WESTPHALIAN WORLD ORDER

The Peace of Westphalia, signed in 1648, ended the Thirty years war
and created the framework for modern international relations. The
concepts of state sovereignty, mediation between nations, and
diplomacy all find their origins in the text of this treaty written more
than three hundred and fifty years ago.
The negotiations known as the Congress of Westphalia began in 1642
and lasted another 4 years until the end of the 30 Years War in 1648.
Diplomatic representatives from 96 different entities were present at
the negotiations which met in two cities; Osnabruck and Munster.
The Catholic estates, with a papal mediator met in Munster while the
Protestant estates met under the leadership of Sweden and an
imperial representative at Osnabruck. These estates met with certain
goals in mind. The French wanted control of strategic military
fortresses, the four cities on the Rhine known as the “forest cities”;
the Empire wanted a united-kingdom under the leadership of the
Emperor; the princes of the provinces wanted sovereignty over their
own kingdoms; the Dutch wanted independence from Spain, and
Sweden wanted territorial gains of their own.
Short term effects of the compromises done under
the peace treaty;
The separate states of the Empire were recognized as sovereign.
Secondly, attendance at the established state church was not
mandatory. The Peace of Augsburg was affirmed and Calvinism was
accepted as a permissible religion. Matters of religion were to be
settled not by a majority vote but rather by a compromise agreed to
by the conflicting parties. The United Provinces were granted
independence from Spain and the Empire; Spain was forced to “give
away all points to the Dutch”, and other land boundaries were
shifted.
Long term effects;
From a modern international relations standpoint, three of the issues
which were resolved are of particular significance.
The first of those issues is the religious freedom- The Peace
“confirmed the Peace of Augsburg which had granted Lutherans as
well as the Calvinists religious tolerance in the Empire”.
The diffusion of religious influence in national affairs was not
acceptable to the Catholic Church and papacy at the time. In fact,
pope the leader of the catholic church denounced the peace of
Westphalia because it undermined his “pan- European power.
However, Once the Peace of Westphalia was ratified by each estate’s
representative, the role of the Christian community of states was
replaced by the rule of state consent.
This new, revolutionary treaty completely changed the relations
between church and state and established a new precedent whereby
states would become sovereign entities, immune from the political
pressure of any one church.
The second essential issue with which the Peace of Westphalia
dealt was the nature of war and its intended uses. Before 1648, war
was the accepted and legitimate form of solving conflicts. But after
the peace, “No state was allowed to be destroyed and compensation
was to be awarded to those states that gave up strategically
advantageous possessions. Since the mindset of nations thinking in
strict terms of “good” and “evil” was beginning to disappear in the
17th century, diplomacy and negotiation gained official recognition
as an alternative to war.
The third and possibly most significant and lasting outcome of the
Peace of 1648 is the idea of state sovereignty. Before and during the
war the provinces as well as the actions of the provincial princes
were controlled by the Holy Roman Emperor. The Peace of
Westphalia effectively established “territorial superiority in all
matters ecclesiastical as well as political” of princes in the Empire;
they gained a number of rights for instance they could leavy taxes,
they could declare war and most significantly the Empire could not
declare war without the consent of the princes. After the peace
settlements, power in the Empire had become much more
decentralized- a quality which would prove to be very important in
diplomatic negotiations in the centuries following the war.

Effects of peace of Westphalia on international order;

