James D Morrow’s Order Within Anarchy focuses on the effect international institutions and treaties on the behaviour of nation states on the battlefield. Morrow in his book follows the strand of the constructivist school of thought and focuses on the effect of common perceptions created by international treaties and laws on the behaviour of warring parties during battle.
According to the theory presented in the book, even though, international laws are practically unenforceable, ratification of those treaties do reveal the warring party’s preferences on battlefield. If the state intends and profits by abiding with the international laws of war, it ratifies relevant treaties if not, then the state intending to violate treaties will make it clear so by not ratifying the treaty. I.e. warring states already have their strategies lined up in advance, regardless of the presence of international institutions but, it is the act of ratifications of treaties that reveals a states intention and possible strategy during conflict. Therefore, giving states party to the relevant agreement significant clue about the non complying state’s intentions and possible strategies. Thus, allowing them to come up with strategies to effectively counter the war strategies of the non complying state. For example, disparate treatment of Prisoners of War (POW’s) by German army, by giving relatively humane treatment to soldiers of the countries that ratified treaties on POWs (USA, UK etc.) compared to soldiers of states that didn’t (Russia).
As the title of the book amply suggests, Morrow convinces the reader that laws relating to conduct during war do not disappear with the first shot fired on the battlefield. Morrows in the book convincingly sprouts the logic of constructivist school of thought within the broader realist framework that is governed by law of anarchy i.e. to “kill or be killed”. In the end, Morrow comes to a conclusion that International treaties are indeed effective in compliance of international agreements as it allows the states to deduce intentions and possible strategies during war of other states based on whether they sign international treaty or not. However, if there was a universal agreement to any international issue then it would be difficult to identify which states intends to violate the agreement since then, all the states would be party to the agreement regardless of their intention to abide by the agreement.
In the book Morrow uses game theory models and tries to predict the probability of the rate of compliance of warring parties during a battle.
The book uses the quantitative as well as qualitative data from World War one and World War two to confirm predictions made by the game theory models.
Based on his theory Morrow comes up with seven hypotheses and, these hypotheses are tested on three different scenarios, first: between warring parties second between soldiers and third the level of discipline in the militaries of warring parties. The book the uses the arguments derived from the game theory models in determining the the response of warring parties under different types of signed international treaties i.e. regarding prisoners of war(POW), chemical weapons, aerial bombing, submarine warfare etc.
Understanding Constructivism and International Relations
The theory of constructivism is not specifically an international relations theory. Constructivism deals interactions between agents/individuals based on the common understanding of circumstances and ideas thus leading to appropriate actions among the interacting agents.
In the society each individual action is influenced by either one’s personal or unique collective interests (monetary or other needs), ideas, culture, and society, therefore, constructivists analyse each scenario as unique and accordingly design and predict their strategies around it.
Social constructivists use the same methodology on a macro level to explain events in international relations. The theory of constructivism “focuses on the shared understanding of topics that shape social life and bring predictability to it”.
The social construction theory of international relations primarily revolves around the concept of agent-structure relationship or, in the words of Morrow, relationship between identity and norms.
According to constructivists every agent/ individual has some basic needs and identity. It is the structure in which an individual is born or lives that shapes his/her ideas, perception and the horizon of its interests which determines his behaviour and actions towards other individuals.
On a micro level the agent is an individual/person whereas the structure is a combination of family, society, culture, religion, nation state along with the norms and laws associated with them. Where the norms create a shared understanding about appropriate conduct and proper response towards inappropriate conduct. As a result, allowing individuals to justify their actions to other individuals. Whereas, identity is a unique set of qualities that makes a person distinct.
Anyhow, on the international level the agents are the individual states and the structure being anarchy. However, constructivist’s main argument is that the structure is what the agents make of it. Or in the words of Wendt “anarchy is what states make of it”, i.e. if the states decide to use the anarchical structure to work together then anarchy appears to be benign and cooperative. However, if the states choose to use the nature of anarchy for conflict then the nature of anarchy is cruel and conflict prone. Alternatively, it is not only that the structure/norms shape an agent’s identity, but the nature of the structure is determined by what that agents/individuals regard it to be.
To make things clearer, the main difference between a nation state and international system is that of binding authority and anarchy. However, as argued above the nature of the structure is what agents make it to be and, the same arguments fit not only in anarchy but also within a nation state. The most obvious example being, when an individual decides to disregard a state’s authority by breaking the laws and committing crime.
Morrow in his book epitomises the crux of the constructivist school of thought by demonstrating the interaction between the agent and the structure in three different scenarios during war. Moreover, these three scenarios also give us better understanding of the dynamics of the everyday life and the world in general.
