Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 19:34:53 -0500 (EST)

From: Jennifer Colleen Cookson <jcookson@umich.edu>

To: Pierre-Francois Landry <libite@umich.edu>

Subject: 4 hours of work:(

 

 

 

 

Anarchy is defined by Art and Jervis as the "absence of

government" and is "associated with the occurence of violence." Art and

Jervis give several historical examples of anarchy's association with

violence, which include the American Civil War, StalinUs purges of five

million Russians, and Hitler's extermination of six million Jews. Even

though these cases were episodes of violence, they do not satisfy the

absence of government requirement. Legitimate governments were operating

in all three cases, thereby nullifying their claim to anarchy. Anarchy

does not exist within states: it can only exist among them. The very

definition of a state implies that some form of government exists there;

this government lays claim to and upholds the state's borders.

International anarchy, however, is present because there is no supreme,

central power that governs the actions of sovereign states.

Anarchy's association with violence is at best a tenuous one.

Internationally, anarchy has, in some cases, resulted in violence, but

that does not necessarily mean that a lack of legitimate government

inevitably leads to violence. The international system offers countless

examples of this: states are not constantly at war with each other. In

fact, there has been less incidence of war as time has progressed. Most

of the violence that has occurred within the last century has been within

states themselves. Because all states have at least some form of central

government, violence that occurs within states cannot be a result of

anarchy.

Some might say that the United Nations is a central governing

power that polices the actions of states in the international system.

However, the fact that the UN depends on nations to volunteer for

membership means that it does not have total control over international as

well as intranational affairs. For instance, if the United States were to

withdraw from its membersip, the influence of the UN would sharply

decline. On the intranational level, IraqUs failure to comply with UN

sanctions further illustrates the UNUs limitations as a governing power.

Arguably, the only reason that the the UN is able to exert any sort

influence over Iraq is because of Iraq's fear of U.S. military power.

 

 

Jenny and Colby