11/18

22. Nov 18, Tue: International Order

Required Readings (28 pages)

• Daniel Philpott, “Sovereignty,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 9 pages

  (link)

The provided text offers a comprehensive exploration of the concept of sovereignty, defining it as supreme authority within a territory and examining its historical evolution. It traces the rise of the modern sovereign state system, noting its consolidation around the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 and the corresponding political thought of figures like Machiavelli, Bodin, and Hobbes who championed absolute sovereignty. The sources then discuss a subsequent historical movement: the circumscription of the sovereign state following World War II, driven by the growth of international human rights laws, the rise of supranational institutions like the European Union, and the emergence of norms such as the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). Finally, the text details the theoretical challenges to absolute sovereignty from post-war philosophers like Bertrand de Jouvenel and Jacques Maritain, who argued against the notion of unchecked state power.

notes

• brute force costly

• legitimate is cheap

• authority = legitimate right to command 

Sovereignty: Concept, Evolution, and Contemporary Challenges

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the political concept of sovereignty, tracing its definition, historical development, and the contemporary challenges to its absolute form. The core definition of sovereignty is supreme authority within a territory, a concept that became the signature feature of modern politics and the foundation of the state system. Its history is marked by two major movements: first, the rise and consolidation of a global system of sovereign states, which culminated in the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 and was theorized by philosophers like Jean Bodin and Thomas Hobbes. The second movement, emerging after World War II, is the circumscription of the sovereign state, driven by the growth of international human rights law, the practice of humanitarian intervention, and the deep integration of supranational bodies like the European Union. These practical developments are mirrored by philosophical critiques from thinkers such as Jacques Maritain and Bertrand de Jouvenel, who challenge absolute sovereignty as a dangerous and flawed concept. Today, the principle of sovereignty exists in a state of tension, with its prerogatives being both curtailed by international norms and reasserted by major world powers.

1. The Core Concept of Sovereignty

Sovereignty is the fundamental characteristic of authority within the modern state. While its historical manifestations vary, a stable core definition persists: supreme authority within a territory. This definition distinguishes modern political authority from the fragmented and overlapping powers of the medieval era.

Key Components of the Definition

• Authority: This is not merely coercive power, but what philosopher R.P. Wolff defined as "the right to command and correlatively the right to be obeyed." This right is derived from a mutually acknowledged source of legitimacy, such as a divine mandate, natural law, or, most ubiquitously in the contemporary era, a body of law like a constitution.

• Supremacy: A sovereign entity is superior to all other authorities under its purview. This quality is what differentiates the U.S. Constitution from the government of Pennsylvania or a sovereign from a police chief. In the Middle Ages, by contrast, few authorities held this kind of supreme legal warrant.

• Territoriality: This principle defines community membership based on residence within specific geographical borders. It is a powerful modern concept that can override other forms of identity like tribe, religion, or ethnicity. The authority of a modern sovereign is exercised supremely within a defined territory, a model now universal across the globe.

Dimensions of Sovereignty

Sovereignty can be further understood along three critical dimensions that categorize its various historical forms.

2. The Historical Rise of the Sovereign State

The history of sovereignty is a story of two broad movements: its initial development into a global system of states, and its more recent circumscription.

From Medievalism to the Westphalian System

The transition from the overlapping authorities of the Middle Ages to a world of sovereign states was a centuries-long process consolidated at the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. While states like Britain and France showed signs of sovereignty by 1300, Europe remained far from this system at the start of the Reformation in 1517. The Peace of Augsburg in 1555 was an important step, allowing German princes to enforce their own faith within their territory (cuius regio, eius religio), but its instability led to the Thirty Years War.

Westphalia is considered the origin of the modern state system for two main reasons:

1. Constitutional Authority: States emerged as the sole form of substantive constitutional authority in Europe, with the temporal powers of the Church and the Holy Roman Empire seriously curtailed. Pope Innocent X condemned the treaties as "null, void, invalid, iniquitous, unjust, damnable, reprobate, inane, empty of meaning and effect for all time."

