Outline
Evolution of International Society
1.1 Defining International Orders
1.2 Historical International Orders
1.3 The Peace of Westphalia and its Legacy
1.4 Economic and Infrastructural Interactions
1.5 The Global Transformation
1.6 Theoretical Perspectives on International Society
The Nation-State System
2.1 The Concept of Sovereignty
2.1.1 Historical Evolution of Sovereignty
2.1.2 Contemporary Understanding of Sovereignty
2.2 Impact of Globalization on Sovereignty
2.3 Nationalism and the Nation-State
2.3.1 Defining the Nation
2.3.2 Historical Development of Nationalism
2.3.3 Key Moments in the Rise of Nationalism
3. The Rise of Modern International Order: A Global Transformation
3.1 Characteristics of Modern International Order
3.2 Debates on the Rise of the West
3.2.1 Arguments "For" Western Strengths
3.2.2 Arguments "Against" Western Strengths (Critical Perspective)
3.3 International Processes Shaping Modern Order
4. Functions of Nation State system
5. Challenges and criticism of the Nation state system
5.1 Internal challenges
5.2 External challenges
6. Theoretical perspective
7. Conclusion
1. Evolution of International Society
International society refers to the framework of rules, norms, and institutions through which political units interact. Its evolution is a story of increasing interconnectedness and the development of shared practices among diverse entities.
1.1 Defining International Orders
All international orders consist of multiple political units. The fundamental characteristic distinguishing international from domestic politics is the absence of an overarching authority in the international sphere, forcing political units to coexist. The discipline of International Relations is therefore fundamentally concerned with "political multiplicity," striving to understand how order can be generated in a fragmented environment.
International orders are defined as regularized practices of exchange between political units. These patterns of exchange exhibit significant variation:
Sparse or Intensive: Interactions can be limited to basic diplomatic protocols or involve high levels of trade, shared legal codes, common security arrangements, and extensive cultural exchanges.
Hierarchical or Egalitarian: Orders can be structured hierarchically, as seen in empires, or purportedly "equal," as in the contemporary states system.
Formal or Informal: Exchanges can be formal, like the constitutional structure of the European Union, or informal, such as the notion of a "sphere of influence."
International orders have existed since political units began regular interaction through trade, diplomacy, or the exchange of ideas. World history reveals numerous regional international orders. However, a distinctly modern international order, characterized by a global economy, a global system of states, and the global circulation of ideas, has emerged only over the past two centuries.
1.2 Historical International Orders
The idea that political units engage in more than just brute conflict, that they might share common understandings or rules , is not unique to modern times. Long before the rise of the modern state system, various civilizations developed rudimentary forms of international society, often rooted in shared cultural, religious, or philosophical frameworks.
In ancient China, the Zhou Dynasty's feudal system (c. 1046–256 BCE) and subsequent periods like the Spring and Autumn (771–476 BCE) and Warring States (475–221 BCE) saw constant interaction among numerous principalities. Despite frequent warfare, a shared cultural and philosophical heritage, primarily Confucianism and Daoism, provided a normative framework that regulated inter-state relations. Concepts like Li (rituals and propriety) guided diplomatic etiquette, treaty negotiations, and even declarations of war, emphasizing order and hierarchy within a larger "Heavenly Mandate." The notion of "Tianxia" (all under Heaven) implied a universal moral and political order, with the Zhou king (later the Emperor) at its apex, even if his actual political control waned. Diplomatic missions, alliance networks, and even specific types of treaties (e.g., covenants sealed with blood oaths) were common. For instance, the Covenant of Qi (651 BCE), organized by Duke Huan of Qi, brought together various feudal lords under a shared oath, aiming to establish a degree of stability and prevent internecine warfare, illustrating a nascent form of collective security.
Ancient Greece, particularly during the Classical period (c. 500–323 BCE), comprised a system of independent city-states (poleis). While fiercely independent and often embroiled in conflicts like the Peloponnesian War, they shared a common Hellenic identity, language, religion, and cultural practices. This shared culture provided a basis for rudimentary international norms. The Olympic Games, for example, necessitated sacred truces (ekecheiria) allowing safe passage for athletes and spectators, functioning as an early form of international institution. The Delphic Oracle often played a role in mediating disputes or sanctioning actions. Certain "laws of war" existed, such as the inviolability of heralds and the right to bury the dead. Institutions like the Amphictyonic League, though primarily religious, exercised some political influence, including the right to levy fines or declare "sacred wars." Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War vividly portrays a society of states operating within a shared, albeit often violated, understanding of power, honor, and conduct. As Robert Gilpin noted, "Thucydides understood that international relations involved not only power and interest but also honor and fear." The alliances like the Delian League (led by Athens) and the Peloponnesian League (led by Sparta) were not just military pacts but often involved economic and judicial arrangements among their members, showcasing a more complex societal interaction than mere anarchy.
