Anarchy, understood as the absence of a supreme central authority in the international system, carries no intrinsic capacity to command, enforce, or direct. Consequently, its operative power is logically reducible to zero. Thus, “Anarchy = 0” expresses the principle that without a central authority, the international order is not empowered by any overarching source of coercion or governance.
If anarchy is defined as the absence of a central authority, then by definition it possesses no power of its own. In this sense, the power of anarchy is zero, since nothing exists above states to exercise or enforce authority at the global level.
You can visit the research that I shared just lately.
Your Nabil Hamidi explanation correctly highlights that in international relations, anarchy is characterized by the lack of a central governing authority. Because there is no overarching power to command or enforce rules across states, anarchy does not possess any inherent coercive power itself. This is why the concept is often summarized as “Anarchy = 0”—it signifies that the system's structure does not include a global authority with the capacity to enforce decisions or maintain order directly.
In this framework, the power or order within the international system emerges not from the existence of a central authority, but from the interactions, alliances, and self-help behaviors of sovereign states. The absence of a central authority means that each state must rely on its own resources and strategic considerations to ensure its security and interests, which leads to a system of decentralized power rather than one governed by a singular authority.
Reader response to your paper Nabil Hamidi
Your work presents a philosophical and scientific perspective on the concept of anarchy in international relations. It synthesizes insights from scholars like Waltz, Wendt, and Luhmann to argue that anarchy, defined as the absence of a central authority, leads logically to the conclusion that world power, in the absence of such authority, is effectively zero. The author emphasizes that this is a methodological and quantitative understanding, transforming traditional notions of anarchy into a precise axiom: without a master or central power, world power does not exist. The argument challenges the misconception that anarchy equates to chaos, instead framing it as a systemic condition where power is nullified by the lack of a singular authority.
You have to distinguish between positive and negative concepts. An-archy denotes an absence. The interesting thing about this is not the absence itself (or zero), but what takes place in the absence of 'archy'. We have to conceptualise this with more positive concepts, like mutual aid, DIY, equity, reciprocity, which denote the presence of some action or thing (rather than a lack). In other words, anarchy is permissive (zero is in this case a hugely powerful number), but what it is permissive of is determined by the actors and the culture of the society.
Thank you very much, Professor Prichard, for taking the time to reply. I greatly appreciate your thoughtful response.
When I write Anarchy = 0, I am not reducing anarchy to nothingness. The “0” here denotes the absence of a supreme central authority — the negative condition that defines anarchy. But this absence is not an endpoint; it is a baseline law. In mathematics, zero is not the destruction of value; it is the starting point from which values take shape.
Your point about positive concepts — mutual aid, reciprocity, equity, DIY — is precisely what follows from this baseline. Once we establish that anarchy = 0, we recognize that zero is permissive: it does not dictate what must emerge, but it sets the condition under which actors and societies generate positive or negative forms of order. In this way, the “0” does not deny agency; it compels us to theorize agency in the absence of archy.
So, the distinction between negative and positive concepts is not a rejection of the equation but its logical consequence. Zero (absence) creates the field of possibility, and agency fills it with determinate practices. What you are calling for — a theorization of mutual aid, equity, and other positive dynamics — is exactly what follows once the equation has fixed the baseline law of anarchy.
Again, thank you for taking the time to respond, especially given your busy schedule. I also want to take a moment to acknowledge the significance of your research and the valuable contributions it has made to the field. The research I am currently writing is something I would very much like to share more widely, and if you might be able to offer any guidance or support in helping me diffuse it, I would be truly grateful.
Best Regards,
Nabil.
Phd Candidate in IR and Diplomacy
- Badges
- Science topic