Anarchy is basic to state-centric International Relations because sovereignty is basic to state-centric International Relations. As Hinsley and others have demonstrated, ‘sovereignty’ emerged in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries as a double-headed notion (Hinsley 1966). On the one hand, rulers were sovereign in so far as they accepted no internal, ‘domestic’ equals; while on the other, they were sovereign in so far as they accepted no external, ‘international’ superiors. This notion gained normative acceptance in the second half of the seventeenth century — conventionally, following the Westphalia Peace Treaties that ended the Thirty Years’ War — and remains the base upon which the structures of anarchy are constructed. The extent to which the norms of Westphalia have governed international practice is debatable; the Westphalia notion of sovereignty may indeed, as Krasner suggests, be a matter of ‘organized hypocrisy’, given the extent to which rulers have actually always intervened in each others affairs, but, at least in principle, the claim to be a sovereign entails acknowledgement of the sovereignty of others (Krasner 1999; Kratochwil 1995).
Swipe to navigate through the chapters of this book
Please log in to get access to this content
- Global Governance
- Macmillan Education UK
- Sequence number
- Chapter number
- Chapter 7