Você está na página 1de 28

Alberstadt

Relevance of Westphalia on INR Law

18 April 2012

ABSTRACT: this dissertation seeks to evaluate the Peace of Westphalia (1648) for
the importance of discerning and validating its influential ramifications for the
development of international law. It will argue that from the Westphalian agreements began
the codification of norms and an emerging international system which continue in both
international relations and international law today. It will first explore the background of
Westphalia, including the precise language of the treaties, and the creation and early
development of international law. It will then use the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as
a key international institution as an example of direct lineage to Westphalian norms.
Finally, it will discuss globalization as a challenger to international law and Westphalian
relevancy. For these reasons this dissertation will employ neoliberalism as an appropriate
theoretical framework but will also utilize methods of historiography to best analyze
primary documents of the Peace of Westphalia and the ICJ.
This dissertation will discuss the importance of the Peace of Westphalia (1648) on the
impact of international law. It will argue that Westphalia holds a continuing relevance
despite the evolution of its system. The outcomes of the Peace of Westphalia founded
important norms for the international system and serve as a model for contemporary
international law and relations. These normative frameworks, for example of sovereignty,
secular governments, and statehood, remain key elements of the present system. This
project was chosen as it was inspired by a notable lack of consensus in the appreciation of
the major implications of the Peace of Westphalia.1 This dissertation will first explore the
context of the Peaces emergence with the argument that this context describes many
aspects of the present international legal system. Next, this dissertation will argue that the
Peace of Westphalia holds continuing relevance for international law as embodied in
international institutions. It will thus utilize the creation and development of the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) as a key institutional example with reference to specific
cases. Finally, it will argue that globalization has not killed the Westphalian system,
although it poses a significant challenge to it.
1 Leo Gross, The Peace of Westphalia 1648-1948, Essays on International Law and Organization,
Volume 2, Transnational Publishers Inc, New York, 1984, p. 29

Alberstadt
Relevance of Westphalia on INR Law
18 April 2012
In order to argue its relevancy, it is imperative to begin with a precise historical
background of the Peace of Westphalia. To know its impact, this requires precise
examination of what actually happened, not necessarily what has been recorded of its
results. These evaluations will sufficiently address the historiographical and critical issues
of Westphalias relevancy. Overall, mainstream scholars tend to carry on the dogmatic
assumptions that Westphalia created states and thus international relations and international
law. The exaggeration of Westphalia generally describes the outcome as the big bang of
international relations (IR).2
Alternatively, scholars3 critical of the relevancy of Westphalia begin their arguments by
critical examinations of primary documents of the treaties and also the context of the
treaties emergence. This dissertation will therefore examine theoretical debates about the
Peace of Westphalia and its key themes that emerged as models for today's system such as
actors, diplomacy, and norms.4 It will evaluate these thematic models against key
assumptions of IR theories of realism, globalization and neoliberalism. It will assert
neoliberalism as the most accurate theory representing current international relations.
This dissertation will demonstrate that while the Peace of Westphalia holds significant
value and relevance for the evolution of both international relations and law, it does so not
from a big-bang theory but as a gradual formulation.5 Scholars like Andreas Osiander argue

2 Stephen D. Krasner, Sovereignty, Foreign Policy, January/February 2001, Issue 122, p. 21


3 Such as A. Claire Cutler, Andreas Osiander, Andrew MacRae, Stephane Beaulac, and many more
4 Norms will be defined here as principles that can guide, inspire, rationalize, justify behavior or express
mutual expectations about behavior and have an active process of impact on international law. Friedrich
Kratochwil & John Gerard Ruggie, International Organization: A State of the Art or An Art of the State,
International Organization, Volume 40, Issue 4, Autumn 1986, pp. 767, 768
5 However, this is not to say that this 'gradual formulation' implies a linear progression. Gross, p. 27
gradual, though by no means uniform process; Stephane Beaulac, The Westphalian Model in Defining
International Law: Challenging the Myth, Australian Journal of Legal History, Volume 8, Issue 2, p. 189;
Sebastian Schmidt, To Order the Minds of Scholars: The Discourse of the Peace of Westphalia in
International Relations Literature, International Studies Quarterly, September 2011, Volume 55, Number

Alberstadt
Relevance of Westphalia on INR Law
18 April 2012
that Westphalia constitutes the taken-for-granted template against which current change
should be judged and that the accepted narrative about Westphalia is a myth. 6 This
dissertation sympathizes with this opinion but argues that while the outcomes of Westphalia
have been obscured, it remains an important benchmark in the development of international
relations and law. Therefore, this dissertation's conclusions should contribute to the critical
but appreciative evaluation of Westphalia's enduring relevance.
To begin, international relations theorists generally concede that states are important
actors, if not primary ones, in international relations.7 Indeed, a main departure between
realism and liberalism is their perceptions of Westphalia and the role of the state.8 A main
champion of state primacy is realism, which through the writings of realists like Hans
Morgenthau and Max Weber, subscribe to the theories of realist precursors like Hobbes and
Machiavelli. Realists see the international system as anarchic9 and defined by balances of
power.10 Morgenthau observes that international politics is of necessity power politics.11
This observation supports the realist argument that each state primarily seeks its survival
(raison dtat) but then also seeks to maximize its own power. Balances of power result
from the natural state of conflict whereby the lack of a higher authority than states leaves

