Content deleted Content added
→Traditional view: Rm unnecessary parenthesis - it inaccurately implied that England refused to sign, whereas they were not invited to, nor had they been involved in the precipitating conflicts |
fixed footnotes |
||
Line 1:
'''Westphalian sovereignty''' is the concept of [[nation-state]] [[sovereignty]] based on two principles: territoriality and the exclusion of external actors from domestic authority structures.
Many [[academic]]s have asserted that the [[International relations|international system]] of [[state]]s, [[multinational corporation]]s and organizations which exists today began in 1648 at the [[Peace of Westphalia]].<ref>{{cite book |last=Gabel|first=Medard|authorlink=Medard Gabel |coauthors=Henry Bruner |title=Global Inc.: An Atlas of the Multinational Corporation |year=2003|publisher=[[The New Press]]|location=[[New York, New York|New York]]|isbn=1-56584-727-X|pages=p. 2}}</ref> Both the basis and the result of this view have been attacked by [[Historical revisionism|revisionist]] academics and [[politicians]] alike, with revisionists questioning the significance of the Peace, and [[commentator]]s and politicians attacking the Westphalian System of sovereign [[nation-state]]s.
===Traditional view===
Line 10:
The Westphalian system reached its apogee in the late 19th century. Although practical considerations still led powerful states to seek to influence the affairs of others, forcible intervention by one country in the domestic affairs of another was less frequent in the period between 1850 and 1900 than in most previous and subsequent periods (Leurdijk 1986).
The Peace of Westphalia is crucially important to modern [[international relations]] theory, with the Peace often being defined as the beginning of the international system with which the discipline deals.<ref name="Osiander">{{cite journal | author=Osiander, Andreas | title=Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth | journal=International Organization | year=2001 | pages=pp. 251-287 | volume=55 | doi=10.1162/00208180151140577}} Here: p. 251.</ref><ref name="Gross">{{cite journal | author=Gross, Leo
International relations theorists have identified the Peace of Westphalia as having several key principles, which explain the Peace's significance and its impact on the world today:
Line 27:
The above interpretation of the Peace of Westphalia is not without its critics. Revisionist historians and international relations theorists argue against all of these points.
#Neither of the treaties mention sovereignty. Since the three chief participants (France, Sweden and Holy Roman Empire) were all already sovereign, their representatives saw no need to clarify this situation.<ref>Osiander,
[http://www.pax-westphalica.de/ipmipo/indexen.html Instrumentum Pacis Monasteriens (IPM, Treaty of Münster)], [http://law-ref.org/WESTPHALIA/article23.html section 23]</ref>
#While each German principality had its own legal system, the final Courts of Appeal applied to the whole of the Holy Roman Empire - the final appellate was the Emperor himself, and his decisions in cases brought to him were final and binding on all subordinates.<ref name="Osiander">p. 274.</ref> The Emperor could, and did, depose princes when they were found by the courts to be at fault.<ref name="Osiander">p. 274.</ref><ref name="Trossbach">Trossbach, Werner (1986) 'Furstenabsetzungen im 18. Jahrhundert' ''Zeitschrift fur historische Forschung'' Vol 13 pp. 425-454.</ref>▼
#Both treaties specifically state that should the treaty be broken, France and Sweden held the right to intervene in the internal affairs of the Empire.<ref name="Osiander">p.266</ref>▼
▲#While each German principality had its own legal system, the final Courts of Appeal applied to the whole of the Holy Roman Empire - the final appellate was the Emperor himself, and his decisions in cases brought to him were final and binding on all subordinates.<ref>Osiander,
Rather than cementing sovereignty, revisionists hold that the treaty served to maintain the status quo ante. Instead, the treaty cemented the theory of ''Landeshoheit'', in which state-like actors have a certain (usually high) degree of autonomy, but are not sovereign since they are subject to the laws, judiciary and constitution of a higher body.<ref name="Osiander">pp.270-277</ref>▼
▲#Both treaties specifically state that should the treaty be broken, France and Sweden held the right to intervene in the internal affairs of the Empire.<ref
