International Relations Theory of War 37
international relations,^6 even if their conclusions concerning this assump-
tion are completely different. Anarchy has been assigned many definitions
in the theoretical research of international relations, two of which are more
central and prominent than the rest.
The first definition describes anarchy as chaos or lack of order and corre-
sponds with traditional realism. According to this definition, international
relations represent a pure conflict between states, international activity
that characterizes international relations is the war itself, and the inter-
national system is a chaotic scene of everyone fighting everyone.^7 Waltz
argues, in contrast, that when the equilibrium principle has a proper effect,
it grants order to the system by preventing war.^8 Robert Tucker also argues
that the history of the international system is a history of inequality and
unequal distribution of power to northern and southern countries forms a
hierarchy of relations that leads to an orderly system.^9 Hedley Bull argues
that order in the international society template has always existed in the
modern international system because the effect of common interests, laws,
and institutes has never ceased.^10 Studies that deal with international
regimes also state that the principles of order and society characterize
international politics and argue that international regimes also state that
the components of order and society characterize international politics
and assert that international regimes dictate and guide the behavior of
countries according to common norms and laws, and through the com-
mon norms and laws they result in obedient behavior.
According to another definition of anarchy, international politics lacks
an entity with central authority that is above individual countries, a body
that has sufficient power to pass laws and settle disputes, and which can
protect each of the countries from the others.^11 In the opinion of the sup-
porters of this definition, countries may assume obligations and agree-
ments, but no sovereign force can promise that they will follow them or
penalize their violators. Therefore, the absence of supreme power is the mean-
ing of the anarchic environment of international politics. This formula of
anarchy indicates nothing concerning the means that the important play-
ers constituting the system have when they try to advance their goals. It
only indicates that there is no supreme power that can prevent them from
using these means.^12
The definition of anarchy as a lack of a central government in the inter-
national system is more consistent with structural realism or neorealism
and is shared by most prominent contemporary realist theorists in inter-
national relations research.^13
Whereas there is consensus among researchers that anarchy is an
absence of regime or authority, there is no consensus concerning the
question of the meaning of a regime or authority. Waltz associates anar-
chy with a lack of a regime, and to him regime represents a monopoly
of legitimacy of using force.^14 For Martin Wight, the meaning of regime