3, p. 601
6 Andreas Osiander, Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth, International
Organization, Volume 55, Issue 2, Spring 2001, p. 251
7 Adam Roberts, Benedict Kingsbury, Introduction: Grotian Thought In International Relations, Hugo
Grotius and International Relations, edited by Hedley Bull, Benedict Kingsbury, and Adam Roberts,
Claredon Press, Oxford, 2002, p. 24
8 Jennifer Sterling-Folker, Neoliberalism, International Relations. Discipline and Diversity, 2nd edition,
edited by Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki, & Steve Smith, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010, pp. 119, 133
9 Kenneth Waltz, The Emerging Structure of International Politics, International Security, Autumn 1993,
Volume 18, Number 2, p. 59
10 Ian Hurd, Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics, International Organization, Volume 53,
Issue 2, 1999, p. 399; Waltz, p. 59
11 Hans J Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, 7th edition, McGraw
Hill, New York, 1993 p. 35; John J. Mersheimer, Structural Realism, International Relations. Discipline
and Diversity, 2nd edition, edited by Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki, & Steve Smith, Oxford University Press,
Oxford, 2010, p. 92

Alberstadt
Relevance of Westphalia on INR Law
18 April 2012
states to conflict with each other in their pursuit of state interested goals.12 States' goals
focus on power emulated through maximization of resources and resource capabilities.
To realists, the pursuit of achieving and maximizing resource capabilities, which are
limited in supply due to scarcity,13 results in the anarchic and conflict-ridden system. The
centrality of a states survival (raison dtat) results in rational and unitary behavior of
states to ensure their survival and also outcomes that benefit the state.14 This could describe
the Westphalian context in that in 1648 political entities were seeking a balance of power15
to ensure both their survival and individual autonomies.16 Gross further argues that from
Westphalia marked man's abandonment of the idea of a hierarchical structure of society.17
Morgenthau later argues that international law in its inherent purpose of regulation and
ensuring peace embodies the balance of power in the international system.18
However, realisms portrayal of states is too simplistic and reductionist which
incorrectly depicts modern international law. Primarily, this is because states are not
necessarily guaranteed primacy in international relations, nor were they during the 17th
century.19 States are not the only actors in international relations and the idea that they are

12 Mersheimer, Structural, p. 79; Richard Ned Lebow, Classical Realism, International Relations.
Discipline and Diversity, 2nd edition, edited by Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki, & Steve Smith, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, 2010, pp. 59, 63
13 John J. Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, W. W. Norton & Company, London, 2001, p.
30
14 Mearsheimer, Tragedy p. 31
15 Gene M. Lyons, Michael Mastanduno, International Intervention, State Sovereignty, and the Future of
International Society, Beyond Westphalia: State Sovereignty and International Intervention, edited by
Gene M Lyons and Michael Mastanduno, Johns Hopkins University Press, London, 1985, p.6; Gross, p.
27; Osiander, p. 261
16 Sasson Sofer, The Prominence of Historical Demarcations: Westphalia and the New World Order,
Diplomacy and Statecraft, Volume 20, Issue 1, 2009, pp. 9-10
17 Gross, p. 28
18 Morgenthau, p. 284
19 Martin Wight, De Systematibus Civitatum, Systems of States, edited by Hedley Bull, Leicester
University Press, London, 1977, p. 63; Osiander, p. 284

Alberstadt
Relevance of Westphalia on INR Law
18 April 2012
20
primary incorrectly reduces and marginalizes other actors. State primacy as well as
sovereignty is not newly challenged, but rather the concept of sovereignty (which expresses
internally the supremacy of the governing institute and externally the supremacy of the
state as a legal person)21 was contested both before 1648 and well after.22
For example, present at the Peace's negotiations were representatives from the Holy
Roman Empire and the Catholic Church, both acting as institutions which challenge
sovereignty.23 Institutions are defined as a general pattern or categorization of activity or
to a particular human-constructed arrangement, formally or informally recognized.24
However, this concept only came to express its popular autarkic meaning because of the
desire to avoid catastrophes such as the 30 Year War.25 This designation and mechanism
for mutual reciprocity of autonomy over domestic and external state policies describes the
resulting development as a deliberate and important ramification of Westphalia.26
This too demonstrates that realism incorrectly describes contemporary international law
as the Peace sought an end to war as well as a method for cooperation between political
units. Realists champion the primacy of states dating back to their birth at Westphalia,

