Westphalian sovereignty 1

Westphalian sovereigntyWestphalian sovereignty is the concept of the sovereignty of nation-states on their territory, with no role forexternal agents in domestic structures.Scholars of international relations have identified the modern, Western originated, international system of states,multinational corporations, and organizations, as having begun at the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. Both the basisand the conclusion of this view have been attacked by someWikipedia:Avoid weasel words revisionist academicsand politicians, with revisionists questioning the significance of the Peace, and some commentators and politiciansattacking the Westphalian system of sovereign nation-states.

Traditional viewAdherents to the concept of a Westphalian system refer to the Peace of Westphalia signed in 1648 which ended theThirty Years' War, in which the major European countries at the time (the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, France,Sweden and the Dutch Republic) agreed to respect the principle of territorial integrity. In the Westphalian system,the national interests and goals of states (and later nation-states) were widely assumed to go beyond those of anycitizen or any ruler. States became the primary institutional agents in an interstate system of relations. The Peace ofWestphalia is said to have ended attempts to impose supranational authority on European states. The "Westphalian"doctrine of states as independent agents was bolstered by the rise in 19th century thought of nationalism, underwhich legitimate states were assumed to correspond to nationsgroups of people united by language and culture.The Westphalian system reached its peak in the late 19th century. Although practical considerations still ledpowerful states to seek to influence the affairs of others, forcible intervention by one country in the domestic affairsof another was less frequent between 1850 and 1900 than in most previous and subsequentperiods.[1]Wikipedia:Disputed statementThe Peace of Westphalia is important in modern international relations theory, and is often defined as the beginningof the international system with which the discipline deals.[2][3]

International relations theorists have identified several key principles of the Peace of Westphalia, which explain thePeace's significance and its impact on the world today:1. The principle of the sovereignty of states and the fundamental right of political self determination2.2. The principle of legal equality between states3.3. The principle of non-intervention of one state in the internal affairs of another stateThese principles are shared by the "realist" international relations paradigm today, which explains why the system ofstates is referred to as "The Westphalian System".Both the idea of Westphalian sovereignty and its applicability in practice have been questioned from the mid-20thcentury onwards from a variety of viewpoints. Much of the debate has turned on the ideas of internationalism andglobalization which, in various interpretations, appear to conflict with Westphalian sovereignty.

Modern views on the Westphalian systemThe Westphalian system is used as a shorthand by academics to describe the system of states which make up theworld today.[4]

In 1998, at a Symposium on the Continuing Political Relevance of the Peace of Westphalia, the then NATOSecretary-General Javier Solana said that "humanity and democracy [were] two principles essentially irrelevant tothe original Westphalian order" and levied a criticism that "the Westphalian system had its limits. For one, theprinciple of sovereignty it relied on also produced the basis for rivalry, not community of states; exclusion, notintegration."

Westphalian sovereignty 2

In 2000, Germany's Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer referred to the Peace of Westphalia in his Humboldt Speech,which argued that the system of European politics set up by Westphalia was obsolete: "The core of the concept ofEurope after 1945 was and still is a rejection of the European balance-of-power principle and the hegemonicambitions of individual states that had emerged following the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, a rejection which tookthe form of closer meshing of vital interests and the transfer of nation-state sovereign rights to supranationalEuropean institutions."In the aftermath of the 11 March 2004 Madrid attacks, Lewis Atiyyatullah, who claims to represent the terroristnetwork al-Qaeda, declared that "the international system built up by the West since the Treaty of Westphalia willcollapse; and a new international system will rise under the leadership of a mighty Islamic state".It has also been claimed that globalization is bringing an evolution of the international system past the sovereignWestphalian state.Benedict Anderson refers to putative nations as "imagined communities."Others speak favorably of the Westphalian state, notably European nationalists and American paleoconservative PatBuchanan. Some such supporters of the Westphalian state oppose socialism and some forms of capitalism forundermining the nation state. A major theme of Buchanan's political career, for example, has been attackingglobalization, critical theory, neoconservatism, and other philosophies he considers detrimental to today's Westernnations.

Globalization and Westphalian sovereigntyDuring the 1980s and early 1990s, the emerging literature on globalization focused primarily on the erosion ofinterdependence sovereignty and Westphalian sovereignty. Much of this literature was primarily concerned tocriticize realist models of international politics in which the Westphalian notion of the state as a unitary agent aretaken as axiomatic (Camilleri and Falk 1992).The European Union concept of shared sovereignty is also somewhat contrary to historical views of Westphaliansovereignty, as it provides for external agents to interfere in nations' internal affairs.In a 2008 article Phil Williams links the rise of terrorism and other violent non-state actors (VNSAs), which pose athreat to the Westphalian sovereignty of the state, to globalization.[5]

Intervention

Military interventionSince the late 20th century, the idea of Westphalian sovereignty has been brought into further question by a range ofactual and proposed military interventions in the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Crimea, Iraq and Sudan, amongothers.

