What’s The Problem With Eurocentrism In The Context Of International Sovereignty

Sovereignty, in contemporary international relations, has traditionally been viewed as a singular, linear narrative resulting in a rigid belief system that underestimates and limits a wider understanding of the global system. Although it is assumed that this doctrine can be applied internationally, Kayaoglu (2010, pp.193-217) argues how it has been shaped from a so-called “intellectual construct” to an “ideological tool” due to the presence of Western powers which have led to a dominating canon. Herewith lies the problem.

The word itself is derived from the Latin superanus meaning above and French souverain meaning supreme power. As Hinsley (1986) states, sovereignty cements the idea of a “final and absolute authority within a so-called political community” (1986, p. 1). In the Western hemisphere, it is widely believed these dates back to the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), which established peace between the then superpowers of Europe (Sweden, Holland and France) following a particularly bloody period during the Holy Roman Empire. Subsequently, history has been viewed dominantly through a Eurocentric gaze, arguably to sustain peace and order through a hierarchy of perspectives.

Since the late 20th century, the way in which sovereignty has been studied has been far more critical of the Eurocentric “Westphalian narrative” (Kayaoglu, 2010) with its ‘distorting’ capabilities towards the evaluation of the international. Wong (2018) infers this European Experience is derived from periods in which sovereignty loosely grew into a solid bedrock within Europe.

This essay will look at how a modern interpretation of sovereignty has been largely shaped from a European, or Western viewpoint and what as a result are the downsides that play into this. Moreover, it will explore case studies which contradict this narrative in the modern political landscape to search for alternative perspectives and in order to gain a greater understanding of international politics.

Kang (2019) explores the “multifaceted nature of past regional responses to Chinese hegemony” through the retrospective understanding of the past and the history that has been made from it. The author clearly sees the underlying issue with the monolithic Westphalian take on sovereignty is how Western international relations scholars assume that the European balance-of-power system is universal across so-called time and space (2019).

This is challenged by what Kang describes as Sinocentrism the interpretation of Chinese history and state through the perspective of the region, rather than judged by an outsider’s take on the matter. The two main arguments (2019) used by Kang throughout his journal, are the concepts of hierarchy and hegemony which characterise sovereignty and the state system within East Asia throughout history. Hegemony starkly contrasts with the Westphalian style of hierarchical sovereignty which is concerned with the balance of power of nations and sovereign equality.

The writer elaborates how states within the East Asian system have rejected Chinese concepts whilst adopting its “basic tributary institutions”. As a result, the way in which states interact becomes inevitably hierarchic (2019). This perpetuates an inequality which was present in the region throughout the mediaeval and early modern ages. The writer also directly evaluates arguments from prolific East Asian scholars, such as Zhang, Ji-Young Lee, and Seo-Hyun Park, with Zhang specifically stating that “Confucianism was the major, not residual, variable” (2015).

Moreover, Kang (2019) highlights how China managed to endure and recombine despite periods of disunity throughout its history. In contrast, he argues US hegemony is “at most” seventy years old, whilst on the other hand Chinese hegemony endured many centuries and never managed to fall much like the Roman Empire. The author also highlights the observation made by Womack (2010, p. 154) in which he details how “the Mongols and the Manchus conquered China” (from 1205-1279) and yet Mongolia and Manchuria “did not become the new centres of Asia, nor did they obliterate the old one”. This Sinocentric formation of the state and the system of states was also reflected in what he terms, “remarkable East Asian state formation”, in Japan, Vietnam and Korea which occurred through “emulation of hegemon, not a competition of power”.

Throughout Kang`s argument, it becomes clear that the way sovereignty was formulated and continues to be defined, can be greatly contrasted to the Westphalian Eurocentric system which was prominent within Europe and the West. Since the late 19th century, when Japan and Korea signed the Kanghwa Treaty of 1876, the Tributary system which East Asia adopted was soon slowly moulded into a Westphalian system, in turn, allowing for a much greater discourse regarding the history of East Asia and its interpretation of sovereignty in the modern-day.

