CHAPTER 14.docx

CHAPTER 14 Sovereignty, the State, and International Order Discipline, Definitions, and Subject Matter International Relations (IR) is also known as international politics, world politics, and global politics, each term having its own nuances. IR emerged as a distinct academic field after World War...

CHAPTER 14 Sovereignty, the State, and International Order Discipline, Definitions, and Subject Matter International Relations (IR) is also known as international politics, world politics, and global politics, each term having its own nuances. IR emerged as a distinct academic field after World War I, focusing on the causes of war and conditions for peace in the international system. Early practitioners advocated for the specialized study of state relations and international order, independent of internal political institutions or other disciplines like law and history. Post World War II and during the Cold War, the U.S. saw renewed calls for the specialized study of international politics. The field of International Relations (IR) has evolved to a broader understanding that: The international and domestic spheres are in constant interaction, politically, socially, and economically. Borders are more fluid, with problems and opportunities cutting across state lines. Besides sovereign states, there’s an increasing focus on a variety of non-state actors, including multinational corporations, NGOs, international crime groups, and terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda and ISIL. These factors have significantly expanded the scope and complexity of the field. Despite the rise of non-state actors, states remain crucial in the international sphere: They are the only entities that can ensure their citizens’ survival in the face of global pandemics, nuclear threats, and climate change. States control national militaries, economies, and bureaucracies, and are responsible for their citizens’ security. No other actors have the same legitimacy or capacity for action. Without strong state leadership, disorder can ensue. The COVID-19 crisis highlighted the importance of state engagement with international institutions like the World Health Organization for a coordinated response. KEY QUOTE BOX 14.1 Stewart Patrick on COVID-19 and the Dangers of Global Dysfunction A century ago, countries faced pandemics like influenza individually due to the lack of multilateral institutions. Today, despite the existence of numerous multilateral mechanisms to address global public health emergencies and their impacts, most states still opt for a unilateral approach. The weak international cooperation is a choice, not a necessity. The poor multilateral response to the pandemic is partly due to the decisions of specific leaders, notably Chinese President Xi Jinping and U.S. President Donald Trump. Their actions contribute to the struggles of the WHO and the failure of multilateral coordination forums like the G-7, G-20, and the UN Security Council. The World Health Organization (WHO) has a mandate that surpasses its capabilities. It's been assigned increasing tasks by member states while its independence and resources are limited, setting it up for failure. This reflects the ambivalence of states between wanting effective international institutions and insisting on independent action. The pandemic has exposed the limits of the current multilateral system and the severe costs of its failure. If policymakers view this crisis as a sign of multilateralism's doom and provoke its collapse, it could lead to even more devastating calamities. However, if it serves as a wake-up call to invest in a more effective multilateral system, the world will be better prepared for future global pandemics, increasing the chances of cooperation over competition. The term "global" refers to the entire world, erasing state boundaries. It emphasizes that issues like global warming and climate change do not differentiate between borders. The concept of a "global citizen" linked to "cosmopolitanism" stresses that we belong to one world, not just one country. Humans share common problems and interests that transcend political communities. Cosmopolitanism represents an ethical vision of international order, showing concern for the world and its people. "Globalization" underscores a global interconnectedness that surpasses state boundaries and controls. The terms "state" and "nation" are often used interchangeably but refer to two distinct entities. A "state" can be defined as a distinctive political community with its own rules and practices, separate from other communities. In International Relations (IR), "state" refers to the modern sovereign state, which has a "legal personality" and is recognized as having certain rights and duties. This kind of state is different from the states that form a federation, like in the United States, Australia, or India. The 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States legally defined the sovereign state, as discussed in Chapter 7. The convention adopted 16 articles, with the first 11 being the most crucial. According to Article 1, a modern sovereign state must meet the following criteria: - It should have a permanent population. - It should have a defined territory. - It should have a government that can maintain effective control over its territory. - It should be capable of conducting international relations with other states. In International Relations (IR), the state is understood as