Gendered Concepts of International Relations: Sovereignty
Sovereignty is one of the most foundational concepts in International Relations (IR). Conventionally defined as the supreme authority of the state over a territory and population, sovereignty has been treated as a neutral, legal–political principle. Feminist scholars challenge this assumption, arguing that sovereignty is deeply gendered in its historical formation, symbolic meanings, and political practices. What appears as an objective concept is, in fact, structured by masculinist norms that privilege autonomy, control, and domination while obscuring interdependence, care, and vulnerability.
This unit examines sovereignty as a gendered concept and shows how feminist IR rethinks its meanings, limits, and consequences.
Classical Understandings of Sovereignty
Traditional IR theory conceptualizes sovereignty as autonomy, independence, and authority. The sovereign state is imagined as a bounded, self-contained unit capable of defending itself and making decisions free from external interference. This understanding draws on early modern political thought, where sovereignty was associated with centralized power, order, and the capacity to command obedience.
In mainstream IR, sovereignty performs two key functions. First, it establishes the state as the primary actor in global politics. Second, it legitimizes the use of force to protect territorial integrity and national interest. Feminist scholars argue that both functions rely on a masculinized ideal of political authority, modeled on control, strength, and self-sufficiency.
Sovereignty and Masculinist Political Imaginaries
Feminist IR theorists argue that sovereignty is embedded in masculinist political imaginaries. The sovereign state is often represented metaphorically as a rational, autonomous male subject—capable of defending borders, exercising control, and suppressing disorder.
J. Ann Tickner points out that the language of sovereignty privileges traditionally masculine traits such as independence, decisiveness, and coercive capacity. By contrast, qualities associated with femininity—dependence, care, relationality—are viewed as weaknesses that threaten sovereignty.
This gendered coding naturalizes militarization. A “strong” sovereign state is one that can project force and deter threats, while restraint or cooperation is often framed as vulnerability. Sovereignty thus becomes a moral and political ideal grounded in masculinized notions of power.
Public Authority and the Erasure of the Private
Another gendered dimension of sovereignty lies in the public–private divide. Sovereignty is defined in the public realm of diplomacy, war, and law—domains historically dominated by men. The private sphere, associated with family, reproduction, and care, is excluded from the realm of sovereign politics.
Feminist scholars argue that this exclusion is political rather than natural. The sovereign state depends on social reproduction—often performed by women—to sustain its population, labor force, and military. Yet these contributions remain invisible within sovereign discourse.
Cynthia Enloe demonstrates how women’s everyday labor—raising soldiers, maintaining households, supporting war economies—underpins state sovereignty while being denied political recognition. Sovereignty, therefore, rests on gendered inequalities that it refuses to acknowledge.
Sovereignty, Borders, and Control over Bodies
Feminist critiques emphasize that sovereignty is exercised not only over territory but also over bodies, particularly women’s bodies. States regulate reproduction, sexuality, marriage, and migration in the name of national interest and demographic security.
Control over women’s reproductive capacities—through population policies, citizenship laws, and moral regulations—reveals how sovereignty penetrates intimate life. Feminist IR argues that such practices expose the illusion of sovereignty as merely territorial authority; instead, sovereignty operates through biopolitical control.
These gendered practices become especially visible during war and conflict, where sexual violence is used to assert sovereign dominance and mark territorial conquest.
Postcolonial and Feminist Critiques of Sovereignty
Postcolonial feminist scholars argue that sovereignty has been unevenly distributed in the international system. While Western states are treated as fully sovereign, postcolonial states often experience conditional or compromised sovereignty, shaped by colonial legacies, economic dependence, and global governance regimes.
Gender intersects with these hierarchies. Structural adjustment programs, humanitarian interventions, and security policies frequently target women as instruments of development or protection, reinforcing paternalistic forms of sovereignty.
Feminist critiques thus reveal sovereignty as a hierarchical and exclusionary concept, rather than a universal principle applied equally to all states and peoples.
Rethinking Sovereignty: Feminist Alternatives
Feminist IR does not simply reject sovereignty; it seeks to reconceptualize it. Instead of autonomy and control, feminist scholars emphasize interdependence, responsibility, and human security.
By shifting attention from state sovereignty to people’s lived experiences, feminist approaches challenge the assumption that protecting borders ensures security. They argue for forms of political authority accountable to social justice rather than military strength.
This rethinking opens space for alternative visions of global politics, where sovereignty is compatible with cooperation, care, and transnational responsibility.
Conclusion: Sovereignty as a Gendered Foundation of IR
Feminist analysis reveals sovereignty to be a deeply gendered concept that shapes how authority, security, and legitimacy are understood in International Relations. Its masculinist foundations privilege autonomy and force while marginalizing care, dependence, and everyday life.
By exposing these gendered assumptions, feminist IR destabilizes sovereignty’s taken-for-granted status and highlights its ethical and political costs. The critique of sovereignty is therefore central to the broader feminist project of reimagining global politics in more inclusive and humane terms.
References
- Tickner, J. Ann. Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security.
- Enloe, Cynthia. Bananas, Beaches and Bases.
- Peterson, V. Spike. Gendered States.
- Sylvester, Christine. Feminist Theory and International Relations.
- Weber, Cynthia. International Relations Theory: A Critical Introduction.
