Anarchy is basic to state-centric International Relations because sovereignty is basic to state-centric International Relations. As Hinsley (1966) and others have demonstrated, ‘sovereignty’ emerged in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries as a double-headed notion. On the one hand, rulers were sovereign insofar as they accepted no internal, ‘domestic’ equals; while on the other, they were sovereign insofar as they accepted no external, ‘international’ superiors. This notion gained normative acceptance in the second half of the seventeenth century – conventionally, following the 1648 Peace of Westphalia that ended the Thirty Years’ War – and remains the base on which the structures of anarchy are constructed. The extent to which the norms of Westphalia have governed international practice is debatable; the Westphalian notion of sovereignty may indeed, as Krasner (1999) suggests, be a matter of ‘organized hypocrisy’, given the extent to which rulers have actually always intervened in each other’s affairs, but, at least in principle, the claim to be a sovereign entails acknowledgement of the sovereignty of others (Kratochwil 1995).
Swipe to navigate through the chapters of this book
Please log in to get access to this content
To get access to this content you need the following product:
- Global Governance
- Macmillan Education UK
- Sequence number
- Chapter number