a formally constituted, sovereign political structure that includes people, territory, and institutions. Key provisions from the Montevideo Convention highlight this: Article 8 asserts the right of states to not suffer intervention by any other state, emphasizing sovereignty. Article 10 identifies the conservation of peace as the primary interest of all states. Article 11 reinforces these principles. The state interacts with other similar structures in an international system ideally characterized by peaceful, noncoercive relations, aiming to establish a peaceful international order conducive to prosperity. However, the actual scenario often deviates from this ideal. KEY CONCEPT BOX 14.2 Article 11, Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, 1933 The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States establishes that: 1. Contracting states must not recognize territorial acquisitions or special advantages obtained by force, whether through arms, threatening diplomatic representations, or any other coercive measures. 2. A state's territory is inviolable and cannot be subjected to military occupation or other forceful measures imposed by another state, either directly or indirectly, temporarily, or permanently. This sets the principles of non-aggression and respect for sovereignty in international relations. The text discusses the concept of a “nation”, which refers to a collective identity based on shared history and culture, rather than a formal territorial entity. The definition of “a people” is not universally agreed upon, but it generally implies a group that may seek political recognition and territorial claims. The text acknowledges the challenge in identifying a single political culture within any nation. It also discusses nationalism, an ideology advocating for political organization based on national identity. Nationalism supports each nation’s claim to its own state, a principle that has been largely democratic since the early 20th century. In its extreme forms, nationalism may seek to exclude “alien” elements to preserve the “authenticity” of its national character. The text discusses the common assumption that a nation, defined by shared history and culture, populates a sovereign state. This leads to the concept of a nation-state, such as France being occupied by the "French nation". However, the reality is rarely so simple, as no state contains a single, homogeneous nation. Many states, like the UK, are composed of multiple "nations", each with their own complexities due to immigration and historical events. The text also highlights the impact of colonialism, such as Britain's empire causing famines in Ireland and India. Contemporary Britain and France are more multicultural than ever, but this diversity has also led to systemic racism issues, including anti-Black racism, which will take time to resolve. The text examines the multicultural nature of nations, particularly focusing on Canada, which has one of the highest immigration levels in the Western world. The 2016 census identified about 250 ethnic groups in Canada, with large populations of Chinese, East Indian, and Filipino ancestry. Over 41% of the population reported more than one ancestry. This doesn’t include the roughly 600 First Nations, with Indigenous peoples making up 6.2% of the population. However, this ethnic diversity doesn’t equate to equity and equality. Systemic racism against Indigenous peoples, Black people, and other racialized people is a significant issue in all settler states, a problem that has been exacerbated during the COVID-19 era due to resource scarcity. The text discusses the assumption that states contain singular nations, often equated with a dominant majority. In countries like Canada, the U.S., and Australia, a dominant white English-speaking majority is considered the mainstream population. While multiculturalism is symbolically important, the institutions and values of these countries are largely based on European perspectives. Rita Dhamoon criticizes Canadian multiculturalism for its lack of focus on the histories of oppression experienced by people of color and indigenous peoples, arguing that the emphasis is on accommodation and diversity rather than anti-racism, decolonization, and power. Desmond Cole’s book “The Skin We’re In” outlines systemic racism and inequality in Canada, suggesting that there is a long way to go before anti-Black racism is eliminated. The text explains the distinctions between a state and a nation, highlighting how simple terms can often oversimplify complex realities. It points out that the term "United Nations" is somewhat misleading, as its members are states, not nations. The term "international" is also examined, with the text suggesting that "interstate" or "interstatal" might be more accurate, as the entities interacting in the international sphere are sovereign states, not nations. However, using these terms could lead to confusion with states within a federal system. States and International Systems in World History The historical rise and fall of empires suggest that the current sovereign state system may eventually be replaced by a different system. Advocates of "globalism" argue that a transformation is already underway, leading to a future where boundaries and controls will become increasingly irrelevant. Some believe that as Indigenous peoples gain self-determination rights, overlapping and differentiated sovereignties may emerge within and