The Roman Empire, though expansionist and often hegemonic, profoundly influenced subsequent European thought on order and governance. Its legal innovations, particularly jus gentium (the law of nations or peoples), initially developed to regulate relations between Romans and foreigners, laid foundational concepts for later international law. While Rome's relations were often with subjugated peoples rather than truly equal states, its emphasis on codified law, treaties (foedera), and the systematic administration of its vast empire provided a model of order that echoed through the centuries. Even in its imperial dominance, Rome employed diplomatic protocols and formal agreements with client kingdoms or conquered territories, creating a hierarchical, yet somewhat ordered, system.
The Islamic Caliphates, spanning vast swathes of land from the 7th century onwards, developed a sophisticated system of diplomatic relations, treaties, and international law derived from Quranic principles and prophetic traditions (Sunnah). Concepts like Dar al-Islam (abode of Islam, where Islamic law prevails) and Dar al-Harb (abode of war, non-Islamic lands) defined a normative framework for relations, but interactions with non-Islamic empires (e.g., the Byzantine Empire, the various dynasties of China, or Indian kingdoms) also involved shared protocols and agreements. Treaties often included provisions for trade, prisoner exchange, and safe conduct for travelers. For instance, the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah (628 CE), between Prophet Muhammad and the Quraysh of Mecca, exemplifies early Islamic diplomatic practice and the pragmatic use of peace agreements. Islamic scholars, such as Al-Shaybani, penned treatises on the "Law of Nations" (siyar), exploring rules for war, peace, and neutrality.
In medieval Europe, the fragmentation of political authority under feudalism contrasted sharply with the unifying influence of the Catholic Church. Christendom represented a transnational society, with the Pope acting as a spiritual and often temporal arbiter, attempting to impose a moral order on the fractious political landscape. Latin served as a lingua franca for diplomacy, scholarship, and legal discourse. Canon law, concepts of "just war" (jus ad bellum, jus in bello), and institutions like the Truce of God and Peace of God attempted to regulate warfare and protect non-combatants. While sovereign states in the modern sense did not exist, powerful monarchs, city-states (e.g., Venice, Florence), and religious orders engaged in complex networks of alliances, vassalage, and diplomatic exchanges, all underpinned by a shared religious and moral worldview. The Investiture Controversy, for instance, illustrated the Church's extensive claims over temporal rulers. However, the gradual decline of the Holy Roman Empire's universal claims and the Reformation's challenge to the Church's spiritual and temporal authority, leading to prolonged religious wars, paved the way for the emergence of a new order based on distinct territorial states rather than a universal empire or church. As historian Garrett Mattingly noted in Renaissance Diplomacy, the 15th and 16th centuries saw "the slow, painful emergence of something like a system of international relations, of states which, while still far from sovereign, were conscious of their separate identities."
1.3 The Peace of Westphalia and its Legacy
The 1648 Peace of Westphalia, marking the end of the Wars of Religion in Europe, is often considered the foundational date for "modern" international order. This historical agreement is seen as important because it instituted the principle of cuius regio, eius religio ("whose realm, their religion"). This principle, it is argued, limited the grounds for states to go to war, establishing state sovereignty over their own territories, initially in terms of religious confession and later extending to governance and economic organization. In this sense, Westphalia is seen as establishing the principle of "sovereign territoriality", a claim to political authority over a particular geographical space.
However, a number of criticisms of the Westphalian narrative have emerged in recent years:
Limited Scope: Westphalia was not a European-wide agreement but a local affair, primarily concerned with safeguarding the internal affairs of the Holy Roman Empire and rewarding the victors of the Wars of Religion (France and Sweden). Its impact on broader European international relations, let alone global affairs, was not as significant as often imagined.
Slight Gains: Even within its limited scope, the gains of Westphalia were relatively slight. While German principalities gained more control over their affairs, this was within a dual constitutional structure that stressed loyalty to the Empire and was sustained by a court system, similar to the modern-day European Union.
Limits to Sovereignty: Westphalia actually set limits to the principle of sovereignty established at the 1555 Peace of Augsburg, for example, by retracting the rights of polities to choose their own religion. It decreed that each territory would retain the religion it held on 1 January 1624. For the most part, after 1648, European international order remained a patchwork of marriage, inheritance, and hereditary claims. Imperial rivalries, hereditary succession, and religious conflicts remained at the heart of European wars for several centuries after Westphalia.
Despite debates about Westphalia's precise impact, its conceptual contribution to the idea of sovereign territoriality remains significant for understanding the modern state system.
1.4 Economic and Infrastructural Interactions
The emergence of modern international order is also linked to evolving patterns of economic and infrastructural interactions.
Long-Distance Trade Routes: For centuries before Westphalia, long-distance trade routes in silks, cotton, sugar, tea, linen, porcelain, and spices connected diverse places globally, such as Malacca, Samarkand, Hangzhou, Genoa, Acapulco, Manila, and the Malabar Coast. These networks facilitated the exchange of goods, ideas, and institutions across vast distances.