The three different scenarios during a conflict that Morrow mentions is that of between warring parties, between soldiers and, the level of discipline in the militaries of warring parties. These three scenarios can be witnessed at a nation level as well as, at a much micro level in that of societies, families etc.
The first two scenarios being the most obvious and, that of interaction among citizens and interaction among states, a much more everyday example would be that of interactions within and among the families. The same way, parallels of the agent principle problem could be drawn between military discipline and state education policy or parents disciplining children. Every state wants its citizens to abide by the countries’ culture, ideas, norms and laws and behave in a certain manner not only, to promote cooperation but also to some extent predict any future unwanted behaviour of the population and, based on this idea the state designs school curriculums or censor policies. The same is with parents, specially when parents discipline their children to discourage destructive behaviour which in return save them from potential financial harm and public embarrassment. And just as the soldiers have their personal temptations and motivations to disregard the authority, so do normal citizens and children in general.
Constructivism seems to the perfect theory that could provide explanation for any social phenomenon however, it is only limited to explaining events ex-post facto and not predicting it. Mainly because of constructivism’s primarily reliance on constantly changing norms and unique identities which makes it extremely difficult to predicts possible events. That might be one of the reasons why states frequently revise their school curriculums and education policies.
The same could be implied when Morrow compares the norms and behaviour of states and soldiers during the World Wars to that of Prisoners of Wars(POWs). Mainly because of the changing nature/norms of conflict, today, there are less interstate conflicts and more conflicts between non state actors and, these non state actors don’t have a rank and a serial number to be registered under the laws for POWs.
So far it could be argued that constructivism is unable to make long term predictions based just on norms. Also norms differ from region to region and therefore, behaviour or appropriate conduct acceptable in one part of the world might be offensive in other regions of the world. As a result, explanations or justifications based on norms cannot be universal in nature.
Furthermore, even though abiding by the prevalent norms makes interaction among the agents easier however, it is no guarantee that most of the agents would abide by even the most prevalent and socially entrenched norms all the time (the Milgram experiment being the most citied example for this case). And as a result limiting the accuracy of even short term predictions. In addition, explanations based on constructivist school of thought becomes seemingly impossible when considering, multitude of norms coupled with infinite combinations of identities by factoring in ever changing nature of norms and identities. However, the last limitation can be ignored as it stands true to all the theories since, theories are meant to be mere simplification of a specific reality and therefore shouldn’t expected to be perfect in every possible details. In the first few chapters of the book Morrow identify these limitations and rightly cautions in taking the results of his game theory models as absolute.
Order within Anarchy
Morrow in his book bases his arguments on the concept of ‘common conjecture’ i.e. “How the actors understand and anticipate one another’s strategy and so know that their own strategy is what they should do”.
In other words, common conjecture is the common understanding of a particular scenario or game that help the parties to calculate and predict possible moves and outcomes.
The common understanding of rules in social scenarios are the norms. However, in the book Morrow’s primary focus is on the laws of war codifying the norms. Even though, Morrow initially talks about norms however, as the book continuous he starts focusing on laws only. Nonetheless, it is justifiable since norms varies from country to country and, culture to culture, made obvious by the first example in the book regarding the different perception of Japanese and allied soldiers of wounded soldiers during the Second World War. Also written laws provide clear understanding of the rules of the game (common conjectures) to all the parties party as well as not party to an agreement.
Throughout the book Morrow relies on the laws of war created under Hague convention 1907 as a set standard for the behaviour of warring parties while giving empirical evidence for his game theoretic models. Also it is on the basis of these laws Morrow builds game theoretic models (iterated game theory models and Nash equilibrium) and predicts possible strategies of the warring parties based on the strategic expectations created by common conjectures created by warring parties’ ratification of a treaty.
Morrow’s main focus of identity is that of social role. In the context of this book the identity is that of a soldier as well as the national identity and structure that being of a battlefield. According to Morrow “laws of war and the social laws created in the protection of laws either limits or encourages soldier’s actions on the battle field. Since norms are a shared understanding they also provide justifications for actions.” Identity of a soldier and structure of a battlefield justifies an individuals’ action to kill, which would be a crime in peaceful civilian structure. However, the situation completely changes when the structure is replaced from battlefield to a soldiers’ own military. The level of camaraderie (norms) instilled in soldiers could motivate a soldier to sometimes act against one’s own interest for example, by taking bullet to save a fellow soldier.
The focus of this book is on cooperation among warring parties based on the common conjectures and strategic expectations created by international laws and treaties among the warring parties during war.