2. Non-Intervention: The treaties ended the era of widespread intervention in matters of religion, establishing the authority of rulers over faith within their own borders. This principle evolved into a foundational norm of the international system.

While some scholars (the "deconstructionist" school) contest Westphalia's status as a singular "founding moment," the sovereign state model it solidified spread worldwide over the next 300 years, becoming the only form of polity to cover the entire globe after the decline of colonial empires.

Key Political Philosophers

As the state system rose in practice, political philosophers developed the theoretical justifications for sovereignty.

• Conceptual Forerunners:

  • Niccolò Machiavelli: While not using the term, he described a prince whose obligation was raison d'état (the strength and well-ordering of the state), placing him above natural or canon law and making him the supreme authority in his territory.

  • Martin Luther: His Reformation theology stripped the Catholic Church of its temporal powers (land, taxation, justice) and transferred them to territorial princes. By separating the "realm of the spirit" from the "realm of the world," he removed the last obstacle to unified state power.

• Systematic Theorists of Absolute Sovereignty:

  • Jean Bodin (De la république, 1576): Writing during the French wars of religion, Bodin presented sovereignty as the only solution to civil conflict. He saw the sovereign as a single, unitary authority, the source of human law and above it, though still bound by divine and natural law.

  • Thomas Hobbes: In the context of the English Civil War, Hobbes argued that people establish sovereignty via a contract, transferring all their rights to a "Leviathan" (the state). The Leviathan's will is supreme, above the law, and its commands must be obeyed absolutely.

• Later Developments and Interpretations:

  • Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Re-envisioned the holder of sovereignty as the collective people, ruling through their "general will."

  • Constitutional Government: The modern, prevalent form where the people rule through a sovereign body of law.

  • Carl Schmitt: In the 20th century, this German jurist echoed Hobbes and Bodin, famously stating, "Sovereign is he who decides on the exception." He argued the sovereign must stand above constitutional law to act for the good of the state in an emergency.

3. The Circumscription of Sovereignty Post-World War II

The second great movement in sovereignty's history is its limitation, a trend that began in earnest after the atrocities of World War II, which many attributed to the lack of accountability of the absolute sovereign state.

The Rise of Human Rights and Humanitarian Intervention

• Legal Instruments: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) was the first step in tethering states to universal obligations regarding their internal affairs. It was followed by legally binding treaties like the Genocide Convention (1948) and covenants on civil, political, economic, and social rights.

• Practice of Intervention: After the Cold War, the Westphalian norm of non-intervention was revised. The UN and other bodies began to endorse military operations to remedy injustices within a state, often without the consent of its government (e.g., in the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Rwanda, and Libya).

• The Responsibility to Protect (R2P): This 2001 doctrine, developed by an international commission, formally proposes that sovereignty entails a state's "responsibility to protect" its citizens. If a state fails in this duty, outsiders may assume that responsibility.

European Integration: A Model of Pooled Sovereignty

Emerging from a similar post-WWII desire for accountability, European integration represents a profound circumscription of national sovereignty.

• Evolution: Beginning with the European Coal and Steel Community in 1950, the project evolved into the European Union (EU), an institution that now comprises twenty-seven member states.

• Pooling Sovereignty: The EU is a "supranational" institution into which member states "pool" important aspects of their sovereignty. They are no longer absolutely sovereign, as EU law constrains their freedom of action in critical areas like trade, currency, and social policy.

• Recent Strains: This process is not without challenges, as evidenced by the 2005 rejection of an EU Constitution by French and Dutch voters and the 2016 "Brexit" referendum in the United Kingdom.

Philosophical Critiques of Absolute Sovereignty

The practical circumscription of sovereignty finds a strong parallel in political philosophy.

• Bertrand de Jouvenel (Sovereignty: An Inquiry Into the Political Good, 1957): Jouvenel decried the modern, Hobbesian concept of a sovereign whose will is law, calling the idea itself "dangerous." He argued that sovereignty must be channeled by an independent morality and the shared moral concepts of the citizenry, so that it wills only what is legitimate.

