Chapter 1: Defining International Relations Through Global Disasters and Film

1.3: Anarchy and Sovereignty in the Global System

The modern world of international relations has some surprisingly old roots. Believe it or not, a lot of what we know as the global order today was born out of a peace treaty from way back in 1648. Known as the Treaty of Westphalia, this agreement ended the Thiry Years’ War, a brutal series of wars in Europe and established the concept of state sovereignty—that each country had supreme authority within its borders, free from external interference. This Westphalian System is still foundational today, defining the international system where countries have the right to govern themselves without outside intervention. There are other interpretations of this understanding, however. Andreas Osiander (2001) argues that the treaties of 1648 did not suddenly create the modern system of sovereign states and that the idea of a clear “Westphalian beginning” is better understood as a later scholarly construction. From this perspective, sovereignty developed gradually rather than emerging fully formed from a single peace settlement. Even as ideas about borders and sovereignty became more established, no world government was created to enforce them. States were therefore left to navigate a global system marked by an important condition: anarchy.

Anarchy in international relations doesn’t mean total chaos; instead, it simply refers to the absence of a central authority that oversees all states. Unlike a country where a national government enforces laws and regulations, the global system has no single authority telling countries what to do. Waltz (1979) treats anarchy as the central organizing principle of the international system. Because no higher authority stands above states, each state must remain attentive to its own security and position relative to others. This means states operate independently, guided by their own interests and goals, often resulting in competition or conflict. Think of the world like a group of neighbors without a homeowners’ association—some might get along, others might clash, and disputes can escalate quickly since there’s no one to mediate. This condition of anarchy creates both risks and opportunities for states, as they must decide when to cooperate and when to go it alone. Hedley Bull (1977), however, emphasizes that anarchy does not eliminate order. States can still form an international society based on shared rules, institutions, and practices such as diplomacy, international law, and the balance of power. In such a system, each state must also rely on its sovereignty, the core idea that gives states the authority to control what happens within their own borders.

For countries, sovereignty is like a protective shield, ensuring they have the power to make decisions within their own territory. This principle of sovereignty allows each country to govern itself free from external interference and shapes how states interact in the international system. A sovereign state can create its own laws, manage its resources, choose its political system, and exercise authority within its territory. Yet sovereignty is not a single, uniform condition. It can involve domestic authority, control over cross-border movement, international legal recognition, and freedom from external interference, and states may possess some of these dimensions more fully than others (Krasner, 1999).For instance, Canada’s sovereignty means it makes its own laws without input from other countries. This independence is evident in policies as Canada’s control over its natural resources, like its vast oil reserves in Alberta, and determines how they are extracted, regulated, and traded, even when faced with international pressure regarding environmental policies. Furthermore, Canada’s sovereignty allows it to decide on its own foreign policy, as seen in its decision to remain independent from U.S. military actions at times, such as when it refused to participate in the 2003 Iraq War despite American requests. However, this independence is highly valued, but it also places pressure on states to defend their sovereignty, especially in an anarchic system where no higher authority exists to protect their borders. To preserve their autonomy and security, states must think strategically about their power, forging alliances, maintaining strong military capabilities, and engaging in diplomatic efforts to deter potential threats.

When it comes to survival and influence, power is a state’s greatest asset. In international relations, power is the ability to shape outcomes, whether by military strength, economic influence, or diplomatic skill. Military power, for example, gives a state the capacity to defend itself or even deter potential threats, while economic power allows it to sway other states through trade agreements or financial aid. Think of the United States or China, whose influence spans across regions because of their substantial military and economic resources. Diplomacy, or “soft power,” is another valuable tool, allowing countries to build alliances or negotiate treaties. But power also comes with responsibility, as states must carefully balance their ambitions with the reality that other states are also vying for influence. And in an anarchic world, states know they can’t count on anyone else for protection—they rely on a principle known as self-help. We’ll learn more about the different concepts of power in Chapter 4, but for now check out the video below to learn more about the foundations of power.

In the global system, self-reliance isn’t just a virtue; it’s often a necessity. The principle of self-help means that in the absence of a global police force, each state must look out for its own security and interests. This concept explains why countries build up their militaries, seek alliances, or develop nuclear arsenals to deter potential threats. Since no international authority can guarantee their safety, states must be prepared to defend themselves independently. Consider why nations invest in defense budgets and why they often seem wary of others’ military activities—self-help pushes states to act in their own best interests to ensure survival. However, even in this self-reliant and anarchic world, states recognize that cooperation can help manage conflicts, and this is where international law comes in.

International law brings a layer of order to the otherwise anarchic international system, offering a set of rules and norms that help states interact more predictably and cooperatively. While there’s no global government to enforce these laws, treaties and agreements establish guidelines on everything from trade to human rights, reducing misunderstandings and promoting stability. For example, the Geneva Conventions set standards for humane treatment in wartime, helping countries agree on basic norms even during conflicts. International law may not eliminate anarchy, but it helps states manage its effects by providing shared rules, expectations, and procedures for resolving disputes. In Bull’s account, these legal norms are part of the broader institutions that sustain order in international society, alongside diplomacy, the balance of power, and the recognition of sovereignty (Bull, 1977). States may still disagree, compete, or violate the rules, but international law gives them a common framework for judging behavior and negotiating solutions. Together, sovereignty, power, self-help, and international law shape how states navigate both the risks and the possibilities of the global system.

In a world of rival powers and guarded borders, getting countries to work together can feel like herding cats, but international cooperation is not a lost cause. While the international system is rooted in anarchy, with no single global government to enforce cooperation, states still come together to tackle major issues such as health crises and natural disasters. Sovereignty means that countries value their independence and are often hesitant to compromise, especially when national interests are at stake. Power imbalances further complicate cooperation, as stronger nations may push for dominance while weaker states resist being sidelined. Even so, institutions can make cooperation more likely by reducing uncertainty, sharing information, monitoring commitments, and helping states coordinate their behavior (Keohane, 1984). Despite these challenges, global cooperation is not just possible. It is happening. By starting with smaller agreements, building trust, and appealing to shared benefits, states and international organizations manage to bridge divides and work together on urgent issues.