European Voyages of Discovery: The fifteenth and sixteenth centuries saw European "voyages of discovery" opening up sea lanes around Africa and across the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. When Europeans entered the Indian Ocean, they encountered a well-developed international order, with India serving as a central node in trans-Eurasian exchange due to its coastline, skilled artisans, and traders. China also had advanced ocean-going shipbuilding and navigation techniques.
Triangular Trade and Ecological Transfers: The trafficking of African slaves constructed a "triangular trade," linking demand for sugar in London with Caribbean plantations supplied by African slaves and North American provisions. This vile feature of international order was tied to increasing trade and advances in transport technologies, helping to forge the Atlantic into a regional international order. Also important were ecological transfers between the Americas and Europe (e.g., maize, potatoes, tomatoes from the "New World"; horses, cattle, wheat, coffee to the "New World"). Critically, the transatlantic transfer of diseases like smallpox and measles killed two-thirds of the Americas' population by the mid-sixteenth century.
These examples illustrate how regularized exchanges generate interdependence, where events in one place significantly affect others. The increasingly dense interactions over recent centuries have led to heightened levels of interdependence, from productive circuits to pandemics.
1.5 The Global Transformation
Before the last two centuries, ties of interdependence in international orders were relatively limited in scope. For instance, until the nineteenth century, most economic activities were local, within a 20-mile circumference. Long-distance trading corridors were lightly connected, with journeys halfway around the world taking a year or more in the sixteenth century, five months in 1812, and one month in 1912. In the contemporary world, such journeys take less than a day. The pace of change before the nineteenth century was much slower than the rapid, incessant change characteristic of the past two centuries.
The last two centuries represent a strong candidate for the emergence of modern international order due to the linking of multiple regional international orders into a deeply interdependent, global order. This period is sometimes known as the "global transformation," denoting the shift from a world of multiple regional international systems to one characterized by a global international order. The global transformation ended a long period where human history was mainly local and contact among peoples fairly light, replacing it with an era of increasingly global history and intense contact among far-flung peoples. For better or worse, the nineteenth century witnessed the transformation of the daily condition of peoples nearly everywhere on the planet.
1.6 Theoretical Perspectives on International Society
Understanding international society's evolution requires diverse theoretical lenses to analyze state behavior, actor motivations, and global order.
The English School
This tradition places international society at its core, differentiating itself from Realism and Liberalism. Scholars like Hedley Bull, Martin Wight, and Adam Watson argue that states form an international society by recognizing common interests and values, leading to shared rules and institutions. This "society" exists even within anarchy, based on shared understandings that create elements like international law, diplomacy, the balance of power, great power management, and regulated war. The School debates Pluralism (focus on coexistence among diverse states, e.g., Bull) versus Solidarism (shared substantive values like human rights and collective enforcement, e.g., Wheeler, Dunne; reflected in R2P).
Realism
Realism views international politics as a power struggle among self-interested states in an anarchic environment. From this perspective, international society is often considered superficial or epiphenomenal, merely reflecting underlying power distributions. Realists like Hans J. Morgenthau argue that international law and institutions are weak constraints, adhered to only when serving national interest. Kenneth Waltz (neorealism) emphasizes that the anarchic structure compels states to prioritize survival, making genuine cooperation difficult due to the "security dilemma." John Mearsheimer extends this, seeing international society largely as a myth due to states' constant pursuit of relative power maximization.
Liberalism
Liberalism offers an optimistic view, emphasizing cooperation, interdependence, and progress towards a peaceful global order. It highlights that economic and social interdependence (Keohane and Nye's complex interdependence) increases cooperation by raising the costs of conflict. International institutions (UN, WTO) are crucial facilitators of cooperation, shaping state behavior by providing rules and forums for dispute resolution. The Democratic Peace Theory (Michael Doyle, building on Kant) suggests democracies are less likely to fight each other, fostering peace among them. Liberals also stress the growing importance of international law and universal norms like human rights.
Constructivism
Constructivism focuses on the social construction of international relations, arguing that interests, identities, and norms are shaped by shared ideas, beliefs, and interactions. Alexander Wendt's famous dictum, "Anarchy is what states make of it," posits that anarchy's nature is determined by states' shared understandings (e.g., Hobbesian, Lockean, Kantian cultures). Constructivists examine how norms (e.g., sovereignty, human rights, R2P) emerge and are internalized, influencing state identity and behavior. Martha Finnemore's work on norm evolution exemplifies how shared ideas dynamically constitute international society.
Critical Theories (Marxism, Post-Colonialism, Feminism) These theories offer skeptical views of international society, highlighting power asymmetries and historical injustices.
Marxism/Dependency Theory (e.g., Immanuel Wallerstein's World-Systems Theory) emphasizes economic structures perpetuating capitalist dominance (core) over the global South (periphery), viewing international law as a tool of hegemony that reinforces global inequality.
