STRUCTURE OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM

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 19^th and early 20^th  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  19^th and early 20^th 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 19^th 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 19^th 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.