Despite penning nearly 2000 pages on international politics, the works of the anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon simply do not feature in either the historiography or the study of contemporary IR theory. I argue that this is unjustified by illustrating his compelling and enduring insights into the history and nature of `the international'. Proudhon employed a sociological and psychological theory of justice; he saw war and conflict as the motors of change in society; and he saw order as emergent from the deep anarchy of (global) society. The paper provides a contextualised reading of his works to illustrate its historical importance, and demonstrates its potential to contribute to current IR theory through a comparison with contemporary Critical Theory. `As man seeks justice in equality, so society seeks order in anarchy.' `Man's belligerent nature is all that saves him from despotism.'

Modern International Relations theory has consistently underestimated the depth of the problem of anarchy in world politics. Contemporary theories of globalisation bring this into bold relief. From this perspective, the complexity of transboundary networks and hierarchies, economic sectors, ethnic and religious ties, civil and cross-border wars, and internally disaggregated and transnationally connected state actors, leads to a complex and multidimensional restructuring of the global, the local and the uneven connections in between. We ought to abandon the idea of 'high' and 'low' politics, 'inside' and 'outside' once and for all. This does not remove the problem of anarchy but rather deepens it, involving multidimensional tensions and contradictions variously described as 'functional differentiation', 'multiscalarity', 'fragmegration', disparate 'landscapes', the 'new security dilemma' and 'neomedievalism'. Approaching anarchy from the perspective of plural competing claims to authority and power forces us to think again about the nature of global order and the virtues of anarchy therein. Will the long-term outcome be the emergence of a more decentralised, pluralistic world order or a quagmire of endemic conflict and anomie?

While international relations scholars make many claims about violence, they rarely define the concept. This article develops a typology of three distinct kinds of violence: direct, indirect, and pacification. Direct violence occurs when a person or agent inflicts harm on another. Indirect violence manifests through the structures of society. We propose a third understanding of violence: pacification. Using a phenomenological methodology, and drawing on anarchist and postcolonial thought, we show that the violence of pacification is diffuse, inconspicuous, intersubjective, and structured into the fabric of society. This understanding of violence matters for the study of international relations in general and research on the liberal peace in particular. We argue that the spread of liberal institutions does not necessarily decrease violence but instead transforms it. Our phenomenological analysis captures empirical trends in human domination and suffering that liberal peace theories cannot account for. It reveals how a decline in direct violence may coincide with the transformation of violence in ways that are concealed, monopolized, and structured into the liberal order. We call this process liberal pacification.

In this article, we argue that despite there being little evidence of an ideological convergence between Marxism and anarchism, such a convergence is not only sorely needed, but also eminently possible. We propose an open discussion on the appropriate terms of such a convergence, the context in which it should take place, and the reasons why it should. We close by showing how our contributors to this special issue open this debate for us in promising ways.

Abstract. Anarchism does not feature in contemporary international relations (IR) as a discreet approach to world politics because until very recently it was antithetical to the traditional use-value of a discipline largely structured around the needs and intellectual demands of providing for the world's Foreign Offices and State Departments. This article tells part of the story of how this came to be so by revisiting the historiography of the discipline and an early debate between Harold Laski and Hans Morgenthau. What I will show here is that Morgenthau's Schmittian-informed theory of the nation state was diametrically opposed to Laski's Proudhon-informed pluralist state theory. Morgenthau's success and the triumph of Realism structured the subsequent evolution of the discipline. What was to characterise the early stages of this evolution was IR's professional and intellectual statism. The subsequent historiography of the discipline has also played a part in retrospectively keeping anarchism out. This article demonstrates how a return to this early debate and the historiography of the discipline opens up a little more room for anarchism in contemporary IR and suggests further avenues for research.