Post-Colonialism (e.g., Frantz Fanon, Edward Said) critiques the Eurocentric biases of international society, arguing that the Westphalian system was imposed through colonialism, marginalizing non-Western experiences and perpetuating inequalities.
Feminist IR Theories critique how gender roles and patriarchal structures shape international society, highlighting the exclusion of women's experiences and advocating for a more inclusive and equitable global order, examining issues like sexual violence in conflict and gendered development policies.
2. The Nation-State System
The nation-state system is the dominant form of political organization in the contemporary world, characterized by sovereign states governing distinct national populations within defined territories. Understanding its foundations, evolution, and ongoing challenges is central to International Relations.
2.1 The Concept of Sovereignty
Sovereignty is a cornerstone of the nation-state system, signifying supreme authority within a territory and independence from external control.
2.1.1 Historical Evolution of Sovereignty
The modern doctrine of sovereignty emerged in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries, driven by the need to consolidate power and end religious civil wars.
Niccolo Machiavelli: For this Italian political scientist, the security of the prince and the stability of the state constituted an end that justified all means for its attainment. His work, The Prince, advocated for a strong, unified ruler to maintain state power.
Jean Bodin: The French jurist Jean Bodin was the first to argue at length that sovereignty was an essential attribute of the body politic and to define its characteristics. He saw sovereignty as absolute and perpetual power vested in the commonwealth.
Thomas Hobbes: Hobbes provided a more refined and systematic exposition of the concept. In Leviathan, he argued for an indivisible, absolute sovereign to escape the "state of nature" and ensure order. These writers were chiefly concerned with preserving and strengthening state unity against the dangers of religious civil war, favoring a monarchical sovereign as the most "indivisible."
John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau: In contrast, for John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau, the people as a whole constituted the sovereign. Locke's Two Treatises of Government (1689) introduced the idea of popular sovereignty and government by consent. To Rousseau, in The Social Contract (1762), the individual is subject to no other individual but merely to the volonté Générale (general will), the will of the community, representing collective self-rule.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: Following the thought of Rousseau, Hegel stated, "the state is the march of God in the world. Its formulation is the power of reason realized as will." This philosophical view elevated the state as the highest expression of ethical life.
John Austin: Austin's legal positivist views defined sovereignty in terms of habitual obedience. According to him: "If a determinate human superior not in the habit of obedience to a like superior, receive habitual obedience from the bulk of a given society, that determinate superior is sovereign in the society and the society (including the superior) is a society political and independent." This emphasized the internal supremacy of the sovereign.
When philosophers Jean Bodin and Thomas Hobbes elaborated the notion of sovereignty in the 16th and 17th centuries, they were concerned with establishing the legitimacy of a single hierarchy of domestic authority. Although they both accepted the existence of divine and natural law, they believed the word of the sovereign was law. However, in the contemporary world, sovereignty primarily is linked with the idea that states are autonomous and independent from each other.
2.1.2 Contemporary Understanding of Sovereignty
In the contemporary context, sovereignty encompasses several key aspects:
Internal Autonomy: Within their own boundaries, the members of a polity are free to choose their own form of government.
Non-Intervention: No state has the right to intervene in the internal affairs of another state. This principle is enshrined in the UN Charter.
Control over Trans-border Movements: Sovereignty is also associated with the idea of control over movements of goods, people, and information across borders.
International Agreements: Political authorities can enter into international agreements. States are free to endorse any contract they find attractive. Any treaty among states is legitimate provided it has not been coerced. This ability to freely enter into binding international commitments is seen as a new strength of sovereignty.
2.2 Impact of Globalization on Sovereignty
Globalization, characterized by increasing interconnectedness and transnational flows, has significantly impacted the traditional understanding and practice of sovereignty. Stephen D. Krasner argues that sovereignty was never as vibrant as many contemporary observers suggest, and its conventional norms have always been challenged.
Historical Challenges to Sovereignty:
A few states, notably the United States, have had autonomy, control, and recognition for most of their existence, but most others have not.
The polities of many weaker states have been persistently penetrated, and stronger nations have not been immune to external influence. For example, China was occupied by foreign powers in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
The constitutional arrangements of Japan and Germany were directed by the United States after World War II, demonstrating external imposition on sovereign structures.
The United Kingdom, despite its rejection of the euro, was part of the European Union, where it ceded some sovereignty to supranational institutions. This highlights how even powerful states voluntarily pool sovereignty in certain areas.
Erosion of National Citizenship: Along with the erosion of national currencies (due to global financial markets), there is now an erosion of national citizenship, the notion that an individual should be a citizen of one and only one country, and that the state has exclusive claims to that person’s loyalty. Dual citizenship is increasingly common, and transnational identities challenge singular national allegiance.
Influence of Transnational Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs): Transnational NGOs have much influence over state activities. Throughout the 19th century, there were transnational movements to abolish slavery, promote women's rights, and improve worker conditions. The number of transnational NGOs has grown tremendously, from around 200 in 1909 to over 17,000 today. The availability of inexpensive and very fast communications technology has made it easier for such groups to organize and impact public policy and international law. Such groups prompt questions about sovereignty because they appear to threaten the integrity of domestic decision-making. Activists who lose on their home territory can pressure foreign governments, which may in turn influence decision-makers in the activists’ own nation.