▲Rather than cementing sovereignty, revisionists hold that the treaty served to maintain the status quo ante. Instead, the treaty cemented the theory of ''Landeshoheit'', in which state-like actors have a certain (usually high) degree of autonomy, but are not sovereign since they are subject to the laws, judiciary and constitution of a higher body.<ref
==Modern views on the 'Westphalian Systems'==
The Westphalian System is used as a shorthand by academics to describe the system of states which the world is made up of today.<ref
In [[1998]], a Symposium on the continuing political Relevance of the Peace of Westphalia, then–[[NATO]] Secretary General [[Javier Solana]] said that "humanity and democracy [were] two principles essentially irrelevant to the original Westphalian order" and levied a criticism that "the Westphalian system had its limits. For one, the principle of sovereignty it relied on also produced the basis for rivalry, not community of states; exclusion, not integration."<ref>{{Citation
|url=http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/1998/s981112a.htm
|title=
|author=
|publisher=[[North Atlantic
|date=[[November 12]],[[1998]]
|accessdate=2008-05-21}}.</ref>
In [[2000]], then–German [[Foreign Minister of Germany|Foreign Minister]] [[Joschka Fischer]] referred to the Peace of Westphalia in his [[Humboldt University of Berlin|Humboldt]] Speech, which argued that the system of European politics set up by Westphalia was obsolete: "The core of the concept of Europe after [[1945]] was and still is a rejection of the European balance-of-power principle and the hegemonic ambitions of individual states that had emerged following the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, a rejection which took the form of closer meshing of vital interests and the transfer of nation-state sovereign rights to supranational European institutions."<ref>{{Citation
|url=http://web.archive.org/web/20020502231325/http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/www/en/eu_politik/ausgabe_archiv?suche=1&archiv_id=1027&bereich_id=4&type_id=3 |title=From Confederacy to Federation - Thoughts on the Finality of European Integration
|author=Fischer, Joschka
|publisher=[[Federal Foreign Office (Germany)|Auswärtiges Amt]]
|date=[[May 12]],[[2000]]
|accessdate=2008-07-06}}.</ref>
In the aftermath of the [[11 March 2004 Madrid attacks]], Lewis ‘Atiyyatullah, who claims to represent the terrorist network [[al-Qaeda]], declared that "the international system built-up by the West since the Treaty of Westphalia [''sic''] will collapse; and a new international system will rise under the leadership of a mighty Islamic state".<ref>{{Citation
|url=http://web.archive.org/web/20040610173219/http://www.themedialine.org/news/news_detail.asp?NewsID=5420 |title=Exclusive - Al-Qa’ida: Islamic State Will Control the World
It has also been claimed that [[globalization]] is bringing an [[evolution]] of the international system past the sovereign [[Westphalian state]].<ref>{{cite journal | author=Cutler, A. Claire | title=Critical Reflections on the Westphalian Assumptions of International Law and Organization : A Crisis of Legitimacy. | journal= Review of International Studies | year=2001 | pages=133–150 | volume=27 | doi=10.1017/S0260210500001339 }}</ref>▼
|author=Berman, Yaniv
|publisher=The Media Line
|date=[[April 1]],[[2004]]
▲|accessdate=2008-07-06}}.</ref> It has also been claimed that [[globalization]] is bringing an [[evolution]] of the international system past the sovereign [[Westphalian state]].<ref>{{cite journal | author=Cutler, A. Claire | title=Critical Reflections on the Westphalian Assumptions of International Law and Organization
However, European [[Nationalism|nationalists]] and some American [[Paleoconservatism|paleoconservatives]] such as [[Pat Buchanan]] hold a favorable view of the Westphalian state.<ref>{{Citation
Line 54 ⟶ 68:
|title=Say Goodbye to the Mother Continent
|author=Patrick J. Buchanan
|date=[[January 1]],
|accessdate=2008-05-21}}.</ref><ref>{{Citation
|url=http://www.theamericancause.org/print/052206_print.htm
|title=The
|author=Patrick J. Buchanan
|date=[[May 23]], [[2006]]
Line 64 ⟶ 78:
==Globalization and Westphalian sovereignty==
During the 1980s and early 1990s, the emerging literature on globalization focused primarily on the apparent erosion of [[interdependence sovereignty]] and
The [[European Union]] concept of shared sovereignty is also somewhat contrary to historical views of Westphalian sovereignty.
| |||