Anarchy Is What the Balance of Power Made of It: Two Core Concepts and the Public/Private Distinction in International Relations

Abstract

In this article, I question a familiar assumption in International Relations (IR): that the balance of power and anarchy are mutually reinforcing concepts. I argue instead that this relationship is neither natural nor necessary. Modern understandings of anarchy do not reflect timeless features of international politics, but are historically contingent outcomes of changes in how the balance of power concept itself has been understood and deployed. Drawing on conceptual history, I trace how the balance of power transitioned from a principle embodying Europe’s public interest in the eighteenth century to an expression of national rivalry and competitive self-interest in the nineteenth. This transformation was underpinned by a broader redefinition of the public/private distinction, which enabled states to be imagined as atomistic units operating in decentralized, market-like competition—what came to be seen as anarchy. By recovering the practical history of the balance of power, I reinterpret the genealogy of two foundational IR concepts and call for greater reflexivity about the analytical tools through which international relations are theorized.