Acceptance that there is anarchy in the global system | 承认全球体系处于无政府状态

📚 Acceptance that there is anarchy in the global system | 承认全球体系处于无政府状态

In the study of international politics, one of the most foundational assumptions is that the global system is anarchic. This does not mean chaos or disorder in the everyday sense, but rather the absence of a central authority that sits above sovereign states. Realist scholars in particular argue that accepting this structural condition is essential for understanding state behaviour, conflict, and the limits of cooperation. The following article examines the meaning of anarchy in international relations, explores its theoretical underpinnings, and evaluates how different schools of thought respond to this core concept.

在国际政治研究中，最具基础性的假设之一便是全球体系处于无政府状态。这里所说的“无政府”并非日常意义上的混乱或失序，而是指在主权国家之上不存在一个中央权威。现实主义学者尤其认为，接受这一结构性条件是理解国家行为、冲突以及合作限度的关键。本文探讨国际关系中无政府状态的含义，审视其理论基础，并评估不同思想流派如何回应这一核心概念。

1. Defining Anarchy in the Global System | 全球体系无政府状态的定义

In international relations, anarchy refers to the absence of a world government that can enforce rules and adjudicate disputes among states. Unlike domestic societies where a sovereign state holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, the international realm is a self-help system. States must rely on their own capabilities to ensure survival. This does not necessarily imply perpetual warfare; rather, it describes a condition in which no higher authority can prevent one state from attacking another.

在国际关系中，无政府状态指的是没有一个能够强制实施规则并裁决国家间争端的世界政府。与国内社会不同——那里主权国家垄断了合法使用武力的权力——国际领域是一个自助体系。各国必须依靠自身能力来确保生存。这并不必然意味着无休止的战争，而是描述了一种状况，即没有任何更高权威能够阻止一国攻击另一国。

2. The Realist Assumption of Anarchy | 现实主义对无政府状态的假设

Realism places anarchy at the very centre of international politics. Thinkers such as Hans Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz argue that because there is no overarching authority, states exist in a condition of permanent uncertainty about one another's intentions. This uncertainty compels states to prioritise security and power accumulation. For Waltz, anarchy is the ordering principle of the international system, equivalent to hierarchy in domestic politics. Accepting this reality is the first step toward a sober foreign policy.

现实主义将无政府状态置于国际政治的核心。汉斯·摩根索和肯尼思·华尔兹等思想家认为，由于没有最高权威，各国对彼此意图永远处于不确定状态。这种不确定性迫使国家将安全与权力积累置于首位。华尔兹认为，无政府状态是国际体系的排序原则，等同于国内政治中的等级制。接受这一现实是走向清醒外交的第一步。

3. The Security Dilemma | 安全困境

A direct consequence of anarchy is the security dilemma. When one state increases its military strength for defensive purposes, other states perceive this as a threat and respond by arming themselves in turn. Even purely defensive actions can escalate tensions and lead to arms races, mutual suspicion, and conflict. The security dilemma illustrates how anarchy can generate outcomes that no state desires, simply because the structure of the system makes trust exceptionally difficult.

无政府状态的一个直接后果是安全困境。当一国出于防御目的增强军事力量时，其他国家会将其视为威胁，进而也扩充军备。即使纯属防御性的行动也可能激化紧张局势，导致军备竞赛、相互猜疑乃至冲突。安全困境表明，无政府状态如何使体系产生各国均不乐见的结果，仅仅因为系统结构使得信任异常困难。

4. States as Unitary Actors in a Self-Help System | 自助体系中的单一行为体国家

Under anarchy, realism treats states as the primary, unitary actors. Domestic politics and individual leaders matter less than the structural pressures exerted by the anarchic environment. States are functionally similar in that they all seek survival. The self-help nature of the system means no state can depend on another for its security; alliances are always provisional and subject to shifting interests. Accepting this condition forces policymakers to plan for the worst while hoping for the best.

在无政府状态下，现实主义将国家视为主要的、单一的行为体。国内政治和个别领导人的影响远小于无政府环境所施加的结构性压力。各国在功能上是相似的，因为它们都追求生存。体系的自助性质意味着任何国家都不能依赖他国保障自身安全；联盟始终是临时的，并会随利益变化而转变。接受这一状况迫使决策者做最坏的打算，同时抱最好的希望。

5. Power Politics and the Balance of Power | 权力政治与均势

Anarchy naturally leads to power politics, where states measure influence in terms of material capabilities such as military and economic strength. To avoid domination by any single power, coalitions form to create a balance of power. This equilibrium is not designed by a benevolent planner but emerges from the self-interested actions of states. When the balance breaks down, major wars become more likely. Thus, anarchy does not preclude order, but order must be actively maintained through the distribution of power.

无政府状态自然导向权力政治，各国以军事和经济实力等物质能力来衡量影响力。为避免被任何单一强权主宰，国家会结成联盟，形成均势。这种平衡并非由某个善意的规划者设计，而是从国家的自利行为中产生。当均势瓦解时，大规模战争的可能性便会上升。因此，无政府状态并不排除秩序，但秩序必须通过权力分布来主动维护。

6. Liberalism and the Mitigation of Anarchy | 自由主义与无政府状态的缓和

Liberal internationalists do not deny that the system is anarchic, but they are more optimistic about the possibility of overcoming its worst effects. Through international institutions, economic interdependence, and the spread of democracy, states can develop habits of cooperation. Institutions provide information, reduce transaction costs, and create expectations of continued collaboration. The acceptance that anarchy exists is therefore not a reason to despair but a starting point for building a more orderly world.