United Nations Perspective on Globalization: The United Nations recognizes the challenges globalization poses, particularly for developing countries and economies in transition. The UN Millennium Declaration (2000) states: "We recognize that developing countries and countries with economies in transition face special difficulties in responding to this central challenge. Thus, only through broad and sustained efforts to diversify, can globalization be made fully inclusive and equitable. These efforts must include policies and measures, at the global level, which correspond to the needs of developing countries and economies in transition and are formulated and implemented with their effective participation." This highlights the need for inclusive global governance to manage globalization's impact on sovereignty.
Evidence: The rise of global digital platforms and the flow of data across borders have challenged state control over information and privacy, leading to debates on data sovereignty and international regulations, as seen in the European Union's GDPR. The increasing number of international legal cases brought against states for human rights violations, often initiated or supported by international NGOs, demonstrates the growing external scrutiny and limitation on absolute state sovereignty.
2.3 Nationalism and the Nation-State
Nationalism, defined as devotion to the interests of one’s own nation over the interests of other states, has been a profoundly influential force in world politics for the past two centuries. A nation is a population that shares an identity, usually including a language and culture.
2.3.1 Defining the Nation
The concept of a nation is complex, with various interpretations:
Benedict Anderson: Describes the nation as "an imagined political community, imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign... It is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion... The nation is imagined as limited because even the largest of them encompassing perhaps a billion living human beings, has finite, if elastic boundaries, beyond which lie other nations... It is imagined as sovereign because the concept was born in an age in which Enlightenment and Revolution were destroying the legitimacy of the divinely-ordained, hierarchical dynastic realm." (Anderson 1991: 5-6)
Miroslav Hroch: Defines the nation as "a large social group integrated not by one but by a combination of several kinds of objective relationships (economic, political, linguistic, cultural, religious, geographical, historical), and their subjective reflection in collective consciousness. Many of these ties could be mutually substitutable, some playing a particularly important role in one nation-building process, and no more than a subsidiary part in others. But among them, three stand out as irreplaceable: (1) a "memory" of some common past, treated as a "destiny" of the group, or at least of its core constituents; (2) a density of linguistic or cultural ties enabling a higher degree of social communication within the group than beyond it; (3) a conception of the equality of all members of the group organized as a civil society." (Hroch 1996: esp. 79)
These definitions highlight both the objective features (language, culture, history) and the subjective, constructed nature of national identity.
2.3.2 Historical Development of Nationalism
The relationship between nations and states is reciprocal: sometimes states create nations, and sometimes nations create states.
States Creating Nations: Around A.D. 1500, countries like France and Austria began to bring entire nations together into single states. These new nation-states were large and powerful, overrunning smaller neighbors and incorporating many small territorial units, thereby fostering a common national identity within their borders.
Nations Creating States (Self-Determination): The perceived existence of a nation has often led to the creation of a corresponding state as a people win sovereignty over their own affairs. The principle of self-determination implies that people who identify as a nation should have the right to form a state and exercise sovereignty over their affairs. This principle, though widely praised today, is generally secondary to the principles of sovereignty (noninterference) and territorial integrity, with which it frequently conflicts. Self-determination does not typically grant groups the right to change international borders, even those arbitrarily imposed by colonialism, to unify a group with a common national identity. Generally, though not always, self-determination has been achieved by violence. When the borders of (perceived) nations do not match those of states, conflicts almost inevitably arise.
2.3.3 Key Moments in the Rise of Nationalism
Netherlands' Independence (around 1600): The Netherlands helped establish the principle of self-determination when it broke free of Spanish ownership and set up a self-governing Dutch republic. The struggle over control of the Netherlands was a leading cause of the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648), during which states mobilized populations for war in new ways (e.g., Sweden drafting one man out of ten, Netherlands financing a standing professional army).
French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars: This process of popular mobilization intensified greatly. France instituted a universal draft and a centrally run "command" economy. Its motivated citizen armies, composed for the first time of Frenchmen rather than mercenaries, marched longer and faster. People participated in part because they were patriotic; their nation-state embodied their aspirations and brought them together in a common national identity.
American Independence (1776): The United States followed the example of the Netherlands by declaring independence from Britain.
19th Century Unifications: Latin American states gained independence early in the nineteenth century, and Germany and Italy unified their nations out of multiple political units (through war) later in that century.
World Wars:
Before World War I, socialist workers from different European countries had banded together for workers’ rights. In that war, however, most abandoned such solidarity and instead fought for their respective nation, nationalism thus proved a stronger force than socialism.
Before World War II, nationalism helped Germany, Italy, and Japan build political orders based on fascism, an extreme authoritarianism girded by national chauvinism.
