Published Online:January 2025
Product Name:The IUP Journal of International Relations
Product Type:Article
Product Code:IJIR010125
DOI:10.71329/IUPJIR/2025.19.1.7-20
Author Name:Nawid Aria
Availability:YES
Subject/Domain:Arts and Humanities
Download Format:PDF
Pages:7-20
Anarchy, or the absence of centralized authority in the international system, is among the most contentious concepts in the theoretical studies of international relations. Thinkers adhering to various paradigms, ranging from Realism and Liberalism to the English School and Constructivism, have devoted significant intellectual efforts to this concept. Different scholars, depending on their philosophical inclinations in international relations, have offered diverse interpretations of this notion. Some scholars, such as realists and liberals, perceive anarchy as an objective reality independent of the perceiving agent or theorist of international relations, engaging in theoretical debates regarding the reduction of the impacts of the anarchic nature of the international system on the behavior of states and other actors in international relations. Others, inspired by post-positivist epistemological foundations, consider anarchy as a subjective and socially constructed concept, arguing for the possibility of overcoming what is referred to as the anarchic nature of the international system. Given the significance of this topic, the primary research question addresses whether it is possible to overcome the anarchic nature of the international system within the Constructivist framework. Utilizing a qualitative-analytical method and relying on library-based resources, this study briefly examines the theoretical origins of the Concept of Anarchy and evaluates the feasibility of overcoming the anarchic nature of the international system through a Constructivist approach, ultimately demonstrating that anarchy can be transcended.
Kenneth Waltz, the father of neorealism, argues that the structure of the international system originates from the interactions of states. He believes that this structure has both a guiding and a constraining effect on the agents we refer to as states