Kang’s argument is that the East Asian historical experience gives international scholars an opportunity to study cases, patterns and eras, offering a stark contrast to those of the Western experience (2019), with regard to sovereignty. This becomes an interesting example of studying regional experiences that offer a different viewpoint and can help us form a greater understanding of how sovereignty is formed in a global sphere.

On the other hand, while Strydom (2007) acknowledges other diverging perspectives on sovereignty, he is critical of actions taken by several state actors who wish to recontextualize the Eurocentric Westphalian state narrative, one that the international system is biased towards. Strydom looks upon the involvement of the Non-Aligned Movement (initially set up by former Yugoslavia, India, Ghana, Egypt and Indonesia in 1961) with its goal of “deterring the forces of colonialism, imperialism, neo-colonialism” as well as “expansionism” (2007, p. 4).

The key objective of the alliance was to maintain the political independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of these countries (2007, p. 4) at a time when this was threatened. Meanwhile, the biopolitical conditions set by the Cold War between the USA and USSR to the NAM (Non-Aligned Movement) endangered the sovereignty of post-colonial and developing nations. NAM believed these superpower states sought to spread their systems of soft and hard power towards them and their Third World neighbours. In itself, this demonstrates that the global acceptance of Westphalian sovereignty was beginning to crack.

What is most clear within the text is that the NAM directly exposes the hypocrisy of the Westphalian state system through the lens of the Cold-War world. Strydom (2007) reiterates this, describing how NAM seeks “refuge in formal claims” to the applicable Charter principles as well as the “formation of regional pacts” (2007, p. 7) based on conditions of sovereignty. Here, the UN charter (1945) was supposed to insure against the almost imperial nature of the Cold War. The writer infers that these ‘guarantees’ are what “the non-aligned members cling to” (2007, p. 7). From his perspective, the states within NAM sense that the ‘problems’ generated by weak states may lead to greater exploitation in the post-Cold War world.

Since the end of the Cold War in 1991 following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the changing international landscape of the world made NAM demand more significant reform within the UN (especially within the Security Council as Strydom brings to light). However, this challenge of “state and international responsibility” in which the UN attempted to ensure protection from the effects of war and human rights abuses highlights the vagueness of the Westphalian system with its competing claims of sovereign inviolability and right to intervene (2007, p. 17).

Overall, it is clear that Strydom is directly critical of NAM’s demands of “equal sovereigns through equal membership” as he sees them. By seeking economic assistance and special treatment these “weak, post-colonial states” become “unequal” making it appear these states are accommodating for themselves (2007, p. 44).

However, what Strydom fails to realise in his text, unlike Kang, is that history is key in understanding the causes of why certain states within NAM may want to reapply the Westphalian state system values to a modern international context.

Understanding the history of these states, helps us better understand the actions of NAM and how their actions in highlighting the failure of the Westphalian system demonstrates a Eurocentric dictation of sovereignty within the international landscape which is arguably in need of rejection or removal.

According to anti-colonialist writer Faton (1961), to colonised people the most “essential value” was foremost the land which in turn “will bring them bread and, above all, dignity” (1961, p. 44). In this sense, it would be logical to consider how post-colonial states under the NAM alliance such as those in South America, Asia and Africa, may want to preserve own sovereignty against a subverted Westphalian normality, which was present during the Cold War and in cases persists.

As Faton et al (1961, p.25) clearly state, to be held as European is to be an “accomplice of colonialism, since all Europeans once and still are to a lesser extent” benefitted by colonial exploitation. Especially, since the vast array of exploitations facing states under colonialism or after, under European power, makes it clear that the NAM’s aims of reform of preconceptions about sovereignty are indeed valid. This in turn highlights the shortcomings of Strydom’s criticisms towards the NAM which demonstrate more widely how Eurocentric views of sovereignty are simply outdated in the modern landscape.

