Review of Richard Ashley’s ‘‘Untying the Sovereign State: A Double Reading of the

Anarchy Problematique,’’

In his article, ‘‘Untying the Sovereign State: A Double Reading of the Anarchy
Problematique,’’ Richard Ashley highlights a recent, and different version of the debate
surrounding anarchy. He does this through demystifying the tension between interdependency
and sovereignty. This tension consists of the fact that, on the one hand, contributions to the
discourse view states as interdependent (meaning that they cannot operate alone and need
each other to achieve goals), but on the other hand there is the view that states are sovereign
and make decisions in their own interests. The tension lies in the fact that if states are
interdependent, then cooperation would be a logical step, but if they follow their interests,
then competition seems more likely. Thus, what Ashley investigates is how the tension
between interdependency and sovereignty came to be recognized as a useful representation of
international relations.

Ashley’s argument that the discourse on anarchy undermined itself through the
“heroic practice” makes sense, as it is this heroic practice that creates a hierarchical
opposition, and a choice between two alternatives in which one is better than the other, for
example: sovereignty (order) vs. anarchy (disorder). Ashley here made a reference to a strong
point which is the distinction between theories of IR, and how we are somehow forced to
adopt one view or the other. He regards this choice to be a ‘blackmail of the heroic practice’.

Ashley has opened up new ways of inquiry through the use of a double reading of ‘the
anarchy problematique’. The first reading is monological, where an objective and core
meaning is adopted. In this reading, theorists of the anarchy problematique must assume that:
(1) the state is an entity that is capable of recognizing its own interests (2) cooperation is seen
as an adjustment to the interests of other actors (3) conceiving anarchy as a dangerous
situation, where each follows their own interests without regard for others. Ashley believes
that the heroic practice lies at the heart of these assumptions, as there is a preference of
sovereignty over anarchy, because the latter is considered to be an inescapable fact. The
monological explanation replicates the fact that the heroic practice leaves us with only two
options (either sovereignty or anarchy). So, Ashley uses the monological reading to
undermine the heroic practice, and the way it affects discourse. However, I think that a fair
criticism could be attributed to Ashley’s reliance on a very one-dimensional view of realism
and liberalism, to which not all actual scholars accommodate.
 In the dialogical reading, Ashley came up with two images, a ‘lateral image’ where
the state is distinguished, because it has access to compulsive means, including the use of
violence, the ability to use economic resources and the restriction to a territory. The second
image is a ‘vertical image’ which represents the non-state actors. This image reflects the fact
that there are aspects that diminish the importance of states, and give the non-state actors a
greater flexibility, because the scientific and technological progress depends on virtual
communication which transcends the physical boundaries of the state. Moreover, economic
flows are mostly global. So, the difference between the lateral and vertical images reveals that
the boundaries of state and the nature of sovereignty are not defined or fixed. I think Ashley’s
point is very strong and valid here, because a nationalist movement for instance, would be
able to impose more of the vertical image on the state, which will make international
cooperation very difficult, and unlikely. I think what the anarchy problematic reveals is that it
is very difficult to decide on what is included and what is excluded when we talk about ‘the
state’, because non-state actors cross this boundary, and the same applies to distinguishing
between the order inside the state and the anarchy outside it.

Ashley presents ‘the anarchy problematique’ with many different sides and nuances for
the purpose of opening up new ways of thinking, as through rejecting the heroic practice, it
might be possible to come up with a different theoretical view, and perhaps new practices
could be possible. A potential criticism, however, is the lack of examples or evidence that this
way of thinking helps us understand IR better on a practical level, which doesn’t seem to be
Ashley’s intention to accomplish.

.
 Bibliography

Ashley, K. Richard. “Untying the Sovereign State: A double Reading of the Anarhcy
Problematique.” Journal of International Studies 17, no 227 (1988):
http://mil.sagepub.com/content/17/2/227