20 Hurd, p. 403, Benno Teschke, The Myth of 1648: Class, Geopolitics, and the Making of Modern
International Relations, Verso, London, 2003, p. 238
21 Malcolm Shaw, International Law, 5th edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003, p. 409
22 Stephen D Krasner, Westphalia and All That, Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and
Political Change, edited by Judith Goldstein, Robert O. Keohane, Cornell University Press, Ithica, 1993,
p. 264; Gene M. Lyons and Michael Mastanduno, State Sovereignty and International Intervention:
Reflections on Present and Prospects for the Future, Beyond Westphalia: State Sovereignty and
International Intervention, edited by Gene M Lyons and Michael Mastanduno, Johns Hopkins University
Press, London, 1985, p. 252; Osiander, p. 273
23 Beaulac, pp. 191-192
24 Robert O. Keohane, International Institutions: Two Approaches, International Studies Quarterly,
Volume 32, Number 4, December 1988, p. 382
25 Stephen Okhonmina, States Without Borders: Westphalia Territoriality Under Threat, Journal of Social
Sciences, Volume 24, Issue 3, September 2010, p. 181
26 Hedley Bull, The Importance of Grotius in the Study of International Relations, Hugo Grotius and
International Relations, edited by Hedley Bull, Benedict Kingsbury, & Adam Roberts, Claredon Press,
Oxford, 2002, pp. 75-6, 86, 87

Alberstadt
Relevance of Westphalia on INR Law
18 April 2012
27
alongside the creation of state sovereignty. However, the Peace did not necessarily
describe an exclusive state system as other actors provided influence and were influenced
by the outcomes of the Peace. The Peaces negotiations also reflected methods of voluntary
compromise to achieve resolution, not the realist perspective of winner versus loser or even
state victory over alternative actors.
The Peace did not create states, nor were the conferences and treaties an attempt to do
so.28 Its purpose sought peaceful and diplomatic resolution to a Thirty Years War that had
ravaged Europe and resulted in economic, demographic, political and religious distress. The
actors at Westphalia sought the creation of an institution for order. Their intent was to
construct a forum for regularized interaction between political actors to maintain order and
prevent conflict or war.29 States were not present, nor did they immediately emerge during
the process.30
Instead, the Peaces outcome confirmed and perfecteda system of mutual relations
among autonomous political units.31 It provided a model for an established framework for
the development of an international community.32 This international community was
designed with peaceful relations in mind, demonstrating the neoliberal premise of peace as
the state of nature, or norm of society. This system could even be described as a collective
security system.33 It was first exclusive to Europe34 but then later expanded, much like the
example of the United Nations (and the ICJ) that the final section of this dissertation will

27 Schmidt, p. 604; Sofer, p. 6


28 Andrew MacRae, Counterpoint: the Westphalia Overstatement, International Social Science Review,
Volume 80, Issues 3 & 4, 2005, pp. 159-162
29 Schmidt, p. 605
30 Gross, p. 39
31 Osiander, p. 270
32 Schmidt, p. 606
33 Schmidt, p. 608
34 Sofer, p. 7

Alberstadt
Relevance of Westphalia on INR Law
18 April 2012
argue. An international community is defined as a community of independent states
constituting the civil society of international law.35 This system is still evolving, it is not
static.
However, with the realist emphasis on Westphalia from the 1930s and 1940s, perhaps
the origins of their common misinterpretation come from the implicit rather than explicit
nature of the language within the Westphalian treaties.36 The perpetuation of a generalized
summary of Westphalia left room for misinterpretation and deficit in validation through
elaboration.37 The original language of the treaties necessitated translation as well, allowing
for the possibility of variations in translations. For instance, the translation of the treaties
provides the word states but this term does not carry the weight of the contemporary IR
meaning, but rather a contextualized meaning. The modern definition of states was not
applicable at the Peace; the use of the word states is thus not a matter of nuance as realists
suggest.38
However, Westphalias enduring relevance on IR and law comes from its deliberate
intent of implicit language. With the purpose of authentication and legitimacy carried
throughout the document,39 this created provisions for its continuance. Westphalias
outcomes sought a conclusion to the Thirty Years War, but this Peace was intended to
instigate diplomatic forums and relations, not just a onetime event. With close reading of
the treaties, there is clear evidence that implicit language was used to provide opportunity

35 Georges Abi-Saab, The International Court as a World Court, Fifty Years of the International Court of
Justice, edited by Vaughn Lowe and Malgosia Fitzmaurice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
1996, p. 3
36 Osiander, pp. 265-266
37 Schmidt, pp. 602, 618; Osiander, p. 261
38 Schmidt, p. 613
39 For instance, see the concluding section CXXVIII, Avalon Project, CXXVIII, Treaty of Westphalia,
Yale University, 4 October 1648, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/westphal.asp, accessed 26
November 2011