In the current global political context, sovereignty has been a key topic of debate in international relations from recent events as the Brexit referendum (2016), to the Russian-Ukraine conflict (ongoing since 2022), and the Syrian Civil War (ongoing since 2011). Indeed, sovereignty can prove a key to interpreting and understanding the complexities and differences of these events.

The rise of populism in the 2010s reinstated the importance of the nation-state within international politics which conflicted directly with the rapid globalisation movement. Meanwhile, differing ideas and perspectives were exemplified through the US invasion of Iraq (2003).

Kuah (2003) highlights how the so-called ‘War on terror’ in Iraq constituted a widespread crisis because of the “lack of consensus” within the UN and traditional European allies. This allowed a “lack of legitimacy” and in turn “breaching the sovereignty of another nation-state” (2003. p. 1). According to the author, The Responsibility to Protect report (mandated in 2001) allowed human security to be redefined in a modern context, giving the Bush administration a criterion for justifiable intervention (2003. p. 2).

Kuah evaluates the invasion from two views of international politics: realism and liberalism. From a realist view, the writer elaborates how sovereign erosion has ‘conceptualised’ and ‘normalised’ this event and the subsequent US behaviour so that reactions “should not seem surprising at all” (2003. p.3). Kuah argues this is rooted in the “archetypal great power behaviour” that the US exhibited in the “pursuit of national interest”, which in turn was “at the expense of the weaker state” (2003. p.3).

On the contrary, Liberals argue that the reconciliation of sovereignty as well as “the accompanying principle of non-intervention” is being done through so-called “ideas of responsibilities and humanitarian intervention”. According to Kuah “sovereignty has been brought back into the realists’ worldview of international relations” (2003. p.3) which is “entwined with the realist vernacular of power and interests”.

What is interesting to note, is the way Kuah uses power politics with regard to sovereignty which predates the UN system and stems from historical practices of sovereignty in which he uses China’s warring states period as an example, to prove that no external guarantees of sovereignty existed (2003. p.3).

This is a clear example of how in the traditional sense, sovereignty itself emerged in different areas, times and ways and that to understand the term through a single perspective is unrealistic. Both realism and liberalism are primarily embedded with a Eurocentric nature. This is because political doctrines have been tried and tested in the West and Europe, with the assumption they can also be applied to the rest of the world and shaped through similar perspectives.

Dar (2021) believes Realism is a “quintessential Eurocentric theory” which often conflated with the politics of intra-Western relations to the point that referencing the non-Western world is all but absent (2021). To counter this single interpretation of Realism, Dar brings in the teachings of the Ancient Indian realist, Kautilya, in order to better help redefine India’s regional diplomacy within the past and the present.

In this sense, differing views within international relations should be taken from a regional rather than a single perspective because viewing sovereignty in the context of a non-European nation, through the lens of a Eurocentric Westphalian-originated view, is unreliable. The construction of modern Europe is inevitably shaped by the social hierarchy and market internally and this inevitably embeds capitalism’s role unrealistically, defining sovereignty as a singular rule of international relations.

From this observation, Tansel (2014, pp. 76-100) uses the field of Marxism to argue how the “Eurocentric straitjacket” (2014) within IR, prevents the embracement of a radical, global ontology through historical roots of socio-economic development. They elaborate that capitalism only emerged in relation to the emergence of the European-defined nation-state which ultimately created the modern international states-system. This in turn resulted in the replacement of “territorial accumulation with the accumulation of capital” (2014).

With this in mind, perhaps we shouldn’t just look upon sovereignty from different perspectives but from different ideologies, because this can help examine detail within the way in which sovereignty is used internally as well as externally.

