He's not a world's leader
but a leader of North Korea. (beloved?)
After cold war period in the world's stage there aren't only states as actors but also other players: multinational corporations like Nokia, human rights movements like Amnesty International, terrorist networks, organized crime, etc.
He's not a world leader. (beloved?)
But the structure of world politics is an anarchic system of states meaning that 1) there is no higher government over states and 2) it's a self-help system. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/staging_site/in_depth/georgia_russia_conflict/default.stm
"Anarchy in world politics" could be defined also, like a famous philosopher Thomas Hobbes did, as a war of all against all. That is, there's not higher ruler to enforce order. A good example about that kind of situation would be a town without a sheriff in the Old West or Somalia at present time. In Somalia nobody has a monopoly to keep in order as different clans and groups fight against each other.
So, if there is not the international police enforces sanctions against lawbreakers or states and political leaders, then world politics is a self-help system. And that's true because in international relations no one has a monopoly to use force. As a result, especially Great Powers such as China, US, Russia and some European countries, the governments don't trust each other and feel suspicion. In domestic politics, however, police and courts, by the government's power, can pass sanctions to lawbreakers and prevent their freedom to act.
Finally, althought political leaders and peoples have their right to self-determination, there is always possibility to intervene in other sovereign state's political system in world politics by the armed forces. It occurs due to anarchic system of states: look at Georgia, Iraq and Afghanistan! So, there are expectations to the rule: one hasn't right to intervene in the affairs of another state.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/12/2009121194338739472.html
1 comment:
Hi! First of all, excuse my bad english. I read your article and I found really interesting your approach to international politics through philosophy.
However, I would like to discuss some of your points: You said: "The concept 'anarchy', strictly speaking, means the absence of governments and rulers. But 'anarchy' doesn't mean total chaos because in international relations between countries chaos doesn't prevail but mostly order. That is, there is order in the political world due to the balance of power between states [...] The structure of world politics is an anarchic system of states meaning that 1) there is no higher government over states and 2) it's a self-help system." The concept anarchy does mean the absence of governments and rulers, but not because in the international politics "feels" like order prevail over chaos but because of it's concept: anarchy comes of the greek word αὐτάρκεια that means self-government. In the socratic interpretation of the word, 'anarchy' means self-government ruled by virtue (ethic). This characteristc we defenitely do not see it in the international politics field: the WWII is an excelent example. Virtue is not the ruler in the international politics, but the strongest: military or economic.
It's true that there is no higher ruler over nations, but it is not a self-help system, nor a self-governed (virtue) system.
You said also: "So, if there is not the international police enforces sanctions against lawbreakers or states and political leaders, then world politics is a self-help system. And that's true because in international relations no one has a monopoly to use force." It's true that there are no sanctions against politicat leadears in the international law, but that doesn't mean at all that it's a self-help system: what rules is not "mutual help" (as Kropotnik have wished), but the particular (let's say egocentric) interest of each nation. How this interest prevails over the interest of other nations? By the usage of the force (military or economic). So, there is actually a "monopoly" in the usage of the force: there are only 10-12 nations that has the enough force to imposed their will, and there are another 230 nations that do not have it.
Maybe the politics between those 10 or 12 nations could appear that order prevails over chaos (and even this is false, just remember history: WWII, WWI, europen wars of centuries XVIII-XIX etc., etc.); but definitively the politics that those nations have with the rest of the world is mostly unfair.
Perhpas, as an attemp of a conclution to my comment, I would like to say that 'anarchy' is the ideal of any government, it a situation where no government is needed, because there is no "infractions" to the law to be persecuted and punished. Furthermore, the "law" is not needed, because each individual has the capacity to avoid any harm to his neighbours. It's an ideal world, to which I add. But I disagree in your interpretation of international politics: there, egoism and force prevails, just like in the animal kingdome. Aristotle said: The human being is the best of the creatures in the Nature when is virtue, and the worst when is lawless and seeks it own benefit.
Post a Comment