Humanitarian interventionInterventions such as in Cambodia by Vietnam (the CambodianVietnamese War) or in Bangladesh (then a part ofPakistan) by India (the Bangladesh Liberation War and the Pakistan-initiated Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 within it)had a questionable or weak basis in international law, but were carried out on the premise that they constitutedhumanitarian intervention aimed at preventing genocide, large-scale loss of life or ethnic cleansing. In the EastPakistan/ Bangladesh case, India's justification was that it acted in self-defence rather than for humanitarian purposesper se, it argued that such was the scale of refugee flows from East Pakistan to India, it threatened internal stabilityof India, and so was justified in intervening in East Bengal to address the root cause of the threat to India.However, there is debate about whether other recent infringements of state sovereignty, such as in Kosovo (then a part of Serbia and Montenegro) by NATO (the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia) and subsequent de facto

Westphalian sovereignty 3

partitioning of Kosovo out of Serbia, in Iraq by the United States and a few other allies such as the United Kingdom(the 2003 Iraq War), in Georgia by Russia (the 2008 South Ossetia war), or in Libya by NATO (the 2011 Libyancivil war), also reflected these higher principles or whether the real justification was simply the promotion ofpolitical and economic interests.A new notion of contingent sovereignty seems to be emerging, but it has not yet reached the point of internationallegitimacy. Neoconservatism in particular has developed this line of thinking further, asserting that a lack ofdemocracy may foreshadow future humanitarian crises, or that democracy itself constitutes a human right, andtherefore nation states not respecting democratic principles open themselves up to just war by other countries.However, proponents of this theory have been accused of being concerned about democracy, human rights andhumanitarian crises, only in countries where American global dominance is challenged, such as the formerYugoslavia, Iraq, Iran, Russia, China, Belarus, North Korea, Sudan, Venezuela, etc., while hypocritically ignoringthe same issues in other countries friendlier to the United States, such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, United ArabEmirates, Jordan, Egypt, Georgia, and Colombia.

Failed statesA further criticism of Westphalian sovereignty arises in relation to allegedly failed states, of which Afghanistan(before the 2001 US-led invasion) is often considered an example.[6] In this case, it is argued that no sovereigntyexists and that international intervention is justified on humanitarian grounds and by the threats posed by failed statesto neighboring countries and the world as a whole.Some of the recent debate over Somalia is also being cast in these same terms.

Further reading Camilleri, J. and Falk, J. (1992), The End of Sovereignty?: The Politics of a Shrinking and Fragmenting World,

Edward Elgar, Aldershot. Leurdijk, J. (1986), Intervention in International Politics, Eisma BV, Leeuwarden, Netherlands. Phil Williams: Violent Non-State Actors and National and International Security [7], ISN, 2008.

References[1][1] Leurdijk, 1986[2][2] Here: p. 251.[3] Jackson, R.H.; P. Owens (2005) "The Evolution of World Society" in: John Baylis; Steve Smith (eds.). The Globalization of World Politics:

An Introduction to International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 53. ISBN 1-56584-727-X.[4][4] Osiander, p. 251.[5] http:/ / se2. isn. ch/ serviceengine/ FileContent?serviceID=ISFPub& fileid=8EEBA9FE-478E-EA2C-AA15-32FC9A59434A& lng=en[6] The Washington Quarterly, Volume 25, Issue 3, 2002 "The new nature of nationstate failure" Robert I. Rotbergab[7] http:/ / se2. isn. ch/ serviceengine/ FileContent?serviceID=ISFPub& fileid=8EEBA9FE-478E-EA2C-AA15-32FC9A59434A& lng=en

Article Sources and Contributors 4

Article Sources and ContributorsWestphalian sovereignty Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=598430084 Contributors: Andy Dingley, Antigravityece, Athaenara, Ballofstring, BaruMonkey, BigrTex,Blue-Haired Lawyer, Boat v, Bobrayner, Bwithh, Chrism, Coleacanth, David stinson, DonaldRichardSands, DuncanBCS, Ehrenkater, Esrever, ForestAngel, Fraggle81, HansHermans, HemlockMartinis, Historicist, Hmains, Ipatrol, JLaTondre, Jish, John Quiggin, Joriki, Joseph Solis in Australia, Jsp722, Kintetsubuffalo, Lic812, Liliana Dioguardi, M2Ys4U, Mais oui!, Mdotley,Meesher, Mindbuilder, Mirrormundo, Mogism, Mwmoretti, NATO.Caliber, Nagle, Natalie Erin, Nutiketaiel, PBS, Pathoschild, Phunting, Piast93, Pmsyyz, Polylerus, RandomCritic, Rjwilmsi,Ronark, Rwalker, Sandstein, Sasoriza, Sbabones, Serge925, Tabletop, TallNapoleon, Tempshill, The Rambling Man, Vapour, Will Beback, Woohookitty, Wtmitchell, Yabti, 90 anonymous edits

LicenseCreative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0//creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Westphalian sovereigntyTraditional viewModern views on the Westphalian systemGlobalization and Westphalian sovereigntyInterventionMilitary interventionHumanitarian interventionFailed states

Further readingReferences

License