To Order the Minds of Scholars: The Discourse of the Peace of Westphalia in International Relations Literature1

Abstract

References to the Peace of Westphalia have played an important role in the discourse of international relations. Originally referred to as a concrete historical event and associated with a variety of meanings, such as the triumph of state sovereignty, the establishment of a community of states, and even the beginnings of collective security, the Peace was later transformed into a conceptualization of the international system. Beginning in the late 1960s, phrases like “Westphalian system” came to convey a package of ideas about international politics limited to the supremacy of state sovereignty, territoriality, and nonintervention, to the exclusion of other meanings. This conceptualization serves as a popular and convenient contrast to a more globalized order, but there are problems with its use: first, because the Westphalian system is an ideal‐type that might never have actually existed, the impact of globalization may be exaggerated by scholars who employ it. Second, its use implies a linear progression from some Westphalian configuration toward some “post‐Westphalian” state of affairs, whereas actual system change is likely to be more complex.

The Myth of “Traditional” Sovereignty

“…This is perhaps a product of the fact that the discipline of IR itself was consolidated during the Cold War, a time when the “traditional” meaning of sovereignty appeared to be firmly entrenched. IR theorists in this period developed static definitions of sovereignty, definitions which did accurately describe sovereignty as it was understood by the society of states at that time, but they then assumed that this was the way that sovereignty had always been understood, and they mistakenly detected such definitions of sovereignty in key moments in the historical development of the international system such as the Peace of Westphalia (Schmidt 2011). In the later years of the Cold War and in the decades since then, it would become increasingly accepted that, rather than a static concept, sovereignty was socially and historically contingent.…”

The limits of sovereignty as responsibility

“…For an account of Westphalia as conceptual construct, see Schmidt (). For an acknowledgement that Westphalia is an ideal type or does not fully capture the history of sovereignty, see Held (), pp.…”

“…Either an individual civil servant or office, the focal points are housed in the office of the chief executive or in the ministries and are to be insulated from electoral cycles (Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, 2012).6 For a critique of decolonization, seeJackson (1990). On the continuities between contemporary discussions and earlier iterations of trusteeship, seeBain (2003) andWilde (2008).7 For an account of Westphalia as conceptual construct, seeSchmidt (2011). For an acknowledgement that Westphalia is an ideal type or does not fully capture the history of sovereignty, seeHeld (2002), pp.…”

Military Competition and the Emergence of Nationalism: Putting the Logic of Political Survival into Historical Context

“…For a critical interpretation, seeKrasner (1999) andSchmidt (2011).6 Also, seePaul (1999). *Gustavo de las Casas first coined the term ''nationalism-as-technology'' within the international relations literature in referring to reconceptualizing nationalism as a social technology with military and other applications.…”