The end of empire marked one of the main transformations in international politics in the twentieth century. In the conventional narrative, it completed the universalization of the Westphalian state system. In the West, the most competitive form of political organization, the national state, had driven out smaller and larger forms – such as empires. In parallel, Western empires exported states systems to the periphery, which, with decolonization, became sovereign. In the parlance of neo-realism, hierarchy gave way to anarchy.

This narrative of a sharp break between empire and sovereignty is an increasingly criticized caricature. In the real world the distinction is blurred, with many cases combining features of both empire and state, and one able to evolve into the other. For historical sociology, the post-imperial world mixes elements of hierarchy and anarchy. Empires can adapt to the age of nationalism, and in the age of globalization larger empire-like entities and smaller units, for example, world cities, have become more viable, while the sovereignty of nation-states is under siege. Moreover, sovereignty, Stephen Krasner argues, has several dimensions, internal and external, which can be disaggregated, with a state possibly strong on one and weak on another; hence, that sovereignty is a matter of degrees. Sovereignty is especially contested or precarious in the states left behind by empires, with state-builders struggling to establish internal sovereignty and defend against encroachment on their external sovereignty by great powers.

This volume has argued that empire matters for post-imperial outcomes. In the introduction we observed that the similarity in the imperial creation of states in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) and Central Asia (CA) seemed to explain similarities in the successor states. We also hypothesized that differences in imperial heritages explain the greater instability of the MENA states system and the lesser legitimacy of informal hegemony over that region compared with CA. Here, in the conclusion, we review the evidence and incorporate the findings of the chapter studies regarding these issues. We view the impact of empire on post-imperial sovereignty as mediated through intervening variables and, hence, organize the evidence under these categories: we examine effects of the drivers of transition from empire; we then summarize the evidence on the imperial transmissions left behind by empires. We then examine the extent of rupture after empire, with its implications for post-imperial hegemonies. We end with a summary of the outcome for the various dimensions of sovereignty, highlighting the similarities and differences between the cases.

Drivers of Transition and Post-imperial Outcome

Differences in post-imperial states and states systems could be expected to be partly a function of differences in the drivers of sovereignty, that is, the forces propelling the transition from empire to sovereignty. Decolonization is driven by both external forces (such as the international system) and internal forces (nationalist mobilization), which together shape the particular direction it takes.

Empire matters for post-imperial sovereignty and variations in imperial impact make for variations in post-colonial states. Indeed, the initial differential impacts of imperial experiences have put Middle East states on divergent pathways that have endured for decades after independence. This chapter will compare the cases of Syria and Jordan, showing how the era of Western empires set them on enduring differential tangents that resulted in quite divergent regimes and contrary foreign policy orientations that persist to this day.

The analysis is in the tradition of historical sociology which assumes that each individual state's formation reflects some quite specific combination of local and external (international) agency; hence, there is a constant interaction as the external shapes the internal and the internal responds to the external. In this case, the decisive interaction is between, first, imperialism and local actors, resisting or collaborating; and, second, in the post-colonial period between the regional states system (protected or dominated by Western great powers) and differently constituted regimes in Jordan and Syria. State-building was in both cases intimately shaped by the post-First World War Versailles settlement, but responses to it differed, varying between rejection and acceptance. This depended on such factors as: (1) whether identity was satisfied or frustrated by boundaries imposed under imperialism; and (2) whether a regime originated in external imposition/ protection by imperialism or revolution against imperialism and its residues.