In World War II, it was nationalism and patriotism (not communism) that rallied the Soviet people to sacrifice by the millions to turn back Germany’s invasion.
Post-Cold War Fragmentation: In the past 50 years, nations by the dozens have gained independence and statehood. Jews worked persistently in the first half of the twentieth century to create the state of Israel, and Palestinians aspired in the second half to create a Palestinian state. While multinational states such as the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia have fragmented in recent years, ethnic and territorial units such as Ukraine, Slovenia, and East Timor have established themselves as independent nation-states. Others, such as Montenegro and Kurdistan, seek to do so and already run their own affairs.
The continuing influence of nationalism in today’s world is evident. It affects several of the main types of conflict that occupy contemporary international relations, particularly when (perceived) national borders do not match those of states. Today such conflicts are widespread, in Chechnya, Quebec, Israel-Palestine, India-Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Tibet, and many other places.
Evidence: The ongoing conflict in Ukraine, fueled by a strong sense of Ukrainian national identity and resistance against perceived Russian imperial ambitions, is a stark contemporary example of nationalism's power. The persistent aspirations for statehood among the Kurds across Iraq, Syria, Turkey, and Iran, and the recurring clashes between Kurdish groups and state authorities, demonstrate the enduring challenge of self-determination where national borders do not align with ethnic identities.
3. The Rise of Modern International Order: A Global Transformation
The emergence of modern international order is intimately linked with the "global transformation" of the last two centuries, a period marked by unprecedented interconnectedness and the dominance of Western ideas and institutions.
3.1 Characteristics of Modern International Order
The global transformation brought an end to a long period where human history was mainly local and contact among peoples fairly light. It replaced this with an era where human history was increasingly global and contact among far-flung peoples intense. The nineteenth century saw the transformation of the daily condition of peoples nearly everywhere on the planet.
One of the most noteworthy aspects of the contemporary international order is the dominance of "Western" ideas and institutions. "The West" is usually taken to mean Europe (with particular emphasis on the northern and western parts of the continent) and the Americas (with particular emphasis on the United States). The West looms large in the functioning of the global political economy (e.g., London and New York as financial centers) and is central to global governance (e.g., UN in New York, World Bank and IMF headquartered in Washington, D.C.). Western ideas (such as human rights) and Western culture (particularly music) are well known globally.
3.2 Debates on the Rise of the West
There are differing perspectives on why Western power has risen:
3.2.1 Arguments "For" Western Strengths
Some argue that Western power arose due to its innate strengths:
Inclusive Political Institutions: Representative institutions promoted negotiation among elites and heightened links between elites and publics.
Enlightenment and Scientific Thinking: The Enlightenment promoted new forms of scientific thinking, fostering independence of thought and an experimental tradition that led to advances in engineering and sciences.
New Economic Practices: The West pioneered a range of new economic practices, such as double-entry bookkeeping and comparable innovations, which allowed for clear evaluation of profit, enabling commercial capitalism.
Beneficial Geographical Circumstances: For example, British industrialization was aided greatly by the unusual co-location of coal and iron.
These arguments tend to view Western power as both natural and enduring.
3.2.2 Arguments "Against" Western Strengths (Critical Perspective)
Others see Western domination as rooted in specific historical circumstances, many of them the product of practices of colonial exploitation and subjugation.
Non-Western Origins of Materials: Very few, if any, of the materials fundamental to the rise of the West originated from within Western societies. For example, cotton is not indigenous to England, and Europe’s pre-industrial trade with Asia was largely underpinned by gold and silver mined in Africa and the Americas.
Asian Dominance: For many centuries, Asian powers were held in respect, even awe, in many parts of Europe. The West interacted with Asian powers sometimes as political equals, and at other times as supplicants. Between 1600 and 1800, India and China were so dominant in manufacturing and many areas of technology that the rise of the West is sometimes linked to its relative "backwardness" in comparison to major Asian empires.
Imperialism as Foundation: European success was largely based on imperialism. Between 1815 and 1865, Britain alone conquered new territories at an average rate of 100,000 square miles per year. Many resources enabling the rise of the West originated from imperialism: Indian textiles, Chinese porcelain, African slaves, and colonial labor.
Multiple Forms of Inequality: European power was premised on multiple forms of inequality. Particularly crucial was the restructuring of economies into a primary producing "periphery" and a secondary producing "core." Western powers established a global economy where they eroded local economic practices and imposed their own price and production systems. This allowed Western states to transform an age-old, more or less balanced, system of trade in elite goods into a global market sustained by mass trade and marked by inequality.
For those holding the critical perspective, Western power in the contemporary world is unusual and likely to be temporary.
3.3 International Processes Shaping Modern Order
The rise of the West occurred relatively recently, over the past two or three centuries. Many aspects of its rise can be traced to international processes, such as imperialism and the global expansion of capitalism. These international dynamics allowed a small number of mostly Western states to project their power around the world. As they did so, they generated a range of new actors that subsequently became leading participants in international affairs: nation-states, transnational corporations, and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations (IGOs and NGOs). They also helped to bind the globe together through new forms of transport (such as the steamship) and technologies (such as the telegraph).
