Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics

TLDR

The debate between realists and liberals has resurfaced, focusing on whether anarchy and power distribution or interaction and learning shape state behavior. The study investigates whether anarchy compels states to pursue competitive power politics, whether international regimes can mitigate this logic, and which aspects of anarchy are fixed versus changeable.

Abstract

The debate between realists and liberals has reemerged as an axis of contention in international relations theory. Revolving in the past around competing theories of human nature, the debate is more concerned today with the extent to which state action is influenced by “structure” (anarchy and the distribution of power) versus “process” (interaction and learning) and institutions. Does the absence of centralized political authority force states to play competitive power politics? Can international regimes overcome this logic, and under what conditions? What in anarchy is given and immutable, and what is amenable to change?