Domestic Analogy in International Theory



Domestic Analogy in International Theory

Introduction

The central body of international relations theory is upside down. Serve the State, not the individual. It disregards the basic fact that the State administers human lives, to the same extent that political theory disregards the fact that individual human beings manage their members and cells. (Allain, n.d) Thus, the state becomes an anthropomorphic monster is an end in itself, and the logical structure of the theory acquires an authoritarian bias, and that unintentionally encourages the State to use its “parts” (individuals) with same “freedom” that the individual uses his arms. (Suganami, 1989)

The policy implication of the theory does not automatically translate into foreign policy or defense, and often lack practical purposes. However, others often have such consequences, and that is why the claim that ill-conceived theories can have disastrous practical consequences has become a cliché of international relations theorists (Mitzen, 2006). For realistic theory the problem of policy implications is especially serious, because realism combines state-centrism fallacious around the central body of theory with an obsession with the political-military and “security” (which is relatively foreign to interdependence theorists, institutionalists or “liberal”). This realism makes the approach potentially worse from a citizen-centric view that the theoretical paradigm that opposes it in the body of the Anglo-American theoretical thinking (Lakem, n.d.).

Discussion

The “anarchy” in Hedley Bull as an ideological construct serves the interests associated with state sovereignty. As we have seen, the concept of anarchy as applied to such relevant dimensions of the structure of the interstate system as peace and security, can easily lead to policy errors, especially in the case of peripheral states. But this is not the only relevant consequence of its application. It has also been suggested that the very conception of the interstate system as consisting of similar units (“like units”) without functional differentiation is itself an ideological construct that helps consolidate an interstate system based on the fiction of “nationality” and sovereignty (Allain, n.d).

It is simply false to say that states are equally soberanos46. A permanent member of the Security Council with veto power and legally established right to own and develop nuclear weapons is more sovereign than Belgium. A notion binary (yes-no) of sovereignty, which ignores these realities, it is more than a legal fiction and politics. It does not fit in political science. The “sovereignty” as property that is allocated identically to all States, which is as traditionally understood, is a myth of the same caliber as the “nationality”, when it is assumed that this corresponds indiscriminately to all internationally recognized states - “nationally” (Bull, 1995).

By the way, while intended to be “scientific” and political and philosophical biases go unnoticed, the international relations theory is essentially an ideology (and its central body is part of the ideology of nationalism). Everything said in this chapter about the hierarchy of world order is the knowledge of the vulgar. However, the theoretical construct their concept of “anarchy” because they choose to emphasize the aspects anarchic interstate system instead of ...