Last year, a watershed event occurred in the international system: the burgeoning globalization movement was arrested. The catalyst was not the 11 September attacks, but President George W. Bush's response to them. By holding a failed state accountable for activities within its borders, the administration, in effect, reasserted the principles of sovereignty.
In 1648, the Peace of Westphalia prescribed an international system of sovereign states. Westphalian sovereignty was defined as each state having distinct territory and political independence, with legal equality among such states. Weak states were unable to assert sovereignty. If the modern international system is seen as a continuum of sovereignty, the post-Cold War world was moving steadily away from a true Westphalian system and toward globalization—until 11 September.
The bipolar world of the Cold War guaranteed the sovereignty of weak states because there could be no power vacuums. All states were important in the worldwide competition between the superpowers. The power struggle supported weak states by guaranteeing their territorial integrity, and the superpowers waged war—directly or by proxy—to maintain the territorial status quo.
During the Cold War, the United Nations provided an arena for demonstrating the equality of states in various ways and the superpowers used it to maximum benefit. The U.N. was (and remains) an important means of communication among states and a vehicle for influence and confrontation; it serves to elevate the status of weak states to array them in the ideological order of battle. True political independence was nominal among weak states in the Cold War. Off the U.N. stage, the superpowers attempted to subvert and otherwise influence states to join their spheres of influence. Thus, the political independence of weak states was artificial—an illusion needed to show that the ideology of one side or the other was persuasive.
After the Cold War, superpower competition was removed as a prop to the principle of sovereignty. The transition from a bipolar to a unipolar system left the international system in flux; loss of the balancing forces of bipolar competition became known as globalization. Traditional standards of international relations—for example, in commerce, information flow, and migration—were discarded or avoided because there no longer were controlling forces and an overarching nuclear threat. This concept was embraced as tariffs and regulations were seen increasingly as impediments to the free exchange of people, goods, and ideas, rather than as safeguards. International security seemed ensured.
An unforeseen consequence of the new level of interaction was the ability of criminal organizations—such as Colombian drug traffickers, the Russian mafia, and al Qaeda—to take advantage of this new freedom of movement and use it to undermine legitimate government. From the transfer of money to the movement of agents, international organized crime has enjoyed an unprecedented level of success as a result of the blurring of territorial boundaries, both physical and economic.
States continued to enjoy Westphalian equality as exercised at the United Nations. However, the tragedies of the 1990s—and the interventions that followed—made it apparent that few states could act on the world community's behalf. While the U.N. continued to be a theater of international relations, the states behind the representatives could not stand on their own. The world was too slow in learning that asserting and respecting sovereignty are the keys to harmonious relations.
The most favorable outcome of the war on terror would be an international security regime based on enforcement of the principles of sovereignty. The idea of establishing a free-flowing international arrangement similar to the U.S. federal system lies in the ashes of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. International security cannot be achieved without an enforcement mechanism much like the coalition led by the United States for the war on terrorism and the reforms to follow. Commerce, travel, and proprietary information must flow freely, quickly, and—above all—securely within the international system.
Security in the future must support the diffuse nature of the global economy: proprietary information will have to be safeguarded through copyright compliance, and international tourism and business travel will have to leverage new technologies to ensure safe travel. Finally, the benefits of membership in the new system must outweigh the costs—which is not the case now.
After the United States reduces the terrorist threat, its message to the world might be: secure your sovereignty. The newest world order is likely to be an "enforced" Westphalian system in which states either maintain their sovereignty or risk military action and economic isolation.
Lieutenant Callaway is the operations officer of the USS Benfold (DDG-65). He dedicates this commentary to Georgetown University Professor Joseph S. Lepgold (1954-2001), who strove to connect international relations theory and practice.