Transcription
Hey everyone! Noah Zerbe here. This is one of a series of short videos where we introduce several foundational concepts to the study of international relations. This video specifically looks at anarchy and the security dilemma in international relations. So here we go!
Classical approaches to the study of international relations posit that the international system is defined above all by anarchy. That is to say, the international system is defined by the existence of sovereign states, each of which maintains a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within their territories, and each of whom is supposed to—at least theoretically—be free from external intervention from other actors within their sovereign boundaries. Within the domestic boundaries of the state, the government can enforce rules, adjudicate disputes, and maintain order. But who enforces decisions or agreements between states at the international level? The simplest answer is no one. Because states are sovereign, no higher authority with the capacity to enforce its decisions exists. States are thus often said to exist in a "self-help environment," meaning they must find ways to enforce agreements they entered into themselves. This is often described as a situation of anarchy.
As we'll see in a couple of weeks, the scope of that anarchy varies depending upon the specific countries, the issues, and perhaps most importantly, among the various theoretical approaches we might embrace. Different theoretical approaches to international relations argue that anarchy has different meanings and implications. But for now we'll just focus on the mainstream theories, which assert that the existence of anarchy in the international system compels states to behave in very particular ways. States are thus forced to behave in ways that reinforce their own security or that defend their own security. A state feeling threatened by its neighbors decides to expand its military spending. Other countries respond in a similar manner, increasing their own military spending, all because none of them can trust the other not to do so.
We can look at the security dilemma through this hypothetical example. Here a country is surrounded by neighbors whom it believes it cannot trust. Looking at its military—represented by the little triangles—country A quickly realizes that it would not be able to defend itself from its neighbors if they decided to attack. So it makes what it believes to be a rational decision. It increases military spending and builds new weapons. But of course, the neighbors see country A doing this, and they now feel as though they could not stand up to country A if it decided to attack them. So each of its neighbors makes an apparently rational decision to increase their own military spending in response, building new weapon systems for themselves. Each country expands its military. As a result, everyone is now spending more on their militaries, but no one feels any safer than they did before they increased spending—and indeed, because of the heightened tensions, most countries probably feel less secure than they did before they increased military spending. So was the decision to build more weapons or to increase military spending a rational one?
This hypothetical example I just gave is usually referred to as the "security dilemma." That is, the security dilemma is a situation in which actions taken by one state to increase their own security lead to responses by other countries which result in a decrease in security for the first state. For many IR scholars—particularly from the mainstream theoretical approaches—the security dilemma is a natural outgrowth of the condition of anarchy which they argue defines the international system. We can point to several historical examples of this, including the outbreak of World War One, where most countries did not want to go to war but were forced to do so because of feelings of insecurity resulting from the alliances formed by their neighbors. And more generally, the arms race is associated with the Cold War—to which we'll return in a few weeks.
So as I said, that's a very brief introduction to anarchy and the security dilemma. We'll come back to both of those concepts in a couple of weeks when we get to realism, neorealism, liberalism, and neoliberalism—the main theoretical approaches to IR. In the meantime, check out the other foundational videos, which look at topics like states, nations, collective goods, and levels of analysis.
Thanks everyone! Have a good day. Bye!