Alberstadt
Relevance of Westphalia on INR Law
18 April 2012
for elaboration and expansion in additional conferences and negotiations.
Noting the absence of states at the Peace, it is further noted that the other political
entities that were present40 did not act unitarily but with respect to other influences.
Through which, many political actors continued to be subjected to the authority of the Holy
Roman Empire,41 a subjection that was largely uncontested as it granted convenience and
legitimacy to the political organizations. Therefore, it is clear that realism inaccurately
describes the international system as even before the emergence of states, institutions
challenged states' primacy and sovereignty.
Alternatively, globalization theory presents states as similarly prominent actor in
international relations, but one that is increasingly degraded through the process of
globalization.42 Globalization theory holds no consensus on its theory or the process, but it
will be defined for this paper as a process whereby the boundaries of states no longer
confine the flow of information, goods, moneys, and people.43 In this way globalization
portrays a direct threat to states as chief actors because the Westphalian system, reflected in
contemporary international law, heavily emphasizes territorial boundaries.
Furthermore, globalization theorists articulate a growing trend of an emergence of
supra-territoriality or regionalism wherein states are weaker individually and stronger in
coalitions44 such as the EU and NATO because existing borders are becoming obsolete. The
repercussions of this tend to say that globalization is encroaching on the symbolic sanctity

40 Teschke, p. 238; Beaulac, p. 186


41
Beaulac, p. 189
42 Michael A. Santoro, Post Westphalian and Its Discontents: Business, Globalization, and Human Rights
in Political and Moral Perspective, Business Ethics Quarterly, April 2010, Volume 20, Issue 2, p. 286
43 James N. Rosenau, Sovereignty in a Turbulent World, Beyond Westphalia: State Sovereignty and
International Intervention, Edited by Gene M Lyons & Michael Mastanduno, Johns Hopkins University
Press, London, 1995, p. 193
44 Osiander, p. 283; Susan Strange, The Retreat of the State. The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996, p. 42

Alberstadt
Relevance of Westphalia on INR Law
18 April 2012
45
of borders, which is a huge aspect of international law. Westphalian territoriality relies
upon firm borders which help define a state and this is undermined by globalization
because the process is divisive, disrupts social processes, reifies power, de-emphasizes
social relations and distorts social reality.46
Yet while globalization poses a significant challenge to Westphalian principles it has not
destroyed the state-based system. Globalization theorists argue the rise of multinational
corporations and international organizations against the decline of states.47 This rise is
clearly evident but these replacements offer no sustainable permanency, nor can they
provide the full scope of state capacities.48 The process of globalization arguably dating
from the late 1970s, describes a world of rapid changes resulting from improvements in
technology.
James Rosenau argues globalization is not so much a product or extension of the
interstate system as it is a wholly new set of processes, a separate form of world politics,
initiated by technologies that have fostered new human needs and wants.49 These
improvements, deriving from modernity (and importantly the process of industrialization)
have led to instantaneous communication, easier travel and cultural exposure. All of which
have modified the international system and pose qualitative as well as quantitative changes
to society.50 However, they have not indicated the death of states only a challenge to
them.51 Stephen D. Krasner argues in many ways states are better able to respond now

45
46
47
48
49
50
51

Okhonmina, p. 179
Okhomnina, p. 180
Santoro, p. 286
Krasner, Sovereignty, p. 26; Strange, p. 65
Rosenau, p. 194
Krasner, Sovereignty, p. 21; Santoro, pp. 287, 292
Rosalyn Higgins, Grotius and the Development of International Law in the United Nations Period, Hugo
Grotius and International Relations, edited by Hedley Bull, Benedict Kingsbury, and Adam Roberts,
Claredon Press, Oxford, 2002, p. 276 The law's increasing emphasis over the last 400 years on the states

Alberstadt
Relevance of Westphalia on INR Law
52
than they were in the past.

18 April 2012

With the changing circumstances and evolution of the international system, states
similarly change in their roles. In doing so, the development of states over time has allowed
them the benefit of constructing codified structures as well as equipping them with
resources that newer states would have lacked. These factors provide enhanced state
abilities. These abilities may also necessitate flexibility of states, but this at best
exemplifies flexibility and durability of the Westphalian model, not fragility and
degradation.
Against both the context of Westphalia and the resulting emergence of states it is clear
that states continue to mutate and evolve over time, and have done so from the beginning
with the influence of diverse actors. One of the main threats supposedly to the demise of
the state is the increasing rise in the number and strength of non-state actors. However, as
mentioned earlier, there were non-state actors who took active part in shaping the treaties
and exercised great influence over the course of events.53 Alternatively, it is a valid
argument that with globalization it is the transitory nature of modern borders [which]
opens the floodgate of problems with the durability54 of Westphalia. However, Ian Hurd
argues although these boundaries may be somewhat porous ... [this principle] characterizes
almost the entire international system today and selected parts of it since the Treaty of
Westphalia.55
The events of war and even imperialism result in changes in maps; these changes seek to