• Jacques Maritain (Man and the State, 1951): Maritain offered a more radical critique, contending that "political philosophy must get rid of the word, as well as the concept, of Sovereignty." He argued the concept is "intrinsically wrong" because it creates a transcendent power above the people rather than one accountable to them. Maritain identified three core dysfunctions of sovereignty:

  1. Its external dimension makes international law and a world state inconceivable.

  2. Its internal dimension leads to centralism over pluralism.

  3. Its supreme power is contrary to democratic accountability.

• Contemporary Thought: The case for limiting sovereignty continues in both Christian and liberal traditions. Pope Benedict XVI endorsed the Responsibility to Protect, while liberal philosophers like Thomas Pogge and Allen Buchanan argue for a non-absolute moral status for sovereignty to allow for humanitarian intervention and the development of global institutions.

Study Guide on the Concept of Sovereignty

Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences, drawing your information from the provided context on sovereignty.

1. What is the core definition of sovereignty as it emerged in early modern Europe?

2. Explain the three essential components that make up the definition of sovereignty.

3. Why is the Peace of Westphalia of 1648 considered a pivotal moment in the history of the sovereign state system?

4. Describe the difference between the internal and external dimensions of sovereignty.

5. What was Jean Bodin's primary contribution to the political theory of sovereignty?

6. According to the text, how did Thomas Hobbes conceive of the establishment and nature of sovereign authority?

7. What are the two most prominent movements or developments that have circumscribed state sovereignty since World War II?

8. What is the "Responsibility to Protect," and how does it revise the classical concept of sovereignty?

9. Summarize Jacques Maritain's fundamental critique of the concept of sovereignty.

10. Briefly explain the concept of "the king's two bodies" and its significance in the evolution of political authority.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Answer Key

1. The core definition of sovereignty is supreme authority within a territory. This quality was possessed by early modern states but was lacked by most political entities during the Middle Ages, such as popes, emperors, and kings. Subsequent definitions of sovereignty are largely variants of this foundational concept.

2. The three components are authority, supremacy, and territoriality. Authority is the legitimate right to command and be obeyed; supremacy means the holder is superior to all other authorities under its purview; and territoriality defines community membership based on residence within geographic borders.

3. The Peace of Westphalia consolidated the transition to a world of sovereign states by establishing states as the sole form of substantive constitutional authority in Europe, no longer seriously challenged by the Holy Roman Empire. It also brought an end to the era of widespread intervention in religious matters, establishing the authority of rulers over religion within their territories.

4. Internal sovereignty refers to the exercise of supreme authority within a state's borders. External sovereignty pertains to a state's relationship with outsiders, defining its constitutional independence from outside influence and the norm of non-interference, which depends on recognition by other states.

5. Jean Bodin was the first European philosopher to treat the concept of sovereignty extensively, presenting it as a solution to the civil wars in France. He argued that to solve the problem of order, rulers and ruled must be integrated into a single, unitary body politic under a supreme authority that is the source of human law.

6. Hobbes argued that people establish sovereign authority through a contract, transferring all their rights to a "Leviathan" that represents the state. The will of this Leviathan is supreme, above the law, and represents the will of all who alienated their rights to it, with the obligation to obey being absolute.

7. The two most prominent circumscriptions of sovereignty since World War II are the growth of international conventions on human rights and the process of European integration. Human rights laws tether states to universal obligations regarding their internal affairs, while European integration has pooled aspects of state sovereignty into a supranational institution.

8. The "Responsibility to Protect" is a principle proposing that sovereignty includes a state's responsibility to protect its own citizens from massive injustice. If a state fails in this duty, the responsibility may be assumed by outsiders, justifying internationally sanctioned intervention and thus creating a form of non-absolute sovereignty.

9. Jacques Maritain argued that political philosophy must get rid of the concept of sovereignty because it is intrinsically wrong. He believed it wrongly conceives of authority as being permanently transferred and alienated from the people to a transcendent monarch or state, leading to the idolatry of the sovereign's will, centralism over pluralism, and a contradiction with the democratic principle of accountability.