Peace of Westphalia became the basis of much of the international
law and professional diplomacy. Each of the three primary elements
of the treaties: wider formal religious freedom, the introduction of
the diplomatic profession, and the recognition of sovereign states
contributed to this long-lasting impact.
By the 17th century the idea of supreme central authority started to
be questioned. Scholars of history, law, and politics began to seek
out a more effective system of relations for states which relied less
on a supreme central authority and instead diffused more power to
each sovereign state.
These three concepts were the work of the evolution of political
ideas over the 16th and 17th centuries. Kenneth Colegrove, a former
U.S. diplomat and member of the executive council of the American
Society for International Law, writes that before the Congress of
Westphalia, “International law was in its infancy and the vocabulary
of diplomacy had not yet assumed the accuracy and precision which
was to characterize it in a later period”.
since the settlement at Westphalia, diplomats and those in combat
sought “victory less and the achievement of favourable peace more.”
There was a shift from medieval political thinking centred around a
system based on obedience to a central hierarchy to a more modern
system wherein leaders recognized the sovereignty of each state and
had the ability to utilize diplomatic discourses before resorting to
war.
The diplomatic form which emerged from the Congress of
Westphalia provided the model upon which international
negotiations progressed down through the First World War until the
Treaty of Versailles in 1919.
Even after international relations were renegotiated after WWI, the
effects of the Peace of Westphalia and the framework which it
provided can be seen in many modern international communities
including the United Nations, formerly the League of Nations, the
European Union, and even to an extent, the United States of
America. Phillip Bobbitt, the author of The Shield of Achilles: War,
Peace, and the Course of History compares Westphalia to
Philadelphia which was the birthplace of the American colonies and
says that both Westphalia and Philadelphia were “the birthplace of a
new constitution for a small society of states. This reference to the
American Constitution shows both the longevity of the Peace of
Westphalia and its far-reaching effects, not just on Europe, but also
on North America. Within Europe the peace provided the model for
the European Union in which each state or nation keeps its own
sovereignty but is united under the larger authority of the Union
whose leadership is comprised of its member states. In much the
same way, the Westphalian system provided this sort of
arrangement for the sovereign principalities of Germany while
keeping some form of cohesiveness amongst the Holy Roman
Empire.
POST WESTPHALIAN WORLD ORDER
scholars and policymakers are asking whether the principles of
Westphalian order continue to be applicable in the 21st Century.
Contemporary world is shaped by centripetal and centrifugal forces.
On the one hand globalisation is pulling many of the planet’s
inhabitants together while fragmenting processes are pushing people
apart. The world is simultaneously becoming more cosmopolitan and
more parochial. The world today is being shaped by forces that
challenge the Westphalian state-centric view of international politics.
History is a proof that power structures, no matter how long-lived
and rigid, slowly or rapidly, such structures change, transform or
disappear altogether. Cold War can be one of the recent example of
a significant political change, which ended with the collapse of the
former Soviet Union, the re-emergence of independent East
European states and the re-unification of the most powerful state in
Western Europe.
With reference to change John Locke the English Philosopher
remarks “Things of this world are in so constant a flux, that nothing
remains long in the same state.”
Subsequently, Edmund Burk, the Anglo-Irish Statesman, Political
Theorist observes “A State without the means of some change is
without the means of its conservation.
Globalization
The transition to globalisation, it can be argued, is the most
important contemporary development in world affairs. The factors in
support can be that it marks the end of the world order dominated
by nation states (or countries) and the beginning of an era in which
national governments have to share their power with other entities,
most notably transnational corporations, intergovernmental
organisations and non-governmental organisations. The term
globalisation here indicates challenges for traditional nation state-
based models of democracy. In addition, Free trade challenges the
welfare state model of tempered capitalism.
Social globalisation brings about a fragmentation of social groups and
identities. some authors claim, that new political institutions are
needed to address the greatly diminished power of nation states and
changing forms of political communities. Terror attacks, the newest
threat to state security, have not yet become globalised and even
display signs of localisation since the 1990s.
When we look beyond the much debated aspect about what forms a
post-Westphalian world order might take, Suter here puts forward
four cogent future possibilities – first, a continuation of the current
order (Steady State); second, greater international cooperation
through a strengthened United Nations (World State); third, a
continued decline of national governments with economies being
run by transnational corporations (Earth Inc.); and fourth, a
breakdown of nation states and of transnational corporations
resulting in national and international chaos (Wild State).
Commentators remark that it is fair to say that states now share
more power with non-state actors than at any other time in history.
International relations have become, in their view, two-pronged: not
just state-to-state, but between states on the one hand and sub-
national and supra-national actors on the other. While the nation-
state is far from finished, there is good reason to doubt that states
hold the monopoly power within the politics of globalisation.
While the nation-state is far from finished, there is good reason to
doubt that states hold the monopoly power within the politics of
globalisation. Interactions across national boundaries have seen
expansion and have become highly complex. They involve an
enlarged group of actors, including nation-states, subnational
governments, quasi-governmental organisations and an array of
private and non-profit organisations. This enlarged group is directly
involved in cross-border relationships and may, in the eyes of some,
even undermine the traditional approach to international relations
and the sovereignty of nations.
Therefore, the behaviour of nation-states and of the transnational
organisations within them raise the question about the nature of the
Westphalian system and its derivative effect on contemporary
international diplomacy and state-centred conduct.
Critics claim that the Westphalian system was merely an interlude, if
it even existed at all, between international dominance by powerful
empires or institutions. They can be said to be correct in their
assertions that there is far less of a power balance in contemporary
international relations than in previous centuries. Yet, criticism of the
Westphalian system fails to recognise that sovereign states always
act in their own interests. Although the capacity of modern nation-
states to pursue their own priorities is considerably diminishing, even
at the risk of isolating a major ally, is still present and capable of
activation, given specific and exceptional circumstances.