‘Colonial reflection’ and territoriality: The peripheral origins of sovereign statehood
| Author | Jordan Branch |
| Date | 01 June 2012 |
| Published date | 01 June 2012 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1354066110383997 |
Article
European Journal of
International Relations
18(2) 277–297
© The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permissions: sagepub.
co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1354066110383997
ejt.sagepub.com
E
JR
I
Corresponding author:
Jordan Branch, UC Berkeley — Political Science, 210 Barrows Hall #1950, Berkeley, California 94720-1950, USA.
Email: jbranch@berkeley.edu
‘Colonial reflection’ and
territoriality: The peripheral
origins of sovereign statehood
Jordan Branch
UC Berkeley, USA
Abstract
The modern international system is commonly argued to have originated within Western
Europe and spread globally during centuries of colonialism. This article argues, instead,
that the character of the modern system of territorially sovereign states resulted from
a complex interaction between European colonizing polities and events, actors, and
spaces in other parts of the globe. In particular, through a process of colonial reflection,
many of the foundational ideas and practices of modern statehood were formed in the
interactions of Europeans with the unknown, supposedly empty, spaces of the New
World in the 16th and 17th centuries. These novel practices were applied only later
to politics among states in Europe. Most important among these developments is the
ideal of territorial exclusivity as the sole basis for state sovereignty. This analysis also has
implications for the study of contemporary international systemic change.
Keywords
historical sociology, imperialism, sovereignty, state system, territoriality
Introduction
Conventional political science and sociology studies of the modern state system see the
origins of these institutions as internal to Europe, with statehood subsequently spreading
throughout the world by colonial expansion and post-colonial independence. This narra-
tive, however, misses an important feature of the initial development of the territorial
state in Europe: the impact of the early modern period of colonial expansion. In an effort
to fill this gap, I suggest a process of colonial reflection, arguing that certain fundamental
features of modern states and international politics originated in the actions of European
polities and rulers outside of Europe rather than within it. The novel requirements of
making political claims in the Americas demanded new authoritative practices from
278 European Journal of International Relations 18(2)
colonial powers, evident in political claims based on linear territorial divisions between
spatial expanses. These New World practices were only later applied within Europe, after
a contested and long-term process of interaction with existing forms of rule. Nonetheless,
by the early 19th century, the transformation of political organization culminated in the
territorial statehood and sovereign equality of the modern international system — a
transformation fundamentally shaped by early modern colonial practices.
In order to demonstrate this important but overlooked role played by colonial expan-
sion in the formation of territorial states, this article proceeds as follows. The first section
reiterates the conventional narrative of the expansion of the European state system, dis-
cusses key critiques of this account, and explains how my alternative argument builds on
existing theorizations of the interaction between colonies and metropoles. The second
section outlines the fundamental importance of ideas and practices of political authority
to the character of political structures — specifically, the foundation of modern statehood
in a particular form of exclusive, linearly defined territoriality. Then the bulk of the
article describes how European colonial powers implemented some of the key practices
of modern territoriality in the New World first, and only later applied them within
Europe — a trajectory particularly evident in the language of peace treaties. Finally, the
conclusion suggests implications for how we might study fundamental change in today’s
globalized international system, arguing that peripheral regions may be among the most
likely sources of institutional innovation.
Dominant narratives of the expansion of European statehood
Most discussions of the origins of the now global system of states see sovereign state-
hood and the practices of international relations as a collection of ideas, norms, and
practices that developed within Europe and subsequently were imposed on, or adopted
by, other parts of the globe during and after the period of European colonialism. These
arguments build upon numerous theories from historical sociology concerning the ori-
gins of European statehood, theories that vary widely, both in terms of the exact outcome
being explained (centralization, territoriality, or international systemic practices) and in
terms of which causal drivers are emphasized (military technology and competition,
capitalist economic development, or religious reformation). Yet almost all analyses find
the origins of the European state system to be exclusively internal to that continent. For
example, Tilly (1992) focuses on military pressure driving increased centralization and
fiscal-military extraction in European polities. Spruyt (1994) argues that competition
among different forms of rule within Europe ended in the victory of the sovereign state
over other types of organization. Other arguments include more ideational elements but
still posit that key changes originated within Renaissance Europe and restructured politi-
cal forms there first (e.g. Ruggie, 1993). Many other theorists have approached the origin
of modern states from a variety of angles,1 yet few place causal emphasis on the extra-
European expansion of colonial powers, even though they often note the historical coin-
cidence of colonial expansion and European state formation.
The organizational form of the state and the practices of the state system, then, are
argued to have spread to the rest of the world through direct colonial imposition and post-
colonial institutional mimicry. While this does describe some aspects of the worldwide
To continue reading
Request your trial