuitively, state security comes before other security concerns, including its citizens. This creates tension between individual liberty and state security as well as the national interest and systemic crises like climate change.

The most significant challenge to the privileging of state security is individual or human security. Human security questions the assumption that the purpose of the state is to protect its citizenry. At best, it argues the state has proven a very weak defender of its citizens. At worst, the state is itself the source of threat to its citizens. This can be as extreme as the Rwandan Genocide, where the state was complicit in the brutal murder of over 800,000 of its own civilians, primarily Tutsi, over 100 days. But it is also true for Black Americans today, who disproportionately experience police violence and incarceration, as do Indigenous peoples in Canada. Beyond direct violence, citizens are routinely harmed by poverty, disease, hunger, political repression, and human rights abuse. Proponents of human security ask why we privilege the state as the referent of security instead of just protecting individuals directly. The 1994 UN Development Programme report first established the core arguments of human security. It stipulates that security should rightly focus on the individual lives of the majority of the world who struggle to meet life’s necessities. Moreover, advocates of the human security approach posit an intimate relationship between global security and human security. For example, the Syrian Civil War began as a protest against the authoritarian government of Bashar al-Assad, rooted in issues of poverty, inequality, and human rights abuses.

However, while the connection between human security and global security makes sense, there are significant issues around conceptual definition and application. Two concepts of human security emerged from this debate, a narrow and a broad application. The narrow conceptualization of human security focuses on ‘freedom from fear.’ In this approach, human security is about protecting individuals from violence. Such a narrow conceptualization lends itself to a more straightforward application, such as the UN’s Responsibility to Protect (R2P), adopted in 2005. R2P stipulates that if the state is unwilling or unable to protect its citizens against gross abuses of human rights, it forfeits its sovereign immunity. Moreover, the international community then has the responsibility to protect those citizens through the appropriate application of diplomatic, humanitarian, and military measures. Yet, R2P also demonstrates the problems of applying the concept of human security in an anarchical world. First, even where there is a manifest failure of the state to protect its citizens from gross human rights violations, who is the ‘international community’ that is supposed to step in? Where was the international community in Syria? How were the Rohingya in Myanmar protected? Or how about the Uighurs in China? It requires sanctions and potentially armies to enforce human security, which is the providence of the state. Second, because R2P needs states to fulfill its mandate, it is prone to abuse – states tend to commit resources to human security when it is in their interests or when the costs are low. It is argued that this explains the difference between intervention in Libya and non-intervention in Syria. In Libya, the goals seemed doable, the Qaddafi regime was more isolated, and Libyan proximity to Europe kept the issue on European states’ agenda. The Syrian crisis is more complicated, the al-Bashar regime has Great Power allies, and Syria is perceived as a Middle East problem. In other words, Libya was perceived to be in the interest of the Great Powers, and Syria is not.

The broader conception of human security is more faithful to the original vision proposed by the UNDP. It accepts the importance of ‘freedom from fear.’ But it also focuses on ‘freedom from want,’ which includes seven components: economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community security, and political security. While the broader concept of human security is much more robust, it is much more difficult and intrusive to operationalize. For example, under the broader conceptualization, it could be, and perhaps should be, argued that Canada is in breach of its human security obligations to Indigenous Peoples who live on reserve without access to potable water. However, in the anarchical system, who would enforce compliance with such a broad understanding of human security? This critique is especially noteworthy given the inability to consistently apply the narrower definition of human security found in R2P.

 

 

Finally, the least developed form of security in global politics is systemic security. Instead of focusing on the state or the individual, this approach makes global society the referent of security. This argument is very much rooted in the literature on globalization. On the one hand, there is an increasing number of systemic threats that are bigger than any one state. These threats are directly related to the growing interdependencies generated by globalization. They include the existential threat of climate change, the global monetary system’s instability, the dangers posed by cyber warfare, the growing peril of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), and the vast increase in global migration flows, to name just a few. The advocates of this approach argue it is not a question of whether we should make global society the referent of security. Rather, they posit our globalized world makes it a necessity to address threats, including existential threats, at this level. On the other hand, the state is facing new threats due to fragmentation. The rise in prominence of transnational terrorism, organized crime, the dark web, and MNCs’ influence require global policy responses. In some ways, this approach is not new. When the LoN and later the UN sought to outlaw war through collective security, they were treading close to the idea of protecting global society. However, the systemic approach to security is broader in terms of scope and is more holistic. In terms of scope, systemic security does address conflict.  But it also addresses economic security, environmental security, and global issues like migration and transnational crime. In terms of holism, systemic security argues that these threats are not isolated but are instead part of the interdependencies generated by globalization processes. Thus systemic security requires a holistic response that includes political, economic, and even social issues and levers. Advocates of systemic security make some solid points – collectively, the world is facing new threats, even existential threats, that individual states cannot address alone. Yet, the primary obstacle for privileging the global society is the anarchic system itself. There is no overarching authority that can put the disparate parts together in a comprehensive way.

