Blog Post | International Society and Uncertainty in International Relations
The ongoing conflicts between the United States and its allies and Russia and between the United States and its allies and China reflect both the anarchical nature of the international system and the uncertainty with which decision-makers and diplomats have to deal with in attempting to solve the conflicts peacefully.
Uncertainty is not only a feature of an anarchical international system, but also a characteristic of diplomacy involving actors with different cultures and ideologies. The aforementioned conflicts exemplify this. Notwithstanding the intrinsic cases of the parties to those conflicts, the ideological and cultural gaps tend to enhance the uncertainty entailed in them.
Beyond anarchy, the main obstacle to international stability is uncertainty. Indeed, in a way it could be said that what defines international relations is not just the anarchical nature of the international system, but the uncertainty dominating it.
The primary aim of international actors is not to deal with the anarchy at the international system level, but to cope with the prevailing uncertainty in international relations. The first is, after all, an abstract systemic feature whereas the latter is an immediate policy challenge.
The existence of an international society, with shared norms and interests, helps reduce the degree of uncertainty prevailing in the international system. The greater the congruence of norms and interests among international actors the lower the degree of uncertainty prevailing in the international system. Indeed, the more normatively cohesive such an international society is the less adverse are the repercussions of uncertainty in it.
The benefits of a balance-of-power system such as the ones that prevailed prior to the French Revolution and subsequent to its demise is the reduced level of uncertainty in international relations deriving from agreed upon rules and common expectations. It is not just the written agreement or covenant that lowers the level of uncertainty in international relations, but the implicit understanding regarding the acceptable mode of conduct by members of an international society.
This is the advantage in this regard of the Democratic Peace Theory, which suggests that stable parliamentary democracies do not engage in war with each other. Stable parliamentary democracies, sharing the same political culture, are able to lower the level of uncertainty in their relationship, ensuring a more stable bilateral and multilateral interaction on that account. In this case, reduced uncertainty is not circumstantial, but an inherent feature of those relationships.
The cause of the Democratic Peace Theory is related to the nature of the internal political system and the prevailing political culture; the result is a reduced level of uncertainty leading to an increased degree of stability.
The Democratic Peace Theory in this context can be regarded as a form of a cohesive international society of shared norms and interests founded upon a common political culture.
In a sense, what the balance-of-power system prevailing prior to the French Revolution and following Napoleon’s downfall and the Democratic Peace Theory have in common is the shared assumptions among the international actors concerned.
Shared assumptions as to the meaning of messages exchanged between two parties ipso facto reduces the level of uncertainty; a common political culture considerably enhances the chances of understanding and the consequent probability of reduced uncertainty.
Disparity as to the meaning of messages increases the level of uncertainty in a bilateral relationship. As the gap between the intention of A and the interpretation of B widens so does the level of uncertainty in their relationship. In other words, what matters in particular in this regard is not the message itself but the intention of the party delivering the message and the interpretation of the party receiving it; the wider the gap between the two, the higher the level of uncertainty. Thus, beyond common interests and norms, a shared world-view or cultural background may reduce the chances of misunderstanding and thus subsequently of uncertainty.
An international society with shared norms and interests has the advantage of reducing the level of uncertainty in the international system. The actors within it shape decisions based on common assumptions.
It is the nature of such an international society that uncertainty is reduced, though conflicts still prevail. Shared interests and norms help reduce the level of uncertainty by setting a framework within which differences and even conflicts take place.
An international society is not characterized by the lack of conflicts, but by the mode in which those conflicts are handled, the manner by which they are settled.
The effects of a cohesive international society are cyclical: The less uncertain the conditions in the international system are, the less nebulous reality becomes for the decision-maker. The less nebulous reality becomes for the decision-maker, the less uncertain the conditions in the international system are.
These conclusions suggest that facing current conflicts, such as those besetting the United States and Russia and the United States and China, calls for reducing uncertainty. The difficulty entailed in that might be the lack of a common, cohesive normative framework. However, this should not necessarily preclude the achievement of a mutually-acceptable modus-vivendi based on a shared perception of the perils involved in the current conflicts.
Dr. Yoav J. Tenembaum is a lecturer at the School of Political Science, Government and International Affairs at Tel Aviv University. He holds a D.Phil in Modern History from Oxford University (St.Antony’s College) and an M.Phil in International Relations from Cambridge University (St.Edmund’s College). A book by Yoav J. Tenembaum, Turning Points in the History of International Relations, 1908-2008, was published this year in the UK.