52
53
54
55

as the major actor on the international scene has, of course, reflected the reality.; Schmidt, p. 617
Krasner, Sovereignty, p. 24
MacRae, p. 162
Okhonmina, p.179
Hurd, page 393; Barry Buzan, Richard Little, Beyond Westphalia? Capitalism After the 'Fall', Review of
International Studies, 1999, Volume 25, Issue 5, p. 94

10

Alberstadt
Relevance of Westphalia on INR Law
18 April 2012
illustrate changes in geopolitical circumstances. This proves equally true with the example
of the Thirty Years War and the Peace of Westphalias alternations to the map of Europe in
the 17th century. Leo Gross argues the political map of Europe as outlined in the treaties is
no longer.56 Yet this obvious statement lends a valuable assessment of the changing
geography of states and political boundaries as illustrated in maps. The determination of
geographic boundaries underlined the jurisdiction of the sovereign state, demonstrating that
Westphalias action of codifying territorial jurisdictions in Europe provided a cornerstone
of contemporary international law.57
The changing nature of maps, including the names of the political units, whether
denoted by nations, empires, or other forms of distinction reveal the development of states
through time. This illustrates this papers argument that globalization does not kill states;
states change over time, as do circumstances. Because national borders represent the fault
lines of conflict58 even today, then clearly sovereigntys reliance upon geographical
distinctions, continues from Westphalia. State boundaries provide an aspect that changes
with globalization, but does not become abolished from its process.
Non-state actors, from the perspective of globalization, absolutely challenge a states
capacity and role. Yet states are composed of non-state actors, and it is frequently the power
of individuals, especially government leaders, who help shape a states functionality for
instance through policy. This example illustrates that non-state actors, even as small as
individuals, do not kill states. States are co-created and guided by non-state actors; the state
is not a personified external character but rather a construction.59 Although states were not

56
57
58
59

Gross, p. 21
Schmidt, pp. 606, 609
Krasner, Sovereignty, p. 20
Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, Verso,

11

Alberstadt
Relevance of Westphalia on INR Law
18 April 2012
created at the Peace, the foundation for their emergence was clearly constructed. The
emergence of states stemmed from a gradual process (almost two centuries of historical
changes)60 not a Westphalian big bang. While Westphalia did not create states, its
stipulations did establish frameworks for which states would emerge, primarily on the
grounds of autonomy, territory, and secular governments.61
Neoliberalism most accurately describes modern international law. Neoliberalism
describes an international system premised on interdependence and cooperation. 62 In
opposition to realism, it views peace as the natural state. Neoliberalist theorists, like Hedley
Bull, Robert Keohane, and John Ruggie also grant greater acceptance of non-state actors on
the premise that they increase avenues for better connections between societies and diverse
channels for cooperation.63 Its definition of states more inclusively allows for diversity of
actors who influence and shape state policy and behavior. Keohane states the institution of
sovereign statehood, which was well adopted for the Westphalian system, is being
modified, although not superseded, in response to the interests of participants in a rapidly
changing internationalizing political economy.64
Furthermore, neoliberalism most accurately describes current international relations and
law by incorporating norms into its observations, allowing for more flexible and accurate
analyses.65 Kratochwil and Ruggie further argue that norms can guide, inspire, rationalize,
express mutual expectations, or justify a state's behavior and therefore norms are active
London, 1991, p. 6
60 Anderson, p. 159
61 Teschke, pp. 21, 30, 40
62
Keohane, International, p. 380
63 Sterling-Folker, pp. 123, 232
64 Robert O. Keohane, Hobbes Dilemma and Institutional Change in World Politics: Sovereignty in
International Society Power and Governance in a Politically Globalized World, edited by Robert
Keohane, Routledge, London, 2002, pp. 74-75
65 John Gerard Ruggie, Multilateralism: the Anatomy of an Institution, International Organization,
Volume 46, Number 3, Summer 1992, p. 561

12

Alberstadt
Relevance of Westphalia on INR Law
18 April 2012
66
processes important to ontology of IR theory. For instance, neoliberals acknowledge that
cooperation between states can be utilized as tools without necessitating a zero sum game,
or an absolute win compared to an absolute loss as realists argue. 67 Theorists of this
framework also value the idea of interdependence,68 especially through the use of
institutions, but do not feel that this interdependence undermines autonomy or sovereignty
of a state,69 especially in lieu of globalization when states often collaborate to enhance
effectiveness.
Realists or even neorealists might argue that despite changes to international relations
over time, the basic structure of international politics continues to be anarchic. Each state
fends for itself with or without the cooperation of others.70 However, neoliberals could
counter this with the assertion that international law and also the very act of forming
multilateral institutions acts as a form of higher authority whereby states are held legally
accountable to each other, but also the collective.71 A key example of this is the United
Nations, and through it, the judicial organ of the ICJ.
This next section will use the International Court of Justice to support the claim that
Westphalia has been significant in the evolution of international law. First, this next section
will evaluate and compare the founding documents of the ICJ (the Statute, organizational
rules of 1978 and the UN Charter 1945)72 against the treaties of Westphalia 1648