between Western settler states. The 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples could facilitate Indigenous sovereignties, particularly if incorporated into domestic laws of countries like Canada. The legitimacy of states as the sole form of political community is being questioned as settler states strive to mend their relationships with the Indigenous peoples they colonized. The Haudenosaunee (Six Nations or the Iroquois Confederacy) have used their own passports since the 1920s, despite lack of recognition from many settler states. The 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua, signed by US President George Washington, recognizes the Six Nations as a sovereign nation. Sid Hill, a Tadodaho or traditional leader of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, advocates for the use of their own passports to maintain sovereignty and honor their history and treaties. He asserts that they are citizens of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, a status that predates European arrival. Political communities, which include modern states, emerged when human groups began settled agricultural or animal husbandry practices. These activities necessitated a continuous association with a specific geographical area, an organizational structure for people and resources, and some form of protection. A key aspect of the modern state is the relationship between a permanent population and a defined territory. While this applies to many historical instances, there have also been "stateless communities"-typically nomadic groups without a fixed territory. The establishment of states led to the creation of "state systems" or "international orders", which organize relations among political communities within the same or different geographical areas. International relations (IR), a largely Eurocentric discipline, has traditionally sought the origins of statehood and international orders in the eastern Mediterranean, where ancient Greek and Roman civilizations thrived. These civilizations were closely connected with those of northern Africa and the Near East, drawing upon their rich knowledge and cultural practices. This knowledge, including political knowledge, was disseminated further afield through cross-cultural exchanges. The extensive trading routes of the world's Indigenous peoples, whether in present-day North America, the Pacific, or elsewhere, have largely been overlooked in IR studies until recently. Jace Weaver refers to this region as the "red Atlantic" and highlights how Indigenous peoples, who crossed the Atlantic in various roles, carried resources and knowledge that significantly influenced world civilization. The ancient Greeks' concept of a "state" was the "polis" or "city-state", with the Athenian polis being the most prominent and often viewed as the epitome of classical Western democracy. The political philosophies developed in Athens have significantly influenced Western political theory regarding the state's nature and purpose. Aristotle, for instance, viewed the state as a natural habitat for humans rather than an artificial construct. He described humans as "political animals" by nature, designed to live in a polis. In international relations, Athens is recognized as a historical example of a state driven by political realism, particularly during its conflict with the Spartans. Thucydides, a historian and general who witnessed some of these events and authored The Peloponnesian War, is renowned for his realist interpretation of the war and his insights into human nature. While Athens once led its own empire, the Roman Empire is the most renowned in the ancient world. Roman thought significantly influenced the evolution of "the West", particularly in terms of republicanism and the development of Europe's legal systems. The establishment of Christianity in Europe, which had profound implications for later political ideologies and practices, was partly due to the Roman Empire. Empires, like states, have been a global phenomenon, existing in various forms throughout history. Generally, they are large-scale political entities composed of smaller political communities, usually quasi-sovereign states, under a central power. Empires are typically held together by force and characterized by relations of domination and subordination. While empires can form a type of international order, it differs from the current international state system, which is based on a theory of sovereign equality among its members. The existence of historical empires underscores their global prevalence. The earliest recorded empires were located around the Tigris, Euphrates, and Nile River systems, suggesting a link between successful agriculture and the formation of settled political communities. This region witnessed the rise of the Sumerian, Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian, and Persian empires between approximately 4000 and 400 BCE. These empires exercised varying degrees of control over their subject communities, ranging from direct control to more indirect methods that allowed some local autonomy in exchange for tributes. Africa also saw the emergence of several empires, including the Malian Empire between the 13th and 17th centuries, which made Timbuktu a significant center of learning, trade, and commerce. The Ottoman Empire, based in Istanbul, arose around the same period, and lasted until the early 1920s. The ancient kingdoms of the Indus Valley constituted a broad