The main aim of international laws pertaining to war is to restrict violence during battles. “The laws of war limit battlefield violations in two ways; first by limiting the use of certain weapons for example chemical weapons, submarine warfare etc. And second, by protection of civilians, prisoners of wars(POWs), cultural sites etc. However, it is extremely difficult to implement theses laws specially when a states are disinterested in abiding by the laws in the first place. Thus leading to deliberate violations and opportunistic to gain supremacy on the battlefield. Second, it is difficult to limit individual violations by soldiers, which has a potential to spiral down and lead to full scale ceasefire violations. Third, is the issue of “noise”, a soldier or states action could be misinterpreted by the enemy and therefore could lead to violence regardless of the laws put in place to prevent violence in the first place.
Therefore, since, universal ratification and implementation of treaties is practically impossible thus, ratification of international treaties help create strategic expectations among states and soldiers regarding the enemy’s conduct and behaviour during battlefield. States that profit from limited violations and specific conduct on battlefield would be more likely to ratify a treaty. Whereas a state that would prefer from violations would show its intent in the beginning by not ratifying the treaty and, therefore being more likely to commit violations during the battle.
The core arguments and findings the book could be summarised using three separate models on the basis of the above mention scenarios.
Between individual soldiers
According to Morrow’s argument the motivations of individual soldiers to commit or not commit violations is motivated by either temptation i.e. to loot, rape etc., or vulnerability i.e. the probability of the other side committing violations. Higher the temptations, higher the soldier’s motivations to commit violations and the same way higher the vulnerability higher the probability of preventive violations. As per the matrix models used in the book, anticipatory violations i.e. violations when vulnerability is high is much more common than violations as the result of temptations. Because it is much more justifiable to break the law to save one’s own life than to violate an agreement for one’s personal material gain.
Violations are much more likely to take place when vulnerability is high with sufficient temptations. Violations are less likely to occur when one side complies and the other side commits low levels of violations.
Military Discipline
Morrow explains the dynamics of military discipline via the agent principle problem. Where the principle wants its agents to do something that it desires.
In this case agents are the individual soldiers and principle is the central authority like the state or high ranking military officers. In this scenario states want their soldiers to abide by the treaties of war since, it would benefit the state to comply with the treaty. However, it must also be realised that the individual soldiers also have their own incentives like temptations or vulnerability.
If the state or principle benefits from violations of the agreement, it simply won’t sign the agreement giving its soldiers clear message and encouraging them to violate agreements. In similar cases soldiers could also be specifically trained and instructed to violate certain codes of war which the other party has ratified. However, if a state benefits by ratifying a treaty and therefore intends to abide by it, the principle chooses to spend more on monitoring its agents. Higher the cost of discipline and monitoring, less likely the agents are to commit violations.
The situation could also be interpreted vice versa, since the higher cost of monitoring could discourage the principle to discipline and monitor its agents, then it becomes against the interest of the state to violate the agreement.
The cost of monitoring is the highest on an individual level where, individual soldiers have to take split second decisions. On the other hand, cost of monitoring is the lowest when the agents are centrally located like in the case of chemical weapons.
Every thing else that involves discretion of some officers and not all individual soldiers like war ships, submarines and bomber aircrafts requires medium level of monitoring and therefore medium cost.
State to state compliance
The likeliness of a state committing violations depends upon the cost inflicted by the violation compared to the increased chances of winning.
If the cost of violations is higher than the benefits of winning, the state would refrain from committing violations. If the state benefits from committing violations it would do so in the beginning. However, if the state sees no incentive in committing violations in the beginning then the winning side would do so in the end.
There are three scenarios to the game. In the first scenario, no side commits’ violations. In the second scenario one side benefits from the violation and the other side doesn’t.
In the third scenario both side commit violations. These scenarios are almost similar to game theory models with a difference that if one side commit violations there is an extremely high probability that the other side would respond in kind.
Conclusion
James D Morrow’s Order within Anarchy gives a much needed insight of the decision making process during war. Morrow follows the theory of constructivism and tries to explain the behaviour and logic behind the decision making process during war at both micro and macro level, i.e. between individual soldiers and states.
Morrow recognises the limitation of norms in determining a state’s behaviour and therefore focuses on international laws that codify norms in determining common conjectures among states and, based on this understanding Morrow determines actions of agents based on game theory logics.
In conclusion Morrow recognises the limitations of enforcing international treaties and argues that, either ratification or non-ratification international laws and treaties help determine which states intend’s to violate international laws of war. And universal ratification of treaties would make it difficult to determine a state’s intention.
Biblography
The globalization of world politics: an introduction to international relations. New York, N.Y., Oxford University Press.
Order within Anarchy: The Laws of War as an International Institution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. 240 pp.
http://www.e-ir.info/2011/02/03/constructivism-an-introduction/
Comments