The increasingly dense interactions that have characterized international orders over recent centuries have generated forms of interdependence where events in one place have a major effect on others. This heightened interdependence ranges from productive circuits to pandemics.
4. Functions of the Nation-State: Providing Order and Public Goods
Beyond simply existing, the nation-state performs a wide array of functions crucial for the well-being of its citizens and for its interaction with the international system. These functions have expanded significantly over time, particularly with the rise of the welfare state.
5. Challenges and Criticisms of the Nation-State System
Despite its enduring dominance, the nation-state system faces numerous challenges and has been subjected to significant criticism from various theoretical perspectives. These challenges question its efficacy, legitimacy, and even its continued relevance in an increasingly interconnected world.
5.1. Internal Challenges: The Nation-State Under Strain from Within
The internal coherence of many nation-states is often threatened by factors that undermine the ideal congruence between the 'nation' and the 'state.'
Ethnic and Religious Conflicts: In many parts of the world, particularly in post-colonial states whose borders were arbitrarily drawn, the 'nation' is not homogenous. Diverse ethnic, religious, linguistic, or tribal groups often reside within a single state, leading to competition for resources, political power, and recognition. This can manifest as:
Separatist Movements: Groups seeking self-determination and the creation of their own independent nation-states (e.g., Kurds in Iraq, Turkey, Syria; Catalans in Spain; Sikhs in India; ethnic minorities in Myanmar).
Civil Wars: Violent conflicts between different identity groups or between state and non-state armed groups representing marginalized communities (e.g., Syrian Civil War, Rwandan Genocide, conflicts in the Balkans). These conflicts directly challenge the state's monopoly on force and its ability to maintain internal order.
Identity Politics and Minorities: Even in seemingly homogenous states, the rise of identity politics based on race, gender, sexuality, or socio-economic class can create internal cleavages, challenging traditional notions of a unified national identity. Minority groups often demand greater recognition, rights, and autonomy, sometimes leading to political instability if their grievances are not addressed.
Governance Deficits and Failed States: Many states, particularly in developing regions, struggle with weak institutions, corruption, political instability, and a lack of capacity to perform their basic functions.
Weak State Capacity: Inability to effectively collect taxes, enforce laws, provide public services, or control their entire territory. This can lead to a vacuum of authority, allowing non-state actors to thrive.
Failed States: When a state loses its monopoly on the legitimate use of force, its internal legitimacy, and its ability to provide basic public goods to its population (e.g., Somalia, Yemen, parts of Afghanistan), it is often categorized as a "failed state." This creates humanitarian crises and can be a breeding ground for transnational threats.
Rise of Populism and Hyper-Nationalism: In recent years, a surge in populist movements globally has often been accompanied by hyper-nationalist rhetoric. While advocating for national interests, these movements can paradoxically undermine internal democratic norms, demonize minorities, and lead to political polarization, threatening the civic fabric of the nation-state.
5.2. External/Transnational Challenges: Erosion of Westphalian Principles
The nation-state's external sovereignty and control over its borders are increasingly challenged by forces that transcend national boundaries.
Globalization: This multifaceted process refers to the increasing interconnectedness of the world in economic, social, political, and cultural spheres.
Economic Globalization: The free flow of goods, services, capital, and labor across borders limits the state's ability to control its economy. Multinational Corporations (MNCs) often have revenues larger than the GDPs of small states, exerting significant influence and sometimes operating beyond the effective regulatory reach of national governments. States compete for foreign investment, sometimes leading to a "race to the bottom" in terms of labor and environmental standards. For example, tax evasion by MNCs through legal loopholes across different jurisdictions poses a significant challenge to national treasuries.
Cultural Globalization: The spread of global media, consumer culture, and digital platforms can erode distinct national cultures, leading to concerns about cultural homogenization or the dominance of certain cultural forms (e.g., Hollywood movies, Western music).
Information Technology: The internet and social media facilitate the rapid spread of information (and misinformation), ideas, and movements across borders, making it difficult for states to control information flows or public discourse within their territory. Cyberattacks, originating from anywhere, can paralyze critical national infrastructure.
Rise of Non-State Actors: The traditional focus on states as the sole significant actors in international relations is increasingly outdated.
International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs): Groups like Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders, or Greenpeace operate globally, advocating for specific issues (human rights, environment) and often influencing state policies or directly providing services, sometimes even in defiance of state sovereignty.
Transnational Terrorist Organizations: Groups like Al-Qaeda or ISIS operate across multiple state borders, challenging state monopolies on force and security, forcing states to cooperate or undertake interventions that might otherwise violate sovereignty. Their ability to recruit globally and plan attacks remotely poses a unique threat.
Transnational Criminal Organizations: Drug cartels, human traffickers, and cybercriminal networks operate across borders, undermining state law enforcement and corrupting state officials, posing a direct challenge to the state's internal order.