66 Kratochwil & Ruggie, pp. 767, 768


67 Sterling-Folker, pp. 119-122; Eric A. Engle, The Transformation of the International Legal System: The
Post-Westphalian Legal Order, Quinnipiac Law Review, Issue 23, Number 23, January 2004, p. 25
68 Rosenau, p. 199
69 Keohane, Hobbes, p. 70
70 Waltz, p. 59
71 Hidemi Suganami, Grotius and International Equality, Hugo Grotius and International Relations, edited
by Hedley Bull, Benedict Kingsbury, and Adam Roberts, Claredon Press, Oxford, 2002, p. 222, 226;
Gross, p. 40
72 Gross even argues that beginning from Westphalia, the latest step in the long line of evolution is
represented by the United Nations Charter. Gross, p. 23; Santoro, p. 286

13

Alberstadt
Relevance of Westphalia on INR Law
18 April 2012
(Osnabrck and Mnster). It will do so for the purposes of establishing not only
comparable rhetoric, but to point out the similar functions of each. Next, it will select
illustrative case studies of the ICJ to demonstrate that Westphalian premises are
implemented into action by international law.
To begin, the ICJ was created out of the United Nations Charter in 1945 following the
end of World War II. This section will outline its key participants, both as objects and
subjects of the case, and its function. The founding document of the ICJ is the United
Nations Charter, which in Chapter XIV Article 92 specifically asserts that the International
Court of Justice shall be the principal organ of the United Nations.73 In Article 93 it
continues by stipulating that only states are party to its cases and all members of the
United Nations are de facto parties74 to the ICJ. This is restated in the Statute of the Court
in Chapter 1, Article 34.75
However, upon several occasions in the Rules of the Court (Part III, Section 3, Articles
43, 69)76 and the Statute of the Court (Chapter III, article 50 and Chapter IV article 67)77
international organizations are mentioned as actors, influences, or vessels for inquiry or
expert opinions as well. This properly demonstrates the fluidity of the ICJ function in that
even though states are primary actors in international law, the influences of other actors are
not ignored. This inclusion into the processes of international law is also not new;
globalization has not triumphed over states, but rather states and law have evolved
73
United Nations Charter, Chapter XIV: The International Court of Justice, Article 92, 26 June 1945,
http://www.icj-cij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=1&p3=0, Accessed 17 February 2012
74
United Nations Charter, Chapter XIV: The International Court of Justice, Article 93, 26 June 1945,
http://www.icj-cij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=1&p3=0, accessed 17 February 2012
75
International Court of Justice, Statute of the Court, Article 34, http://www.icjcij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=2&p3=0, accessed 17 February 2012
76
International Court of Justice, Rules of the Court, Articles 43, 69, 1 July 1978, http://www.icjcij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=3&p3=0, accessed 17 February 2012
77
International Court of Justice, Statute of the Court, Articles 50, 67, http://www.icjcij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=2&p3=0, accessed 17 February 2012

14

Alberstadt
Relevance of Westphalia on INR Law
18 April 2012
78
alongside globalization. However, it is clearly evident that while international
organizations are acknowledged as significant actors, it is at the behest and under the
authority or direction of states that they act.79
Rosalyn Higgins argues international law is not the vindication of authority over power.
It is the decision-making by authorized decision-makers, when authority and power
collide.80 Those authorized to make decisions are more broadly states, but more
specifically those state-officials. Within Westphalia, this premise was demonstrated by the
actors present, who acted with legal authority to deliberately codify shared values of the
actors within a legally binding framework.81 As Higgins describes modern law, this too
demonstrates that the events of Westphalia left an important footprint in the path leading to
the creation of states and a state-based international legal system as exemplified in the ICJ
rulings and today's law.
International law is created by the practice of states (custom) and through agreements
entered into by states (treaties);82 states are party to the rules of law but still have the ability
to change law over time as a developmental process. The political actors at Westphalia,
those predecessors to states, consciously and in collaboration with each other, changed the
norms of their time to create the framework for this system. This system would particularly
emphasize states as the key actors of law.83 International law recognizes the mutual
interests of states involved but its agreements and norms also reflect the issues of the time.