10. The concept of "the king's two bodies" describes the medieval idea that a king possessed a natural, mortal body and an enduring, supernatural one that represented the mystical dignity and justice of the body politic. This idea was formative for sovereignty because it transferred the notion of a collective organization with an enduring essence from the church to political entities, paving the way for the modern state.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glossary of Key Terms

• David Kang, “Hierarchy and Legitimacy in International Systems: The Tribute

  System in Early Modern East Asia,” Security Studies, Volume 19, Number 4, READ ONLY pp. 591-619 (Library link)

notes= diff btw power balance and hiearchy voluntary respect —> peace= relationships more credible  wasnt abt who was stronger 

realists=one country abt to be dominant = counter the would be hedgemony, didnt happen in asia lesser countries pay respect considering china’s dominance as legitimate/ other countries u.s allies view u.s leadership legitimacy similar in east asia 1841 war btw europe introduce sovernity 

realist would say legitimate power china didnt try to conquer japan or korea /not bc they are weak david kang and 1592-1598 war china and japan great military / japan try to take over korea had capability but peace prevail=tribute system conficiuous + repect 

-material power affect I.R but also/ norms of sovereignty tribute system also affect I.R develop

Hierarchy and Legitimacy: The East Asian Tribute System (1368-1841)

Executive Summary

The international system in Early Modern East Asia, from 1368 to 1841, was an enduring, stable, and explicitly hierarchic order with China as the clear hegemon. Known as the "tribute system," its stability was founded not merely on China's material power but on the system's perceived legitimacy, which was generated by a common culture defined by a Confucian worldview. Within this system, cultural achievement was as significant as economic or military prowess in determining a state's rank.

This briefing document synthesizes the core arguments and evidence presented in David C. Kang's analysis of this historical international order. The key takeaways are:

* Hierarchy and Legitimacy over Anarchy and Balance: Unlike the Westphalian system's ideal of sovereign equality, the tribute system was built on formal inequality. This hierarchy was accepted as legitimate by secondary states, particularly "Sinicized" states like Korea, which saw participation as a confirmation of their membership in Confucian civilization.

* A Tale of Two Relationships: Unipolarity alone cannot explain the region's security dynamics. China's relations with Sinicized states, which shared its Confucian worldview, were characterized by peace and stability. In contrast, its relations with nomadic peoples on its northern and western frontiers, who rejected Chinese cultural authority, were characterized by endemic war and instability.

* Culture as a Core Component of Power: Hegemony in this context was more than material preponderance; it was the legitimate authority of one state over others. China's power was projected through a set of norms and values that were embraced by other nations. This consensual order included credible commitments by China not to exploit secondary states that accepted its authority.

* The System's Institutions: The tribute system was a viable and recognized international system with rules and institutions—such as investiture and tributary embassies—that regulated diplomacy, managed trade, and facilitated cultural exchange. It provided a set of tools for resolving conflicts short of war. This order stands as a significant historical contrast to the power-balancing dynamics often assumed to be universal in international relations.

I. Defining the Framework: Hierarchy, Legitimacy, and Hegemony

The East Asian tribute system operated on principles distinct from the modern Westphalian system. Understanding its core theoretical concepts is essential to grasping its unique stability.

* Hierarchy within Anarchy: The system is defined as a "rank-order based on a particular attribute." This form of hierarchy is not the opposite of anarchy (the absence of a world government) but can exist within it. In this context, states were explicitly and formally unequal, with China at the top.

* Hegemony as Legitimate Authority: The analysis distinguishes between simple material preponderance (primacy or unipolarity) and true hegemony. Hegemony is defined as "the legitimate influence and authority of one state over other states," where the dominant actor has the "power to shape the rules of international politics according to its own interests." This requires consent from secondary states. As Jonathan Joseph observes, "The concept of hegemony is normally understood as emphasizing consent in contrast to reliance on the use of force."

