Anarchic Societies And Their International Law Engagement

Anarchy, in political science and the study of international relations, refers to the absence of any authority superior to a nation-state. It is derived from the ancient Greek root anarchos, meaning without authority. In an anarchic state, there is no superior, coercive power that can enforce law or resolve disputes. While anarchy is often contrasted with law, order, and security, anarchist societies need not be lawless. They can develop complex legal systems that regulate behaviour and protect rights. International law is an example of a consensual legal system that has developed in an anarchic world. This raises the question: can anarchic societies engage with international law?

Anarchist societies and the law

In political science and the study of international relations, anarchy is understood as the absence of any authority superior to a nation-state. It is derived from the ancient Greek "anarkhia", meaning "without authority". In an anarchic state, there is no superior, coercive power that can enforce law or resolve disputes.

Anarchist societies, or societies that lack a monopoly of coercive force, need not be lawless. They can develop complex legal systems that regulate the behaviour of their members and protect their rights. These can include first-order rules that limit the way in which individuals can harm each other, and second-order rules about how to make, change, interpret, and apply first-order rules. They can also develop institutions such as courts and legislative assemblies to administer and enforce the rules.

International law is an example of a consensual legal system that has developed in an anarchic world. Some scholars, especially those associated with the liberal approach to international relations, believe that anarchy can be overcome through international institutions such as the United Nations (UN) and through the widespread acceptance of international law. However, realists argue that the UN, in its current form, is incapable of fulfilling this promise as it has no coercive power independent of the major powers. They argue that the prevalence of anarchy in the state system requires individual states to be ruthlessly self-seeking, and that war, or the threat of war, is the primary means by which states under anarchy resolve conflicts.

Anarchism often sets itself against the law, but the values inherent in law can be strongly aligned with those championed by anarchism. For example, individuals in an anarchist society can exercise their rights of association and dissociation to form communities with varying institutional arrangements and political organisations, which are constrained by a principle of mutual toleration.

International law as an anarchist legal system

Anarchy is often contrasted with law, order, or security. However, anarchist societies, or societies that lack a monopoly of coercive force, need not be lawless. They can develop sophisticated legal systems that regulate the behavior of their members and protect their rights.

International law is an example of a consensual legal system that has developed in an anarchic world. In the absence of a global leviathan, states and non-state agents have created legal rules from the ground up via multilateral and bilateral treaties that mainly apply with state consent. International law relies on multiple regional and international courts to settle disputes, and assemblies of state parties can make and change rules. Consent plays a critical role in its operation.

Anarchist law is a term used to describe the apparent norms regarding behavior and decision-making operative within an anarchist community from a law-normative viewpoint. Anarchist philosophy includes the "ethic of reciprocity", but typically condones violence intended to retaliate against or dismantle systems of oppression. Anarchist communities must find an alternative basis for setting the rules of engagement within a collective. Therefore, virtually all anarchist legal models assume that whatever rules are set in place must be freely agreed upon by the entire community that is to be governed by them in a setting free from coercion or intimidation.

Anarchist societies can develop first-order rules that set limits on how individuals can inconvenience and harm each other, and second-order rules about how to make, change, interpret, and apply first-order rules. They can also develop sophisticated institutional machinery, such as courts and legislative assemblies, whose role is to administer and enforce the rules.

In conclusion, international law can be viewed as an anarchist legal system, as it operates in an anarchic world, relies on consent, and has developed in the absence of a global sovereign.

Anarchy and sovereignty

In the context of international relations, anarchy refers to the absence of any authority superior to nation-states, capable of enforcing international law and arbitrating disputes. This does not mean that anarchy necessarily leads to chaos and disorder; instead, it is the starting point for various paradigms of international relations, including realism, neoliberalism, and constructivism. Realists, for instance, argue that in an anarchic system, states are the main power players and must rely on themselves for security, leading to a "security dilemma" or "spiral of insecurity".

Anarchist societies, however, need not be lawless. They can develop sophisticated legal systems that regulate behaviour and protect the rights of their members. These can include first-order rules that govern interactions between individuals, and second-order rules that govern the creation, interpretation, and application of the first-order rules. Anarchist societies can also establish institutions such as courts and legislative assemblies to administer and enforce these rules. International law itself is an example of a consensual legal system that has emerged in an anarchic world.

The relationship between anarchy and sovereignty is complex. Sovereignty, as established by the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, implies that all nations have the right to govern themselves without interference. However, accepting the sovereignty of every nation also means rejecting the idea of a global sovereign with the power to control nations' actions. This presents a challenge to the enforcement of international law, as there is no supra-state actor capable of enforcing it. As a result, institutions such as the UN, International Court of Justice, and International Criminal Court struggle to be effective, as their decisions are not always respected by sovereign nations.

Anarchy and international institutions

Anarchy and international law are not necessarily mutually exclusive concepts. In political science and the study of international relations, anarchy refers to the absence of any authority superior to a nation-state with the power to enforce international law. This does not mean that anarchy signifies a world in chaos, disorder, or conflict, but rather that there is no overarching power to enforce rules of conduct between states.

Anarchist societies, therefore, can develop their own legal systems and institutions to regulate behaviour and protect the rights of their members. These societies, which lack a monopoly of coercive force, can establish first-order rules that govern how individuals can interact with each other, and second-order rules about how to create, interpret and apply these rules. They can also develop institutional machinery such as courts and legislative assemblies to enforce these rules.

International law, in this sense, can be seen as an example of a consensual legal system that has developed in an anarchic world. While there is no world government, individual states can agree to recognise and abide by international laws in their dealings with each other. Most states obey most agreed rules of international law most of the time. However, the challenge comes when disagreements arise, as there is no overarching power to enforce rules or resolve disputes. This often results in states resorting to force or the threat of force, whether through economic sanctions or military intervention.

Some scholars, particularly those associated with the liberal approach to international relations, argue that anarchy can be overcome through international institutions such as the United Nations (UN) and through the widespread acceptance of international law. However, realists counter that the UN, in its current form, is ineffective in fulfilling this role as it has no coercive power independent of the major powers. They argue that anarchy in the international system requires individual states to be ruthlessly self-seeking, as there is no supra-state actor capable of enforcing international law, leading to a "security dilemma" where states are forced to constantly compete for power.

Anarchy and international relations theory

In international relations theory, anarchy refers to the idea that the world lacks any supreme authority or sovereignty. Derived from the ancient Greek "anarkhia", meaning "without a leader", anarchy is widely accepted as the starting point for international relations theory. The term signifies the absence of a ruling authority and the disorder that arises from the lack of such an authority.

Anarchist societies, or societies that lack a monopoly of coercive force, need not be lawless. They can develop complex legal systems that regulate the behaviour of their members and protect their rights. These societies can have first-order rules that set limits on how individuals can harm each other, and second-order rules about how to create, change, interpret, and apply these rules. They can also develop institutions such as courts and legislative assemblies to administer and enforce the rules.

International law is an example of a consensual legal system that has developed in an anarchic world. While international institutions like the United Nations (UN) exist, they lack coercive power independent of the will of the major powers. The enforcement of international law is an issue in an anarchic international system, as nations prioritise their sovereignty. For example, China disregarded the ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which found that its claim to the South China Sea had no legal basis. This illustrates how international law is subservient to the interests of sovereign nations.

Realists, a prominent school of thought in international relations theory, argue that the prevalence of anarchy in the state system requires individual states to be ruthlessly self-seeking. They believe that stronger military power will lead states to their ultimate goals, and that in an anarchic system, war is normal. Realists assert that international anarchy fosters competition and conflict among states and inhibits their willingness to cooperate.

Frequently asked questions