Rethinking the Nation-State: Bartelson’s Critique of the International System

Jens Bartelson’s Becoming International is a compelling critique of the assumed naturalness of the international system.

Through rigorous historical and theoretical inquiry, Bartelson reframes international relations not as a neutral arena of sovereign states but as a system shaped by empire and sustained through the selective application of power-laden concepts like sovereignty and self-determination. The book’s greatest strength lies in its ability to unravel the taken-for-granted foundations of international order and invite readers to see global politics not as inevitable, but as historically contingent and ideologically constructed.

The International System as a Continuation of Empire

Bartelson challenges the widely held belief that the international system emerged organically from the collapse of empires. Instead, he argues that the system was deliberately structured to carry forward imperial dynamics. Early European empires laid the groundwork for international legal norms and global governance systems. These systems did not dismantle imperial hierarchies but repackaged them through universalist language. “...the concepts of independence and self-determination were redefined in the process to accommodate empire and imperial relations to the point of the international system eventually becoming an empire in its own right” (Bartelson, 2023, p. 218). In this framing, international institutions and legal regimes did not serve all states equally but continued to reflect and reproduce global power asymmetries.

Power, Bartelson argues, is not simply exercised between states but embedded within the very structures and norms that define the international space. His view resonates with Barnett and Duvall’s claim that power is “irreducibly social” (2005, p. 46). This perspective undermines the idea of state sovereignty as a static or evenly distributed principle and suggests that international order continues to reflect the preferences of its architects.

Sovereignty, Self-Determination, and Selective Legitimacy

Bartelson devotes significant attention to the malleability of sovereignty and self-determination, revealing how these "universal" principles were used as political tools. In the 19th century, Western powers selectively denied non-European societies the right to self-rule, using these very concepts to justify imperial domination. Later, the same terms were adopted by anti-colonial movements seeking liberation.

However, even after formal independence, post-colonial states entered a system that imposed “systemic pressures to conform the very moment they achieved independence and thereby became part of a global international system cum empire” (Bartelson, 2023, p. 216). The result was not liberation in any full sense, but entry into a restructured imperial order—one that continued to demand alignment with Western norms. This analysis shows that sovereignty and self-determination, while presented as universally applicable, have historically been applied in ways that reinforce hierarchy rather than challenge it.

Empire by Other Means: Security and the EU

Bartelson’s critique intersects productively with other critical international relations theories. Ole Wæver’s theory of securitization, for instance, complements Bartelson’s argument by illustrating how security discourse can justify elite or institutional power. As Wæver notes, “Security is invoked...as a call to defend a not-yet-existing social order… ‘Security the speech act’ is, at present, mainly a tool for ‘Europe’” (Lipschutz, 1995, p. 74).

In this context, the EU operates similarly to historical empires, framing issues through a shared “European security” lens to legitimize interventions. Just as sovereignty was once denied to non-European societies, today’s security discourse continues to privilege specific actors and regional visions while marginalizing others.

A Call for Rethinking the Global Imagination

Stylistically, Becoming International is an ambitious and accessible work. Bartelson’s ability to blend historical narrative with critical theory allows the reader to grasp abstract concepts through concrete examples. The book’s theoretical alignment with constructivism—especially its emphasis on socially constructed norms and institutions—offers a much-needed challenge to realist orthodoxy.

By tracing the imperial roots of the international system, Bartelson encourages scholars and policymakers alike to ask whether global order must be organized around the nation-state, or if alternative, less hierarchical models are possible. His critique raises an unsettling yet necessary question: if the foundations of the international system are built on exclusion and domination, can meaningful reform occur without reimagining the structure entirely?

This question is not only academic—it’s urgent. As crises of climate, inequality, and conflict transcend national borders, clinging to a system defined by outdated power dynamics may not only be unjust but also unsustainable.

References

Barnett, M., & Duvall, R. (2005). Power in International Politics. International Organization, 59(1), 39–75. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3877878

Bartelson, J. (2023). Becoming International. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lipschutz, Ronnie D. (1995). On security / Ronnie D. Lipschutz, editor. New York ; Chichester : Columbia University Press

Theys, S. (2018, August 5). Introducing constructivism in international relations theory. E-International Relations. https://www.e-ir.info/2018/02/23/introducing-constructivism-in-international-relations-theory/