It has sometimes
been surmised that the international
system is characterized by anarchy. This is with regard to the nature of the interaction between the nation-states in the system. This interaction is seen to be
characterized by power and the pursuit
of interests by the states. In the absence of an executive authority, as in the domestic environment, states in the
international arena appear to be imbued with
an unfettered latitude in pursuing these
co-called interests, which are themselves determined by the states. This
appears to be a major recipe for chaos;
since the individual determination
of interests by sets works to ensure
not only a conflict of interests, but
more sinisterly the determination or predilection to achieve such interests at the obvious
expense of another or other
states’ interests. This was the attitude that characterized the European
state system of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
But as
professors Olusola Ojo and Amadu essay have once again pointed out, “the absence of a central
government authority does not in any way
make the international system synonymous
with anarchy or chaos”.9 this assertion would appear
more appropriate with regard to the
international system of the
period beginning from the end of the First
World War- (what is sometimes referred to as the contemporary international system). From this period onwards, two
universal organization - the
league of nations and the united nations evolved: not only to attempt a more rigorous regulation of state conduct and
inter-state interactions, but also , and more importantly, to create some form of
sanctions in case of infractions or any
violent violations of such norms of
international behaviour agreed upon and
adopted by member nations of the organizations. This was the harbinger of the so-called sanctions
regime, and other forms of collective
security mechanisms as enunciated in
chapter VII 10 of the UN Charter.
Prior
to this period, the international system, especially in the 19th and early 20th
century Europe was characterized by
combative nationalism which was manifesting in unhealthy rivalry and competition geared towards the acquisition of territories and sources of raw materials and markets for
the products of the home industries of
the various powers. In this period, no organization retained any universal
judicial and or executive authority to compel adherence to any universally
accepted norms of behaviour by the nation-states. This does not mean, however, that such norms
never existed until contemporary times. The Italian city-states had adopted and popularized some norms of diplomatic practice
in the late middle ages11.
Building on the foundations laid by the
city states of ancient
Greece, and laying the
foundations of modern norms of
inter-state relations in various
respects. But the ‘combative nationalism’ of the 19th century Europe, earlier
referred to, ensured that these norms were largely observed in the
breach.
The practice of
periodic conferences by the Europe
powers in the early 19th century, the so-called concert of
Europe (1815) which aimed at
preserving some level of sanity in
inter-state relations following
the horrors of the Napoleonic and revolutionary wars, could not achieve much before it
collapsed barely a decade later,
having been overwhelmed by the same germ of virulent nationalism.
Even in the
so-called contemporary international system, one has continued to observe more of anarchy
than order. Collective security
measurers to redress aggressions tend to
apply only against small and medium powers – Korea (1950), Iraq (1990), etc . aggression by great powers have
been allowed to continue to accentuate the anarchic nature of
the international system –Soviet-Hungary (1956), Czechoslovakia (1968), Afghanistan (1979), US-Grenada (1983) , Libya (1987), Iraq (2003) Italian –Ethiopia (1936) , etc. these
and more are all instance of egregious violations of
the sovereignty of small stat4s
by great powers which have
attracted little or no sanction by the international community.
It is thus reasonable to surmise that the absence of
an effective and independent executive authority within the
international system has tended to accentuate the anarchic nature and
structure of the system, rather ameliorating it. It is indeed true that norms of international
behaviour and conduct exist in various spheres
of inter-state interactions, but
these norms have never been allowed to apply or operate across the board. State interests pursued in terms of ‘power’
have continued to be a hindrance to this.