In conclusion, sovereignty is key in helping to shape or reshape the political consensus of the globe however the monolithic way it has been contextualised through a European perspective, proves inaccurate in defining sovereignty internationally in history and the present day. Both Dar and Kang help offer new perspectives from Sino and Indo teachings which can help better formulate a greater understanding of how sovereignty is defined in specific regions.

To gain a more detailed understanding of sovereignty one must acknowledge different interpretations of IR thought, such as what Dar terms Indo-realism, in order to help generate new methods of understanding and to keep International Relations realistic.

Tansel also helps bring in perspectives of ideology to help widen the understanding of sovereignty by looking upon it from a socio-historical point of view, namely how capitalism helped bring about this Eurocentric view of sovereignty. What is perhaps key to helping conceptualise sovereignty, is how history is entwined with its growth and understanding. Meanwhile, primarily western writers such as Strydom undermine the historical credibility of sovereignty by looking at it from a purely modern medium rather than an historical one.

Kuah, Kang and Tansel however make contextual history an important role in defining sovereignty by looking at the role in which sovereignty is defined in different regions. This can help bring about a more accurate global perspective. Therefore, in order to understand sovereignty in its entirety, it is necessary to enter a dialogue with peripheral voices and histories (Tansel, 2014, p.76-100).

As Kayaoglu (2010) states, a Eurocentric Westphalian narrative prevents the emergence of a genuine-cross civilizational dialogue. In order to combat this, we must embrace other fields of thought and perspective to truly define what it means to be sovereign.

Reference List - Dar, A.I. (2021) Beyond eurocentrism: Kautilya`s realism and India`s regional diplomacy, Nature News. Nature Publishing Group.

- Fanon, F. et al. (1961) The wretched of the Earth. New York, NY: Grove Press.

- Kang, D.C. (2019) International Order in Historical East Asia: Tribute and Hierarchy Beyond Sinocentrism and Eurocentrism: International Organization, Cambridge Core. Cambridge University Press.

- Kayaoglu, T. (2010). Westphalian Eurocentrism in International Relations Theory. International Studies Review, 12(2), pp.193–21

- Kuah, A. (2003) War in Iraq: Implications for sovereignty, Semantic Scholar.

- Strydom, H. (2007) The Non-Aligned Movement and the reform of international relations, Brill. Brill Nijhoff.

- Tansel, C.B. (2014). Deafening silence? Marxism, international historical sociology and the spectre of Eurocentrism. European Journal of International Relations, 21(1), pp.76–100

- Womack, B. (2010) China among equals asymmetric foreign relationships in Asia. Singapore: World Scientific Pub. Co.

- Zhang, F. (2015) Chinese hegemony: Grand strategy and international institutions in East Asian history. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

-Letter dated 2006/06/28 from the Permanent Representative of Malaysia addressed to the secretary-general of the conference on disarmament transmitting the section pertaining to disarmament and international security from the final document of the ministerial meeting of the Coordinating Bureau of the non-aligned movement held in Putrajaya, Malaysia from 27 to 30 May 2006 (no date) United Nations. United Nations.

-Wong, R.B. (2018) China transformed historical change and the limits of European experience. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

BibliographyAcharya, A. (2005) ‘Why is There No NATO in Asia?’ The Normative Origins of Asian Multilateralism. Wetherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard University, Working Paper No. 05-05.

Dar, A.I. (2021) Beyond eurocentrism: Kautilya`s realism and India`s regional diplomacy, Nature News. Nature Publishing Group.

Hinsley, F.H. (1986) Sovereignty. Cambridge Cambridgeshire: Cambridge University Press.

Hobson, J.M. (2009). Provincializing Westphalia: The Eastern origins of sovereignty. International Politics, 46(6), pp.671–690.

Inayatullah, N. and Blaney, D.L. (1995) “Realizing sovereignty,” Review of International Studies, 21(1), pp. 3–20.

Teschke B (2002) Theorizing the Westphalian system of states: International relations from absolutism to capitalism. European Journal of International Relations 8(1): 5–48.