Files
Abstract
The dissertation applies Alexander Wendt's cultures of anarchy analytical framework to examine the role of anarchy on the state level as a determinant of violent political conflict--including international conflict as well as domestic political violence--and offers a model linking domestic and international conflict. The theory advanced in this paper holds that perceptions of international anarchy, beliefs in the appriopriateness and efficacy of the use of force, and decisions on the use of force in reaction to other actors' actions are influenced by the nature of the domestic culture of anarchy and the degree of self-help characterizing interactions on sub-state level. The nature of these interactions forms deeply seated heuristics which are then applied to interactions with international actors. As a result, the effect of the international anarchy is not fixed, as predicted by structural realists, nor is it as flexible as the Wendt's formulation that "anarchy is what states make of it" suggests. Decision makers' perceptions of other international actors and their intentions are influenced by perceptions of the nature of other domestic actors and interactions. States characterized by a greater degree of "self-help" on the domestic level are more likely to perceive the international system as being "self-help" as well, and act accordingly, whereas states with low level of "self-help" similarly do not perceive the international system as a threatening environment. The results indicate that anarchy is an efficient predictor of international conflict initiation on both monadic and dyadic levels of analysis, much more than is regime type or state capabilities. In fact, it would appear that the pacifying effect often attributed to democracy is instead caused by the domestic culture of anarchy. The findings also suggest that conflict initiation is a tempting policy option for governments that lack legitimacy due to their inability or unwillingness to provide public goods for their citizens. These findings have far-reaching implications for a number of theories of international relations, including democratic peace and diversionary war, and provide a novel insight into decision-making processes. In addition, they raise questions concerning the possibility that globalization processes may lead to an increase of conflict.