* The Power of Legitimacy: Legitimacy is presented as a form of power derived from values and norms, not just military might. While intertwined with coercion, a stable hegemonic order is one in which there is a "meaningful consensus on the right of the hegemonic state to lead." This requires a credible commitment from the dominant state not to exploit subordinate states that accept its authority.

II. The East Asian Tribute System: A Viable International Order

Far from being a mere symbolic facade or a functionalist "cloak for trade," the tribute system was a comprehensive international system with consequential rules, norms, and institutions that ordered relations for nearly five centuries.

Core Features and Institutions

* Explicit Hierarchy: The system was founded on an accepted rank order based on status. A state's position was determined as much by its cultural similarity to China as by its raw power.

* Formal Inequality, Informal Equality: While states formally acknowledged China's superiority, they retained substantial latitude in their domestic and foreign policy. As Gregory Smits notes, "When envoys bowed before the Chinese emperor, they were in effect acknowledging the cultural superiority of the Chinese emperor, not his political authority over their states."

* Investiture: This was the diplomatic protocol through which China recognized the legitimate sovereignty of another political unit and the status of its ruler. This act established the tributary state as a guo (country) in Chinese eyes, granting it rights of entry and diplomatic engagement.

* Tribute Embassies: These missions, often comprising hundreds of officials, scholars, and assistants, were the primary vehicle for interaction. They served to stabilize diplomatic relations, formalize trade rules, exchange information, and facilitate intellectual and cultural exchange.

Rebutting Common Criticisms

The analysis challenges three conventional scholarly views of the tribute system:

1. The Functionalist View: The idea that "tribute was a cloak for trade" (John K. Fairbank) is deemed insufficient, as it fails to explain the immense time, energy, and thought dedicated to the system's rituals and norms by all participants.

2. The Symbolic View: The argument that the system was a substance-free mask for power politics is questioned. If it were merely a way to placate China, it would not explain why secondary states like Korea and Japan replicated the system's hierarchical forms in their own relations with other political units.

3. The Rejectionist View: The claim that the "tribute system" is a modern concept projected onto the past is countered by evidence that the political units of the time acted as states, conducted formal diplomatic relations through agreed-upon rules, and used the system's concepts for centuries.

III. The Confucian Society: An Inner Circle of Stability

Within the broader tribute system existed a smaller, more cohesive "international society" of Sinicized states—China, Korea, Vietnam, and to a lesser extent, Japan. This group's shared Confucian worldview was the primary source of the region's remarkable stability.

* Shared Normative Framework: These kingdoms shared governmental, ritual, educational, and intellectual practices derived from Confucianism. Alexander Woodside notes, "all three societies [China, Korea, and Vietnam] were governed by a scholar elite with a particular type of historical consciousness." This common framework provided a shared vocabulary for resolving disputes.

* Cultural Rank: A state's rank within the hierarchy was directly linked to its adoption of Confucian norms. Korea was regarded as a "model" tributary and ranked near the top, affording it greater diplomatic and trade privileges than the more powerful but less-integrated Japan. For Korean elites, the relationship "was a confirmation of their membership in Confucian civilization."

* Absence of Religious War: A notable achievement of this shared order was the avoidance of large-scale religious wars. Woodside observes, "There were no Huguenot wars... no large-scale holy wars, religious inquisitions, or St. Bartholomew massacres in Chinese, Vietnamese, or Korean history."

IV. Case Studies in Hierarchy and Legitimacy

The variation in China's relationships with Korea, Japan, and the nomads demonstrates that shared culture, not just the distribution of power, was the key variable determining peace or conflict.

Korea: The Model Tributary

Korea was a willing and active participant in the Chinese-led order.

* Voluntary Emulation: Korea self-consciously adopted Chinese institutions without pressure from China. This included the civil service examination system (munkwa), the structure of government ministries, and even court dress (with Korean emblems set two ranks lower than their Ming counterparts).

* Legitimacy and Domestic Politics: The founders of Korea's Chosŏn dynasty (1392-1910) sought investiture from Ming China to solidify their own domestic legitimacy.

