The Novelty of the Utrecht Peace Settlement (1713)

Abstract

There is a well-established view in political parlance and in historiography as well which looks at the Peace of Westphalia (1648) as the turning point in international relations, marking the birth of the system of sovereign states in Europe, and of the "classical law of nations". 1 In accordance with this view the term, 'Westphalian order' implies the "sovereignty and equality of states, the religious neutrality of the international order and the balance of power". 2 This interpretation, however, has been seriously and convincingly challenged recently by historians and historians of international law alike. 3 Randall Lesaffer, who belongs to the latter group, laconically states: "The truth is that none of these principles were introduced, or even appear as principles of international relations in the Westphalia Peace Treaties." 4 Modern historiography likewise argues, that the treaties of Muenster and Osnabrück, for there were the two towns in Westphalia where the negotiations were conducted due to the religious division, dealt not with the affairs of Europe but primarily with the affairs of the Empire, and the Westphalian Settlement was made in the spirit of tradition, and not of innovation. 5 Peace was reached not by accepting new principles; on contrary, it was concluded through the revival of old ones which had been partly undermined by the long war. 6 Territorial changes were, for example, justified by quoting hair-splitting dynastic rights, because it was not acceptable to base the transfer of territories on the right of con-* The present scientific contribution is dedicated to the 650 th anniversary of the foundation of the