In this last section, we will apply the concepts and implications of anarchy explored in section one, to the idea of security unpacked in section two. The purpose of this exercise is to tease out some of the dynamics between anarchy and security that impact global order. Global order refers to the patterns of interaction between actors at the system level. While the state is a privileged actor, these patterns of interaction also include institutions, MNCs, NGOs, and other civil society actors. Global order also reflects the expectations of behaviour as well as privileging dominant tensions that define particular times. For example, the 19^th-century global order defined by the Concert of Europe is very different from the late 20^th-century bi-polar order defined by the Cold War rivalry. Therefore, we want to look at how different understandings of anarchy and security shape understandings of the current global order.

For many scholars of global politics, especially Realists, the dominant tension in the global order is the security dilemma. A security dilemma exists when states seek to maximize their security by developing hard power capabilities, and other states respond in kind. For example, when Iran or Isreal develops new military capabilities, especially WMDs, the other state responds by developing their own military capabilities. This can create an arms race, where each side spirals downward into insecurity. The Cold War rivalry between the US and the USSR is a classic arms race, whereby each party reacted to the other by developing more powerful and more numerous nuclear weapons. Eventually, each side had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world several times over. And this is why it is a dilemma. Both the US and the USSR were seeking to maximize their security. But in so doing, they were creating threat or insecurity for the other party, forcing them to maximize their security in turn. This recursive relationship led to the point where each party could destroy the world, making not only themselves but everyone else much less secure. The security dilemma is very much a reflection of a realist understanding of anarchy and security. Since states must rely on self-help due to anarchy, they pursue power to maximize security. However, the maximization of state security has significant potential to create insecurity for other states, fostering global disorder.

Other scholars and practitioners of global politics have sought institutionalized means for achieving global security. Perhaps the most ambitious effort is collective security. Motivated by the carnage of World War One, the LoN institutionalized collective security as a means of taming anarchy and war. In a collective security arrangement, all states agree to eschew the use of force and, more importantly, agree to come to the aid of any state that is a victim of aggression. However, this LoN experiment failed. While states agreed in principle to collective security, it was a different story when it came to committing troops and material to defend other states, especially when their interests were not at stake. Thus when Italy invaded Abyssinia, the UK and France had to choose whether they would honour their collective security commitments or keep Italy as part of their European balance of power. This was even more damning given that Russia and the US had chosen not to sign onto the LoN, leaving the UK and France as the two Great Powers. In 1945, the UN also implemented collective security in its charter.  But it tried to overcome the failures of the LoN by giving the Great Powers a privileged position in the UN Security Council. The five Great Powers in 1945, China, France, the USSR, the UK, and the US, were given permanent seats on the UNSC and veto rights. The logic is that the maintenance of peace and security required the Great Powers’ participation. The veto was required to get the Great Powers to participate and to protect their interests. Essentially, the argument is that with great powers comes great responsibility. However, the Cold War onset rendered the UNSC impotent as each side used the veto to protect their interests and those of their allies. The logic of collective security is built on the Liberal premise that anarchy can be tamed through the institutionalization of peace. And the logic is persuasive – if all states promise not to use force and come to the aid of any victim of force, war will cease to exist. However, both the LoN and UN attempts at collective security have hit the obstacle of self-interest.