civilizational entity, with Hindu religious traditions and Sanskrit writing providing cultural cohesion. The political communities within this region varied significantly, from oligarchies to republics. The region's most renowned empire was established in the north in 300 BCE. Despite its short existence, it gained prominence largely due to Kautilya's sophisticated text on statecraft, the Arthashastra, which detailed strategies for territory acquisition, retention, and prosperity. This work is often compared to Niccolò Machiavelli's writings on statecraft, though some view it as presenting a more severe depiction of the struggle for power. The Chinese Empire, one of the most extensive and enduring, spanned from the Shang dynasty in the 18th century BCE until the early 20th century, despite a significant period of fragmentation into warring states. During a time of chaos and violence, the ancient philosophy of Confucius emerged, focusing on political and social structures that promote order under strong leadership. European sovereignty theorists, addressing similar issues, developed their ideas under comparable circumstances. In the early modern period, the Ottoman Turks ruled over some 14 million subjects from the Crimea to Hungary, while the Moghuls pushed farther toward the south and east. By the end of the 16th century, Islamic forces—cultural, political, and military—controlled not only the Middle East but significant parts of Africa, Central Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia (especially present-day Malaysia, Indonesia, and parts of the Philippines), as well as sizable parts of eastern Europe. The list in Table 14.1 shows just how common the empire has been as a form of international system, and the list is by no means exhaustive. All empires have left significant legacies, but the modern European empires, particularly the British Empire, have had the most profound impact on the current international system. Other colonial powers such as France, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Italy, Russia, and Germany did not match Britain's influence. These empires enriched their own people at the expense of the colonized populations. Many empires, including the British Empire, were associated with genocide, involving widespread land theft from Indigenous peoples in present-day North America, Australia, and Aotearoa New Zealand. Colonial governments implemented brutal policies, including bounties on Indigenous peoples, warfare, destruction of food supplies, deliberate spread of diseases, starvation policies, and the forcible removal of Indigenous children from their communities to residential schools and settler foster homes. Imperialism greatly facilitated the spread of the colonizer's dominant culture, leading to the global establishment of British, specifically English, and Scottish, culture. Today, English remains the most significant international language. The British Empire, at its peak in the late 19th century, ruled over hundreds of millions and covered nearly a quarter of the world's land area. However, many of the empire's atrocities were concealed to preserve its reputation. For instance, during Kenya's fight for independence in the 1950s, the British imprisoned 1.5 million people and committed widespread human rights abuses. Before leaving Kenya in 1963, they destroyed and removed extensive records of their actions. The uncovering of these records, which document a "murderous campaign" resulting in the deaths of tens, possibly hundreds, of thousands, has only recently occurred. Cultural exchange is a two-way process, albeit to a lesser extent. Modern European countries have assimilated cultural influences from their former colonies, leading to significant immigrant communities. For instance, the UK has large African, Asian, and South Asian communities; France has many North Africans; and the Netherlands has many people from Indonesia and other former Asian colonies. The history of empires, which includes exploration, trade, proselytization, and migration, is intertwined with the history of globalization. The roots of today's global interdependence can be largely traced back to the global influence of modern European empires and the resulting networks, movements of people, technological innovations, and financial and economic systems. Globalization has been associated with a novel form of empire, challenging traditional state sovereignty, and introducing a different kind of sovereignty devoid of a territorial center of power or fixed boundaries. This emerging imperial order relies on the influence of transnational corporations and forms of production that do not align with territorial entities, aiming to supplant their sovereignty (Hardt & Negri, 2000, pp. xi–xiv). While some may view this perspective as exaggerated, it provides a foundation for critical reflection on essential aspects of globalization and the increasing power of deterritorialized corporations. According to a contemporary definition proposed by John Perkins and some of his students, an empire today is a nation-state that exerts dominance over other nation-states and displays certain characteristics. These features include exploiting resources from the lands it dominates, consuming disproportionately large quantities of resources relative to its population size compared to other nations, maintaining a substantial military force to enforce policies, spreading its language, literature, art, and culture