Anarchic Nature Of International Relations

Scholars have often remarked upon the anarchic nature of international relations as a key reason for war and conflict between nation-states. Hence, many have seen the United Nations (UN) as the international Leviathan, the central authority to bring order to the anarchy of international relations. According to Hobbes, in a traditional state of nature, all men must submit themselves to the authority of a central sovereign for order to come about. The effectiveness of this central authority would then be defined by the deference shown to it by its subjects, as well as its ability to regulate, police and to extract resources from its subjects. With these in mind, I am of the opinion that the UN has been largely incompetent as a central authority

Liberals argue that international institutions like the UN allow for a seemingly convenient platform for states to communicate directly with each other and on a global scale. Hence, cooperation will be fostered as common interests among states can be found such that the antagonistic nature of state relations prevalent in realism could be replaced with a more superficial one that is conducive to establishing world peace. Also, international institutions allow for collective security, where states do not respond unilaterally to an aggressor but “automatically join together to present the aggressor with the threat of overwhelming force”, and that victim states have the confidence that the international community will come to their aid. These arguments are supported by the fact that the UN consists of 193 member states, almost all the sovereign states in the world, all with representatives housed in a single General Assembly that would in theory allow for ease of communication and mutual understanding that would lead to greater cooperation. Also, regional groupings or more loosely based coalitions like the G77 have sprouted to enhance individual states’ negotiating position vis-à-vis the greater powers in the UN. Successful UN actions in Cambodia and in the first

While UN resolutions may hold great moral authority as one that is deliberated and agreed upon by the majority of the world’s states, it lacks legal authority as there is no set rule of law that gives the resolutions any legal bite behind the bark. As a result, the UN is unable to enforce that its member states follow the resolutions, nor is there any set punitive measures that the UN can bring upon any miscreants who choose not to abide by it. While the UN Charter appears to confer only to the UN a monopoly of coercive force in international society, in practice states still retain control over the use of force, resulting in the UN being unable to mobilise any forces to put teeth behind its resolutions. While Chapter 7, Article 43 of the UN Charter states that members have to “make available to the Security Council … armed forces, assistance, and facilities … necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security” , it merely suggests that the UN is reliant on its member states for its ability to project its power, and that the UN retains no forces of its own. Chapter 1, Article 2 of the Charter also reaffirms the sovereign equality of all states, as well as the UN’s non-interference in the domestic jurisdiction of member states ,