Constructivists suggest the idea of security communities as a means to overcome the Realist understanding of anarchy. For example, they contest the Realist view of global politics as a perennial security dilemma. They argue this only holds true if the parties involved see each other as enemies and believe that global politics is inherently conflictual. If, instead, actors can create shared norms of cooperation on security issues, it is possible to build security communities. Examples of security communities include the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or the EU. NATO is an example of states intersubjectively generating shared meaning on the definition of threat and expectations of mutual aid. Interestingly, while NATO was established as a Cold War response to the Warsaw Pact, it was not dissolved at the end of the conflict. Instead, it adapted to new circumstances, generated new meaning amongst the member states on its mission, and continued to serve as a security community. The EU is an even more interesting example. While the EU began as an economic bloc, it has evolved to take on social as well as security roles. Thus the site of two world wars has become a symbol of peace and economic prosperity. The logic of a security community is built on the idea that anarchy is not essentialist. Its meaning is not predetermined. Instead, it suggests that security is possible by generating trust and cooperation through social interaction.

We discussed securitization theory in module four. However, it is useful to recap its main arguments here. Securitization theory stands as a robust critique of state security. It argues that actors, most often states, posit something as an existential threat to claim extraordinary powers. By so doing, the debate is moved out of ordinary politics and into the realm of emergency politics. As an emergency, the state can then define the threat and the appropriate response in the name of protecting the state, its citizens, or important cultural norms. The logic of securitization theory emerges from a Critical theory view of anarchy and security. From this approach, anarchy is a construct with allows the powerful to demonize the other and consolidate structural power and privilege for themselves. Critical theories’ goal is to expose how security is manipulated to the benefit of some and the detriment of others. In so doing, the ultimate goal is the emancipation of the oppressed.

 

Finally, there are the discursive practices of security that influence global order. Post-structuralists argue that many of the taken-for-granted assumptions about security do the opposite – they create insecurity. For example, the balance of power discourse argues that security is possible if states check any increase in power by other states. But instead of fostering security, the balance of power discourse creates alliances that ratchet up tensions until there is a breaking point and increasingly destructive war. Moreover, discourses like the balance of power reinforce status-quo power relations, legitimate the privilege of the powerful, and offer no way out of the security dilemmas.  Instead, Post-structuralists seek subjugated discourses that may offer a new way to foster peace, preferably while recognizing the majority world’s lived experiences.

The concepts of anarchy and security are both deeply contested and foundational to the study of global politics. The most neutral definition of anarchy is simply the absence of overarching authority. However, the differing ways that anarchy is understood has a significant impact on how global politics is understood. On one end of the spectrum, anarchy is treated as virtually identical to threat and danger. This necessitates security seeking behaviour. On the other end of the spectrum, anarchy is seen as a discourse that privileges the powerful. This suggests that deconstructing the narrative of anarchy might push aside the gatekeepers that maintain the status quo. Like anarchy, security is a foundational concept of global politics. If actors feel secure, they are less likely to engage in disruptive and/or conflictual behaviour. However, much like anarchy, security is a contested concept. The most neutral concept of security is simply the absence of threat. But it is unclear what level of analysis should be applied to enhance our understanding of global politics: state-security, human security, or systemic security. State-security is the dominant approach in global politics, which privileges territorial integrity, the ability to pursue an independent national interest, and the capability to protect national values. However, the dominance of state security is challenged from both below and above. At the sub-state level, human security challenges the logic of state security by suggesting that it is not external threat that poses the biggest risk to citizens but rather the state itself. From above, systemic security suggests the state is unable to deal with an increasing number of threats and a global approach is required. If we take both the discussion of anarchy and security together, we find some interesting applications to understanding global order. A Realist approach to anarchy and security suggests the focus should be on security dilemmas. A Liberal approach suggests that institutions can play an important role in achieving global peace, especially through concepts like collective security. Constructivism suggests that security communities are an efficient way to build shared norms of cooperative behaviour. Securitization Theory takes a critical approach to anarchy and security, suggesting that states use existential threats to claim extraordinary powers. Finally, Post-structuralism argues that anarchy and security are discursive practices that counter-intuitively create disorder and insecurity. By deconstructing these discourses, it is possible to break recurring patterns of conflict and open spaces for subjugated discourses that offer a chance for more equitable forms of global politics. This module aimed to explore the concepts of anarchy and security to see how the interplay between the two reveals mechanisms of global order. We will be using this discussion in the next module when we introduce the debate on just war.