Interdependence and Global Problems: Many contemporary challenges are inherently transnational and cannot be effectively addressed by a single state acting alone, thus requiring international cooperation and sometimes pooling of sovereignty.
Climate Change: Greenhouse gas emissions from one country affect the entire planet, requiring global agreements and coordinated action (e.g., Paris Agreement) that often necessitate states making domestic policy changes.
Pandemics: The rapid spread of diseases (e.g., COVID-19) across borders demonstrates the limitations of national health systems and border controls, demanding global coordination in research, vaccine distribution, and public health responses.
Financial Crises: Economic downturns in one major economy can quickly spread globally, demonstrating the interconnectedness of national economies and the need for international financial institutions (IMF, World Bank) to provide stability.
Humanitarian Crises and Refugee Flows: Conflicts, persecutions, or natural disasters within one state can lead to massive refugee movements that impact neighboring states and the international community, raising questions about border control and the responsibility to protect.
International Law and Institutions: While states are the primary creators of international law and organizations, these entities can also constrain state sovereignty.
Supranationalism: Organizations like the European Union involve member states ceding a degree of sovereignty to a central authority, where EU law can override national law in certain areas. This represents a voluntary limitation of absolute Westphalian sovereignty.
International Criminal Justice: The establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and ad hoc tribunals for war crimes suggests a nascent international legal order that can hold individuals (and implicitly, their states) accountable for grave violations, challenging the traditional impunity offered by state sovereignty for internal affairs.
Human Rights Norms: The development of universal human rights norms and the "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) doctrine (though controversial) suggest a growing international consensus that egregious human rights violations within a state may warrant external intervention, potentially overriding the principle of non-intervention.
5.3. Theoretical Criticisms of the Nation-State System
Different schools of thought in International Relations offer distinct critiques of the nation-state system:
Realism: While realism largely accepts the nation-state as the primary, self-interested actor in an anarchic international system, it implicitly critiques the ideal of the nation-state as a stable, benevolent entity. Realists emphasize the constant struggle for power among states, driven by national interest, often leading to conflict and undermining notions of collective security or shared human identity. For realists like Hans Morgenthau, the nation-state is an inescapable reality of power politics, and its limitations stem from the very nature of human desire for power, rather than external challenges.
Liberalism: Liberals acknowledge the centrality of the nation-state but argue for the possibility of cooperation and progress through international law, institutions, and democratic values. Their critique often focuses on the nation-state's propensity for conflict due to authoritarianism or lack of international cooperation. Liberals advocate for reforms that would make nation-states more democratic and interdependent, thus reducing the likelihood of war. They see globalization and institutions as potentially taming the negative aspects of state sovereignty, rather than destroying it.
Constructivism: Constructivists argue that the nation-state and its principles (like sovereignty) are not natural or fixed but are socially constructed ideas, sustained by shared beliefs and practices. Their critique points out that the meaning and power of the nation-state can change over time through evolving norms and discourses. They question the essentialist view of the nation-state and highlight how identities (national, regional, global) are continually being redefined, impacting state behavior and potentially leading to alternative political forms.
Marxism/Critical Theories: These perspectives offer a fundamental critique of the nation-state as an instrument of capitalist class power. Marxists argue that the nation-state primarily serves the interests of the dominant economic class within its borders and facilitates global capitalism. They view nationalism as an ideology used by elites to unify the working class behind national interests, diverting attention from class struggle. Critical theories often deconstruct the nation-state's role in perpetuating inequalities, historical injustices, and power hierarchies, particularly in the post-colonial context. They highlight how the system often privileges powerful states and reinforces global capitalist structures.
Post-structuralism: Similar to constructivism, post-structuralists see the nation-state as a discursive construct, its power derived from the narratives and language used to define it. They question the stability of concepts like "nation" and "sovereignty," viewing them as sites of ongoing contestation and power struggles. They might critique how the nation-state creates "others" and reinforces specific power relations.
The evolution of international society and the nation-state system are foundational to understanding global politics. International society has progressed from localized interactions to a deeply interdependent global order, driven by economic exchanges, technological advancements, and the expansion of Western influence. Simultaneously, the nation-state system, built upon the concept of sovereignty and shaped by the powerful force of nationalism, has become the dominant form of political organization.
While sovereignty provides states with internal authority and external independence, globalization has introduced significant challenges to its traditional understanding, particularly through the influence of transnational actors and the interconnectedness of global issues. Nationalism, a potent force, has both unified populations into states and led to conflicts where national identities clash with existing borders.
The debates surrounding the "rise of the West" highlight the complex historical processes and power dynamics that have shaped the modern international order, emphasizing both internal strengths and external exploitation. As the world continues to globalize, the interplay between the evolving international society and the resilient yet challenged nation-state system will remain central to the study and practice of International Relations. Understanding these historical and conceptual underpinnings is crucial for navigating the complexities of contemporary global affairs.