in its sphere of influence, taxing not only its citizens but also people in other countries, and imposing its own currency on the lands under its control (Perkins, 2007, pp. 4–5). According to John Perkins, virtually all students he consulted believe that the United States fits the definition of an empire. Perkins argues that the U.S. has employed strategies to maintain a "secret empire" globally, involving resource exploitation and the dissemination of economic and other forms of influence. Despite this, many Americans, including political leaders, are uncomfortable with the notion of their country exercising imperial control. For instance, former President George W. Bush denied the U.S. as an empire, emphasizing a desire to avoid foreign entanglements. However, historical evidence shows the U.S. has a lengthy history of using military and economic power to further its interests. Journalist Simon Jenkins suggests that, like past empires, the U.S. may face challenges due to self-delusion and geography, noting similarities between the Trump administration and imperial leaders of the past. The future trajectory of U.S. foreign policy and global perception rests on President Biden's actions and potential shifts in how the U.S. conducts itself on the international stage (Jenkins, 2020). The United States, as an imperial power, exists in a world of powerful states that exert at least regional hegemony. Russia and Japan, the larger member states of the European Union (France and Germany), Great Britain (now outside the EU), and the rising states of China and India all display at least some of the characteristics that Perkins attributes to an empire. This means that if the United States is an empire, it must jockey for power with empires or “semi-empires” in the international system. The interaction of imperial states today, as in previous centuries, helps to create the texture of world politics. The Rise of Modernity and the State System in Europe Modernity is a multifaceted phenomenon linked to the emergence of European science and technology around 1500, leading to industrialization, increased military power, and significant political and social transformations. These changes, marked by a gradual decline in the authority of religion, were not isolated but influenced by transmissions of ideas and inventions from China and the Middle East. Additionally, Greek, and Roman knowledge preserved by Islamic scholars played a pivotal role in the Renaissance. The exploration and colonization of the Americas and the Pacific exposed Europeans to diverse social and political models, sparking new comparisons and inquiries. Indigenous traditions, such as those of the Haudenosaunee (Six Nations or the Iroquois Confederacy), significantly contributed to shaping American democracy, a fact sometimes overlooked by Western theorists (Stern, 2000, p. 72; Lawson, 2006, p. 60). In the year 1500, few would have anticipated that a cluster of seemingly insignificant states in western Europe would eventually dominate much of the world's surface (Kennedy, 1989, p. 3). At that time, Chinese civilization appeared superior due to technological innovations like moveable type, gunpowder, and paper money, coupled with advancements in ironwork. These developments, along with an extensive canal-building program, fueled trade and industry expansion. China boasted a million-strong army, efficient administration led by a Confucian bureaucracy, and was regarded as "the envy of foreign visitors" (Kennedy, 1989, p. 5). Meanwhile, Islamic civilization thrived, and there were influential centers of power beyond Europe. However, Europe in 1500 was characterized by political disarray, featuring overlapping jurisdictions and fragmented authorities. The Catholic Church, based in Rome, provided some semblance of unity. However, the Protestant Reformation from 1519 challenged the Church's supremacy, leading to significant theological and political repercussions. The protracted conflict between Catholic and Protestant forces, spanning over a century, found resolution in the Peace of Westphalia (1648). This treaty is commonly acknowledged for consolidating key features of the modern state. These characteristics include the principle of religious coexistence and the state's exclusive authority in matters like declaring war, negotiating peace, diplomatic representation, and making treaties with foreign powers (Boucher, 1998, p. 224). The Peace of Westphalia is often considered the foundational moment for the modern sovereign state, although some contemporary scholars, such as Clarke (2005), challenge this viewpoint. CASE STUDY BOX 14.3 The Peace of Westphalia The Thirty Years War concluded in 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia, a treaty resulting from five years of intricate diplomatic negotiations. The Treaties of Osnabrück and Münster were signed, forming a comprehensive agreement with 128 clauses covering legal, religious, and ethical matters, along with practical issues. While some principles in the Peace, like rulers determining their subjects' religious affiliations, mirrored those in the earlier Peace of Augsburg (1555), Westphalia introduced emerging ideas about an international law transcending religious differences, applicable to both Catholic and Protestant states. The Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius (1583–1645) played a crucial role in this shift, addressing conflicting moralities, advocating for toleration, and