The most neutral definition of anarchy sees it as the absence of overarching authority in a given polity. However, the different approaches to global politics define and apply the concept of anarchy differently. For Realists, anarchy makes global politics a dangerous place and requires leaders to adopt an ethic of prudence, focus on developing hard power, and rely on self-help. Liberals argue we must apply our inherent rationality to overcome the danger of anarchy and create a global order that encourages cooperation and prosperity. Constructivists argue anarchy is neither cooperative nor conflictual. Instead, they posit anarchy as a concept with meaning derived through social interaction. For Critical theories, anarchy is a product of historical context that is used to privilege elites. Post-structuralism understands anarchy as a discourse that produces and reproduces relations of power. The discourse of anarchy naturalizes artificial divisions between ‘us’ and ‘them.’

Security refers to freedom from threat. But to parse the application of this to global politics, it is useful to look at the concept of security through a level of analysis approach. Traditional state security focuses on territorial integrity, the ability to pursue an independent national interest, and the capability to protect national values. Implied in this definition is the role of the state in protecting its citizens. Human security questions the assumption that the purpose of the state is to protect its citizenry. At best, it argues the state has proven a very weak defender of its citizens. At worst, the state is itself the source of threat to its citizens. Out of this critique, the concept of human security has been developed both narrowly and broadly. The narrow conceptualization of human security focuses on ‘freedom from fear.’ In this approach, human security is about protecting individuals from violence. Such a narrow conceptualization lends itself to a more straightforward application, such as the UN’s Responsibility to Protect (R2P), adopted in 2005. The broader conceptualization accepts the importance of ‘freedom from fear.’ But it also focuses on ‘freedom from want,’ which includes seven components: economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community security, and political security. The least developed form of security in global politics is systemic security. This argument is very much rooted in the literature on globalization. On the one hand, there is an increasing number of systemic threats that are bigger than any one state. These threats are directly related to the growing interdependencies generated by globalization.

A security dilemma exists when states seek to maximize their security by developing hard power capabilities, and other states respond in kind. This can create an arms race, where each side spirals downward into insecurity. The security dilemma is very much a reflection of a realist understanding of anarchy and security. Since states must rely on self-help due to anarchy, they pursue power to maximize security. However, the maximization of state security has significant potential to create insecurity for other states, fostering global disorder.

Collective security is an institutionalized attempt to achieve global security. The logic of collective security is built on the Liberal premise that anarchy can be tamed through the institutionalization of peace. And the logic is persuasive – if all states promise not to use force and come to the aid of any victim of force, war will cease to exist. The first attempt at collective security was undertaken by the League of Nations in 1919 as a means of taming anarchy and war. However, this gambit failed with the outbreak of World War Two. In 1945, the UN also implemented collective security in its charter. It tried to overcome the failures of the LoN by giving the Great Powers a privileged position in the UN Security Council with permanent status and veto powers. However, the Cold War onset rendered the UNSC impotent as each side used the veto to protect their interests and that of their respective allies.

Constructivists suggest the idea of security communities as a means to overcome the Realist understanding of anarchy. For example, they contest the Realist view of global politics as a perennial security dilemma. They argue this only holds true if the parties involved see each other as enemies and believe that global politics is inherently conflictual. If, instead, actors can create shared norms of cooperation on security issues, it is possible to build security communities. Examples of security communities include the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or the EU.

Securitization theory stands as a robust critique of state security. It argues that actors, most often states, posit something as an existential threat to claim extraordinary powers. By so doing, the debate is moved out of ordinary politics and into the realm of emergency politics. As an emergency, the state can then define the threat and the appropriate response in the name of protecting the state, its citizens, or important cultural norms. The logic of securitization theory emerges from a Critical theory view of anarchy and security. From this approach, anarchy is a construct with allows the powerful to demonize the other and consolidate structural power and privilege for themselves.

Discursive practices of anarchy and security influence global order. Post-structuralists argue that many of the taken-for-granted assumptions about anarchy and security do the opposite – they create insecurity. For example, the balance of power discourse argues that security is possible if states check any increase in power by other states. But instead of fostering security, the balance of power discourse creates alliances that ratchet up tensions until there is a breaking point and increasingly destructive war. Moreover, discourses like the balance of power reinforce status-quo power relations, legitimate the privilege of the powerful, and offer no way out of the security dilemmas. Instead, Post-structuralists seek subjugated discourses that may offer a new way to foster peace, preferably while recognizing the majority world’s lived experiences.