78 Buzan & Little, p. 100; Rosalyn Higgins, The ICJ, the ECJ, and the Integrity of International Law,
International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Volume 52, Number 1, January 2003, p. 12
79 Katharina P. Coleman, International Organizations and Peace Enforcement: The Politics of International
Legitimacy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007, p. 60; Buzan, & Little, p. 95
80 Rosalyn Higgins, Problems and Processes: International Law and How We Use It, Claredon Press,
Oxford, 1994, p. 15
81 Higgins, Problems, p. 9
82 Timothy Hillier, Public International Law, Cavendish Publishing Limited, London, 1994, p. 2
83 Okhonima, p.177

15

Alberstadt
Relevance of Westphalia on INR Law
18 April 2012
It changes over time when the interests of states change, providing a more flexible and thus
legitimate arrangement.84 Stephen Stec argues that the Westphalian model while not
perfect, has centuries of practice in which global and local injustices have been gradually
addressed.85
While the ICJ was created as a result from the ending of WWII in 1945, from this there
is a clear parallel to the Peace of Westphalia, which was created to end the Thirty Years
War in 1648. Westphalia was primarily a diplomatic solution to the attempt to limit
Hapsburg expansion86 just as WWII was a result of collapsing imperialism and decolonization. Eric Engle simplifies this comparison by asserting the religious wars that the
Westphalian system were intended to replace were thus themselves replaced by wars
justified by nationalist ideology and historically the de facto breakdown of the
Westphalian system can be traced to the first and second world wars.87 It can thus be
inferred from this comparison that in a way the ICJ supersedes the Westphalian system by
restoring order based on the outcomes of sovereignty expressed by the Peace.88
The Peace of Westphalia was a response necessitated from exhaustion of lasting war
throughout Europe. It also responded to the declarations of political groups to decide their
autonomy and independence,89 a precursor to declarations of self-determination. Thus
demonstrably it acted as an effort of coordination to achieve both a diplomatic end to war
and also to instigate a method of continued diplomatic relations, showing that international
84 Eric A. Posner, The Perils of Global Legalism, University Chicago Press, London, 2009, p. 226
85 Stephen Stec, Humanitarian Limits to Sovereignty: Common Concern and Common Heritage
Approaches to Natural Resources and Environment, International Community Law Review, 2010,
Volume 12, Issue 3, p. 377
86 Krasner, Sovereignty, p. 21; Santoro, p. 286; Osiander, pp. 252, 260, 262
87 Engle, p. 25
88 Alternatively, some theorists posit that the Westphalian system ended 1989 or with the end of the Cold
War. Engle, p. 23
89
This is primarily in regards to principalities deciding political allegiances but also deciding their religion for
their territory. Beaulac, p. 189

16

Alberstadt
Relevance of Westphalia on INR Law
18 April 2012
90
law is the law of coordination. The ICJ similarly deals with such cases as territorial
disputes and also instances of self-determination.
This provides evidence that territory continues to help define a state even despite the
challenges posed by globalization. This was mentioned earlier in reference to the obvious
example of maps, but for the less obvious examples such as continental shelves and water
rights, the ICJ continues to demonstrate the relevancy of sovereign jurisdiction. For
example, the ICJ's role in determining territorial sovereignty in Sovereignty over Pulau
Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan' (Indonesia versus Malaysia; 2001-2002) demonstrates this. This
case provides evidence that an impartial Court is still essential.91 It also sufficiently
demonstrates that territoriality continues to be a prevalent matter in international law, one
that has not diminished under globalization but continues from the codification during the
Peace of Westphalia.92 Therefore, the legal method of determining sovereignty of territory
carries over from the Peace.93
Furthermore, while realists believe that Westphalia exemplified the realist anarchical
struggle to balance powers, it best embodies neoliberalism in that it presented an
institutional mechanism to further cooperation and achieve peace. Instead of fixating on
sovereignty in terms of military capability, Westphalian sovereignty was more in terms of
mutual empowerment.94 Westphalian actors included political representatives of entities
that provide early demonstrations of not just international diplomacy, but also diplomats.95
The ICJ comparably features modes of diplomacy. It also administers mechanisms for inter90 Gross, p. 40
91 International Court of Justice, Sovereignty over Palua Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia versus
Malaysia), December 2002, http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/102/10570.pdf , accessed 8 April 2012
92 Okhonmina, p. 177
93 Stec, p. 378
94 Osiander, p. 280
95 Beaulac, p. 181

17

Alberstadt
Relevance of Westphalia on INR Law
18 April 2012
state relations because members of the ICJ (or rather the judges of the ICJ) enjoy
diplomatic immunity and privileges, which perpetuates the importance of a functional
system of diplomatic relations between states. This parallel is expressed in Article 19 of the
statute96 and sections VI, XXII, LXV, CIV, CXIX, and CXXVIII in the Peace. 97 In this, the
transition from medieval to modern, a primary legacy of Westphalia, provides a clear
impact on contemporary international law.98
However, it is important to note that the roots of international law demonstrably begin
with maritime law. Grotius begins his legal discussion on the exploration and articulation
about the specific development of the law of the seas.99 Upon numerous occasions in the
Peace, the action of diplomacy is contingent upon peaceful maritime laws. These laws
articulate the demilitarization of castles, fortresses, and waterways. They also provide
assurances that the political participants are granted free and safe access or movement.
These stipulations expressed in the Peace can be found in sections LVIII, LXIX, LXXX,
LXXVIII, LXXIX, LXXXIII, LXXXIV, and LXXXIX.100 As waterways and territorial
transportation impact multiple political groups, this provides a clear relevance of the
Peaces legacy on international law.
Another example is that maritime law as well as the peaceful travel between territories
provides especial relevance to contemporary international law for its early origins of