establishing minimum standards of conduct. A significant development for the state system and international order was Westphalia's granting of coequal juridical status to states. Considered the first and arguably the greatest of modern European peace treaties, Westphalia serves as a benchmark for critics and supporters of the sovereign state system, as well as those contemplating its potential erosion in the face of state-transcending forces like globalization. The Emergence of Sovereignty The principle of sovereignty is conceptualized as enclosing each state within a "hard shell" defined by its territorial borders. This principle was designed to safeguard a state against external interference in its domestic matters, including internal governance. The theory's simplicity lies in granting rulers the freedom to adhere to their chosen religious and moral principles (and impose them on subjects) while governing according to their preferred system. The protective shell of sovereignty ensures that all states, or rather the ruling elements within each state, have the autonomy to organize their domestic affairs as they wish, irrespective of external opinions or the state's comparative size, power, or capacity. While the principle of state sovereignty seems clear in theory, implementing it has proven challenging. Despite the notion's existence for over 300 years post-Westphalia, Europe experienced persistent warfare among its constituent states, with a formula for peaceful relations emerging only after World War II. The irony lies in this achievement being realized through a regional suprastate framework in the form of the European Union. Initially formulated to prevent warfare, the principle of state sovereignty seemed to yield lasting peace only when European states moved beyond their preoccupation with preserving sovereignty. Nevertheless, the United Kingdom's decision to withdraw from the EU in 2020 reduced the union's size and potentially influenced other states to consider similar paths. The moral dilemma arises when states mistreat people, either their own citizens or others within their borders. The theory of state sovereignty, strictly interpreted, prohibits external intervention, even in cases of civil war, genocide, or human rights abuses. However, there is now a widely accepted principle of humanitarian intervention that overrides the sovereign right of states or their rulers to act without interference within their borders. This perceived right aligns with the contemporary notion that sovereignty entails the responsibility to protect the state's inhabitants. The theory of state sovereignty is often perceived as having two dimensions: external and internal. According to Evans and Newnham (1998, p. 504), this doctrine makes a dual claim of "autonomy in foreign policy and exclusive competence in internal affairs." This claim relies on the existence of an ultimate authority within the state, known as "the sovereign," who has the entitlement to make decisions and resolve disputes. The sovereign can be an individual, such as a monarch, or a collective, like a parliament representing the sovereignty of the people. As the highest power in the state's political system, the sovereign is not subject to any other agent, domestic or foreign (Miller, 1991, pp. 492–493). Essentially, the traditional doctrine of sovereignty asserts that the supremacy of sovereign power extends not only within the domestic sphere but also in the external realm. In an international system where all states are sovereign, there exists no higher authority to serve as a ruler (see Evans & Newnham, 1998, p. 504). Consequently, the doctrine of state sovereignty has a paradoxical impact externally, creating anarchy—literally, the "absence of a ruler." This situation raises concerns about the potential for large, powerful states to forcefully take over smaller states without impediment. Many view this as the primary danger arising from the anarchic nature of the international sphere, where the unrestrained exercise of power is likened to a perilous state of nature devoid of law and order. The theory of sovereignty, initially developed in the context of domestic politics, has been shaped by various influential figures over centuries. Jean Bodin, one of the earliest contributors, developed sovereignty as an "ideology of order" amidst civil and religious conflicts. Thomas Hobbes, author of Leviathan and a prominent theorist of sovereignty, is considered a proponent of political realism, akin to Thucydides and Machiavelli. Living during a civil war, Hobbes asserted that only an omnipotent sovereign could ensure order. Nationalism, a significant development alongside the rise of the modern European state system, is based on the principle of self-determination, implying that each "nation" should have its own state. However, this can be challenging as numerous groups worldwide could potentially claim nationhood. Despite practical difficulties, the concept that nations and states are intertwined is compelling. Like the sovereign state, this idea is relatively recent, originating from the state-building period following the Peace of Westphalia. During the time of Westphalia, there was little connection between the concepts of nation and state. Sovereignty was vested in the monarch, and the populace was not considered a "nation". It wasn't until the late 19th century, with the rise of democracy, that a common political identity emerged among the