广告 / Sponsored

自由主义国际主义者并不否认体系处于无政府状态，但他们对克服其最恶劣后果的可能性更为乐观。通过国际制度、经济相互依存和民主的扩展，各国可以形成合作的习惯。制度提供信息、降低交易成本，并创造持续协作的预期。因此，接受无政府状态的存在并非绝望的理由，而是构建更有序世界的起点。

7. Constructivism and the Meaning of Anarchy | 建构主义与无政府状态的含义

Constructivists, notably Alexander Wendt, argue that anarchy does not have a single, fixed logic. Instead, “anarchy is what states make of it.” The culture of an anarchic system can be one of enemies (Hobbesian), rivals (Lockean), or friends (Kantian), depending on the shared ideas and identities that states develop over time. Accepting the existence of anarchy is merely acknowledging the absence of central authority; it does not dictate hostile relations. State interests and identities are socially constructed, leaving room for change.

建构主义者，特别是亚历山大·温特认为，无政府状态并不具有单一、固定的逻辑。相反，“无政府状态乃国家所造就”。无政府体系的文化可以是敌人式的（霍布斯文化）、对手式的（洛克文化）或朋友式的（康德文化），这取决于国家间长期形成的共有观念和身份。接受无政府状态的存在仅仅是承认中央权威的缺失，并不决定敌对关系。国家利益和身份是社会建构的，因而留有变化的余地。

8. The Consequences of Accepting Anarchy | 接受无政府状态的后果

For realists, accepting anarchy implies a foreign policy based on prudence, national interest, and military preparedness. Moral crusades and over-reliance on international law are viewed with scepticism because, in a crisis, there is no enforcer. For critics, this acceptance can become a self-fulfilling prophecy: if states continuously act as though war is inevitable, they may create the very conditions they fear. Yet, ignoring the realities of anarchy can lead to unpreparedness and disastrous miscalculations.

对现实主义者而言，接受无政府状态意味着采取基于审慎、国家利益和军备备战的外交政策。对于道德远征和对国际法的过度依赖，他们持怀疑态度，因为在危机中并没有执行者。对批评者来说，这种接受可能成为一种自我实现的预言：如果各国持续表现得好像战争不可避免，它们可能真的制造出自己所恐惧的局面。然而，忽视无政府状态的现实则会导致准备不足和灾难性的误判。

9. Criticisms of the Anarchy Assumption | 针对无政府状态假设的批评

Several bodies of thought challenge the central role of anarchy. Marxist and dependency theorists stress global capitalism and class relations rather than the formal absence of a world state. Feminist scholars argue that realism’s anarchy narrative masks gendered power structures. Post-colonial perspectives highlight how the “anarchic” label has been used to justify intervention in the Global South. These critiques do not deny that the international system lacks a sovereign, but they question whether this fact alone explains global politics.

多种思想流派对无政府状态的核心地位提出挑战。马克思主义和依附论者强调全球资本主义和阶级关系，而非世界国家形式上的缺失。女性主义学者认为，现实主义的无政府叙事掩盖了性别化的权力结构。后殖民视角则指出，“无政府”标签如何被用来为干涉全球南方辩护。这些批评并不否认国际体系缺乏一个主权者，但质疑仅凭这一点是否能解释全球政治。

10. Anarchy and International Law | 无政府状态与国际法

Even in an anarchic system, international law exists and exerts a degree of influence. Treaties, conventions, and customary law shape state behaviour without a central enforcer. Mechanisms such as reciprocity, reputational concerns, and collective responses help sustain legal norms. The acceptance of anarchy does not mean rejecting international law; rather, it encourages a realistic assessment of its limits. Law can be a tool of power as well as a constraint on it.

即使在无政府体系中，国际法依然存在并发挥着一定程度的影响力。条约、公约和习惯法在没有中央执行者的情况下仍能影响国家行为。互惠、声誉关切和集体反应等机制有助于维持法律规范。对无政府状态的接受并不意味着拒绝国际法，而是鼓励对其局限性的现实评估。法律既可以是权力的工具，也可以是对权力的约束。

11. Anarchy in the Post-Cold War World | 冷战后的世界无政府状态

The end of the Cold War did not abolish anarchy, but it shifted the distribution of power from bipolarity to a more complex configuration. The rise of non-state actors, transnational threats, and digital warfare has led some to argue that the old anarchy framework is insufficient. Yet the fundamental condition remains: there is no world government. Accepting this enduring feature helps policymakers navigate an era of great-power competition, regional conflicts, and global governance gaps.

冷战的结束并没有消除无政府状态，而是将权力分布从两极转向更为复杂的格局。非国家行为体、跨国威胁和数字战争的兴起，使得一些人认为旧有的无政府框架已不充分。然而，根本状况依旧：没有一个世界政府。接受这一持久特征，有助于决策者驾驭大国竞争、地区冲突和全球治理缺失的时代。

12. Conclusion: Necessity of Acceptance | 结论：接受的必要性

Acceptance that there is anarchy in the global system is not fatalism. It is a clear-eyed acknowledgement of the structural constraints within which all foreign policy operates. This awareness encourages states to invest in military readiness, diplomatic relationships, and institutional frameworks that can manage conflict. Whether one leans towards realism, liberalism, or constructivism, grappling with anarchy is essential. The debate is not about whether anarchy exists, but about what we do in its shadow.

承认全球体系处于无政府状态并不是宿命论。它是对所有外交政策运作所面临的结构性限制的清醒认知。这种认知鼓励各国投资于军事准备、外交关系以及能够管控冲突的制度框架。无论人们倾向于现实主义、自由主义还是建构主义，认真对待无政府状态都至关重要。争论的焦点不在于无政府状态是否存在，而在于我们在其阴影下该做些什么。

Published by TutorHao | 数学 Revision Series | aleveler.com

更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）