European colonial empires during the 19th century represented the most direct form of imperialism. Imperialism refers to the dominance of one political community over another political community. Empire building was accomplished through military force, conquest, and settlement. In contrast to imperialism, an empire “is a decentred and deterritorialising apparatus of rule that progressively incorporates the entire global realm within its open, expanding frontiers” (Hardt, Negri xii). There is no territorial centre of power and it does not rely on fixed boundaries or barriers. This post-modern understanding of nation-state sovereignty attempts to explain international relations between state actors. The political organization of states has changed
…show more content…
Westphalian models are not comparable to imperial relations within modern global politics. Unlike imperial systems of hierarchical governance, the international system of states is anarchical, in which states’ actions are based upon their own interests (Wendt 396). The independent will of competing sovereign states symbolizes the decentralization and anarchical nature of the international system. Even though states are not obliged to participate in the international system, the desirability of efficiency through international cooperation to pursue national interests explains their …show more content…
The hierarchy order of the international system is thus further justified through its ability to be influenced by the actors that make up its system. The structure of international politics is dependent upon the actors that make up the system. Changes in national interests have a subsequent influence on the changes in the system. Without these actors, there would be no system, but without the supranational authority of the international system, the balance of order would be broken. The structure of the international system cannot exist outside of its actors’ identities and interests, upon which according to Wendt, these identities are the basis of interests (Wendt 398). The international community is a hegemonic empire, but the anarchical manner in which states exercise their power is socially constructed through its actors. At the end of the day, states are still in pursuit of their national end goal, not that of the international
Westphalian models are not comparable to imperial relations within modern global politics. Unlike imperial systems of hierarchical governance, the international system of states is anarchical, in which states’ actions are based upon their own interests (Wendt 396). The independent will of competing sovereign states symbolizes the decentralization and anarchical nature of the international system. Even though states are not obliged to participate in the international system, the desirability of efficiency through international cooperation to pursue national interests explains their …show more content…
The hierarchy order of the international system is thus further justified through its ability to be influenced by the actors that make up its system. The structure of international politics is dependent upon the actors that make up the system. Changes in national interests have a subsequent influence on the changes in the system. Without these actors, there would be no system, but without the supranational authority of the international system, the balance of order would be broken. The structure of the international system cannot exist outside of its actors’ identities and interests, upon which according to Wendt, these identities are the basis of interests (Wendt 398). The international community is a hegemonic empire, but the anarchical manner in which states exercise their power is socially constructed through its actors. At the end of the day, states are still in pursuit of their national end goal, not that of the international