people, forming a "nation". Despite uneven progress in democratic development (for instance, women in Switzerland only gained voting rights in 1971), the concept of the "nation" quickly gained traction. The evolution of the modern state system integrated the key attributes of the modern state: sovereignty, territoriality, and nationality, which underpin the international order based on the state system. The French Revolution marked a pivotal moment in the development of the modern European state system, transforming the populace from mere "subjects" of the monarch to citizens of the French state. However, the "French nation" that emerged was diverse, with various groups possessing distinct languages and customs across the territory. Any legal and administrative unity had to be enforced from above, a situation common to most parts of Europe at the time. Post the Napoleonic Wars, a significant development was the Concert of Europe, an agreement among European powers to regularly resolve diplomatic crises. This practice, initiated at the Congress of Vienna in 1815, lasted until the mid-1850s and elevated the importance of diplomacy in the European state system. At the start of the 19th century, the modern European state system was more theoretical, and the concept of the "nation-state" was non-existent. However, the idea of the nation gained prominence, leading to the emergence of new "national" states in Greece, Belgium, Italy, Germany, Romania, Serbia, and Montenegro. By the 20th century, the sovereign state system was well-established in Europe and Western settler societies like Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand, but was largely absent elsewhere. The Globalization of the Sovereign State System Empires have been a global phenomenon since ancient times, with imperialism and colonialism expanding with the rise of the sovereign state. European empires, including the Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, British, French, Belgians, and Germans, played a significant role in spreading this system worldwide. Their explorers, traders, and colonizers established shipping routes and trading posts, promoting further colonization. However, the end of World War II brought the future of colonialism into question due to the war's devastating cost and the weakened state of many European countries. The principle of self-determination, initially conceived for Europeans, was invoked by colonized populations, challenging the legitimacy of colonialism. This shift in norms fueled a decolonization movement, leading to the independence of nearly all former European colonies, excluding settler states, by the end of the 20th century. One of the legacies of European colonization is the establishment of borders that often-divided tribal nations or ethnic groups arbitrarily. These borders, imposed on territories traditionally occupied by Indigenous peoples, often split these groups between different colonies. This issue was prevalent in Africa and settler societies like Canada, the United States, New Zealand, and Australia, where provincial and state boundaries often disregarded traditional Indigenous territories. The disregard for pre-existing groupings is particularly evident in straight-line borders, such as the Canada-US border. These arbitrary divisions have complicated nation-building efforts, making it challenging to foster a unified national identity among diverse groups. Many colonial states mirrored the structure of European states, with clear boundaries, established administrative centers, and permanent settled populations. When decolonization became a priority, in many instances, the colonial borders were maintained. Sovereignty was transferred from the colonizing power to an Indigenous elite, often educated in the colonizing country. The governance structures, such as parliaments and bureaucracies, mirrored European practices. Colonial India was a partial exception. It was partitioned at the last minute into the Republic of India (officially secular but primarily Hindu) and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The abrupt division led to significant violence, with an estimated 1 to 2 million people losing their lives during the partition period and another 15 million being displaced from their homes. The lack of time to adjust to the new borders was a major factor in this violence. The fact that virtually all former colonies became part of an international system of states based largely on the European model effectively ensured the globalization of that system. Even states that had not been colonized, from Japan and Turkey to Thailand and Tonga, adopted the European state format. The text discusses the challenges faced by former colonies in maintaining independent sovereign statehood. These difficulties are partly due to the continued (and often harmful) influence of the former colonizing states. While few postcolonial states have completely collapsed, many struggle to effectively exercise statehood. This includes issues with administering and controlling their own territory, a characteristic of fragile states, as discussed in Chapter 7. These states are at risk of failing to maintain effective governance and control. Fragile states are those that lack the ability to organize their societies and deliver adequate political, social, and economic goods to their citizens. Robert Jackson (1990) coined the term “quasi-state” to describe developing states that rely on international