* Credible Commitments and Stable Borders: The tribute system provided the institutional framework for resolving territorial disputes peacefully. After an initial dispute, the Ming recognized Korea's control over its territory in exchange for tributary status. The border along the Yalu and Tumen rivers, established in the 14th century, has remained largely unchanged since. As Gari Ledyard contends, "the tributary system did provide for effective communication, and Chinese and Korean officialdom spoke from a common Confucian vocabulary."

Japan: The Liminal Case

Japan occupied a boundary position, accepting Chinese civilization while resisting Chinese political dominance.

* Civilization vs. State: Japanese elites made an "explicit distinction between Chinese civilization, which they revered; and the Chinese state, which they often held in contempt."

* Cultural and Institutional Borrowing: Despite its political skepticism, Japan imported Chinese traditions, Buddhism, and political practices. The 701 Taiho Code established a Chinese-style bureaucracy, and Tokugawa-era (1600-1868) legal codes were heavily influenced by Chinese precedents.

* The Imjin War Anomaly (1592-98): Japanese general Toyotomi Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea is presented as an exception driven by status competition rather than a realist power calculation. Kenneth Swope argues, "Hideyoshi craved recognition and homage from foreign rulers. This goal should not be trivialized." There is little evidence that Hideyoshi conducted a systematic assessment of Chinese military capabilities before the invasion.

V. A Tale of Two Systems: China and the Nomadic Peoples

The relationship between China and the semi-nomadic peoples on its northern and western frontiers provides a stark contrast to the stability within the Confucian society. Though operating in the same unipolar system, this relationship was defined by endemic conflict.

* Clash of Worldviews: The nomads rejected Confucian ideas of civilization, such as written texts and settled agriculture. This created a "chasm between Chinese and nomadic perceptions of themselves and each other." According to Alastair Iain Johnston's work, China operated in a "parabellum" strategic culture with the nomads, viewing the "best way of dealing with security threats is to eliminate them through the use of force."

* Trade vs. Raid: The core of the relationship was material, centered on the nomads' need for grain, metals, and textiles from China. Thomas Barfield argues that when trade was advantageous, the nomads traded; when it was restricted, they raided.

* Unipolarity Is Not Enough: The different outcomes—peace with Sinicized states and war with nomads—demonstrate that unipolarity alone cannot explain the system's dynamics. The presence or absence of a shared, legitimate cultural framework was the decisive factor. David Wright concludes that the conflict stemmed from "the incompatibility and fixed proximity between very different societies, ecologies, and worldviews."

VI. Assessing a Rival Explanation: The Distribution of Capabilities

A realist explanation—that stability resulted from China being unable to conquer its neighbors or from smaller states balancing against it—is not supported by the evidence.

* China's Military Capacity: The Ming dynasty was not a constrained power. During the Imjin War, it dispatched 100,000 troops to defend Korea while simultaneously suppressing a major mutiny and crushing an uprising elsewhere in its territory. These military campaigns "easily dwarfed those of their European contemporaries."

* Korean Military Weakness: There is little evidence China was deterred by Korean military strength. On the eve of the 1592 invasion, after two centuries of peace, Chosŏn Korea had fewer than 1,000 soldiers in its army. Its military was described as "meager and untrained."

* Absence of Balancing: Korea never allied with Japan to balance against China. In fact, at the start of the Imjin War, it took Korea three months of intense diplomacy to convince the Ming that it was not colluding with the Japanese invaders.

* Lack of Military Threat Assessment: The historical records of both China and Korea lack the extensive strategic discussions about military action against each other that would be expected under a realist framework. Such discussions are, however, prominent in their records concerning the nomads.

compare china today to past tribute system doesnt exist anymore president buit in road initiative = similar send diplomats every few years show respect to emperor show legitmacy of chinas power strengthen domestic control

buit in road initiative = china give benefits (infrasture/eco investment opprotunities to invest in china’s economy) to other countries  ask them to show respect (want material power and respect pursue soft power) exchange request for legitimacy