support and possess “negative sovereignty”. State failure occurs when a fragile state is overwhelmed by issues like corruption, incompetence, resource misallocation, human rights abuses, ethnic favouritism, and military involvement in politics, leading to social unrest, violence, economic breakdown, and political turmoil. Countries like Congo, Sudan, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Colombia, Tajikistan, Haiti, Lebanon, Fiji, the Solomon Islands, and Papua New Guinea have been described as fragile, quasi, or failing states. Somalia is an example of a failed or collapsed state, lacking functioning centralized institutions. While internal issues often lead to state weakness or failure, external factors such as colonial legacies, interference by former colonial powers, activities of transnational organizations, and inequitable trading regimes also contribute. Economic globalization poses particular challenges for fragile developing states with underdeveloped capacity. Their lack of negotiating power in the international arena makes them vulnerable to failure. The issues discussed question the benefits and long-term viability of the European state system’s globalization. While many postcolonial states, particularly in Asia, have seen relative success, Europe has also experienced state failures. The former Yugoslavia, for instance, is now split into nine separate entities. Additionally, the EU’s expansion and deepening faced a significant setback with the UK’s departure in 2020, raising questions about the potential exit of other members. LIST OF KEY TERMS Anarchy-The absence of political rule or sovereign authority. In realist and neorealist international relations theory, the international sphere is considered anarchic because there is no sovereign authority standing above the individual states that make up the sphere. States therefore have no choice but to defend themselves. Concert of Europe-A largely informal agreement among the major powers of 19th-century Europe to act together on matters of mutual concern. It developed following the Congress of Vienna (1814–15) after the defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte and generally took the form of diplomatic meetings and conferences aimed at the peaceful resolution of differences. humanitarian intervention-Direct intervention by one country, or a group of countries, in the internal affairs of another country for humanitarian reasons (for example, to prevent genocide). See also intervention. Imperialism-The exercise of power by one group over another; from a Latin verb meaning literally “to command.” Imperialism is sometimes used as a synonym for colonialism but is broader because it does not necessarily involve actual physical occupation of the territory in question or direct rule over the subjugated people. Interdependence-In international relations, the (primarily liberal) notion that states are increasingly interconnected through a web of relations, especially in the economic field, and that this makes warfare less desirable as a foreign policy strategy. The concept of complex interdependence simply introduces more variables into the equation, deepening the complexity of interdependence and strengthening the case for a more pluralistic approach to international relations than neorealist thought allows for. Intervention-In international relations, usually refers to direct intervention by one or more states in the internal affairs of another by either military or non-military means. Humanitarian intervention is claimed to have a primarily humanitarian purpose, such as intervening to prevent genocide. Modernity-A temporal and cultural phenomenon linked in part to the rise of industrialization in Europe and North America and in part to profound changes in social and political thought associated with the intellectual movement known as the Enlightenment. Montevideo Convention-an international treaty that defines the rights and duties of states. It outlines four criteria for statehood: a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and the capacity to enter relations with other states. It also asserts that a state's existence is independent of recognition by other states. Nation-A named community, often referred to as “a people,” usually occupying a homeland and sharing one or more cultural elements, such as a common history, language, religion, or set of customs. Nations may or may not have states of their own. nation-building-The process in which a state is created and then its leaders attempt to mould its sometimes quite diverse groups of inhabitants into a coherent, functional “nation.” Regionalization-A process in which several states in a given geographical area come together for mutual benefit, often forming a regional association. Some, like the EU, are highly institutionalized and have myriad economic, social, and political interconnections while others have minimal rules and less ambitious purposes. Sovereignty-refers to the supreme power or authority that a state or nation has to govern itself. It is the independent power or authority in government as possessed or claimed by a state or community. In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme legitimate authority over some polity. In international law, sovereignty is the exercise of power by a state. It also implies freedom from external control or influence. Statecraft-The skillful conduct of state affairs, usually in the context of external relations.