96 International Court of Justice, Statute of the Court, http://www.icjcij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=2&p3=0, accessed 17 February 2012
97 Avalon Project, VI, XXII, LXV, CIV, CXIX, CXXVII, Treaty of Westphalia, Yale University, 4 October
1648, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/westphal.asp, accessed 26 November 2011
98 Buzan & Little, p. 89
99 MacRae, p. 161
100 Avalon Project, LVIII, LXIX, LXXX, LXXVIII, LXXIX, LXXXIII, LXXXIV, LXXXIX, Treaty of
Westphalia, Yale University, 4 October 1648, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/westphal.asp,
accessed 26 November 2011

18

Alberstadt
Relevance of Westphalia on INR Law
18 April 2012
101
international political economy. Trade and commerce serve as significance sources of
international relations. Economic relations in modern society demonstrate an important
avenue of cooperation and also punishment (through sanctions) in international law.102 The
theme of strong, stable economic relations still resonates today.
Additionally, it has been argued that the Peace was intended to act as a constitutional
outline for the Holy Roman Empire.103 This interpretation is expressed in section CXX,
where it states that the articles shall serve for a perpetual Law and established Sanction of
the Empire, to be inserted like other fundamental Laws and Constitutions of the Empire.104
While this is partly true, it can also be said that the ICJ acts as a legal framework for the
United Nations. Neither one directly regulates or changes the parent organization, but both
significantly interact with its influences.
Treaties existed before and after Westphalia, but what makes Westphalia significant and
distinct rests in both the circumstances surrounding the conflict's peaceful outcome but also
the consequences after.105 The Thirty Years War was a response to the collapse to the Peace
of Augsburg (1555) which demonstrated a conflict with religious boundaries as well as
political districts.106 However, the Thirty Years War also depicted a time of imperial
expansion by the Holy Roman Empire in conflict with struggles for autonomy by various
political entities.
These struggles for political and religious freedom provided important groundwork for

101 MacRae, p. 161


102 Keohane, Hobbes', pp. 74-75
103 Krasner, Sovereignty, page 21; Beaulac, p. 186
104 Avalon Project, CXX, Treaty of Westphalia, Yale University, 4 October 1648,
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/westphal.asp, accessed 26 November 2011
105 The long-scale timeframe for the modern international order essentially involved looking backward to
the centuries of conflict that was resolved through the Peace. Stec, p. 379
106 Osiander, pp. 270, 272

19

Alberstadt
Relevance of Westphalia on INR Law
18 April 2012
107
the emergence of states. The Peace of Westphalia is unique for its involvement in variety
of actors and areas; its multilateral scope broke with treaties based on a bilateral
tradition.108 Importantly, the legal equality of actors under its treaties and its secular or
religiously tolerant provisions were early attempts to abandon the medieval system of
hierarchy.109 These will be further discussed in the coming sections.
The Peace provided the cornerstone for states emergence110 because it broadly
stipulated (there were exceptions) a system based on secular governments, and jurisdictions
of government based on territorial boundaries.111 These stipulations continue to aid in
defining what a state is today. Because Westphalia granted the opportunity for states
emergence, it lends great influence to the evolution of international law for the reason that
international law is premised on this state system, one where peace seeks to be the state of
nature and diplomacy triumphs over conflict.112 An important apparatus of peace and
justice is the ICJ which describes a legal forum that functions to use international law to
make decisions on international conventions, international customs, principles of law, and
acts as an arbiter for disputes.113
This system predicated on statehood and the emergence of states has been recently
questioned by the ICJ in the advisory opinion proceedings of Kosovos unilateral
declaration of independence in 2008. The relevancy of this case is sufficient to exemplify
107 Jason Farr, Point: The Westphalia Legacy and the Modern Nation-State, International Social Science
Review, Fall/Winter 2005, Volume 80, Numbers 3 & 4, pp. 156-157
108 Roger Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1981, p. 36
109 Although these were not consistently held, even within the treaties (see Articles below where pledges of
Fidelity or Fief were renewed) Avalon Project, X, XX, XXVII, XLII, Treaty of Westphalia, Yale
University, 4 October 1648, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/westphal.asp, accessed 26 November
2011
110 Morgenthau, p. 284
111 Shaw, p. 1162
112 Stec, p. 380
113 International Court of Justice, Statute of the Court, Chapter II, Article 38, http://www.icjcij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=2&p3=0, accessed 17 February, 2012

20

Alberstadt
Relevance of Westphalia on INR Law
18 April 2012
the modern mechanism of self-determination stemming from the precedent of independence
during the Peace's proceedings and consequences. In this case it was ultimately decided that
Kosovos declaration was legitimate. The Court concludes that consequently the adoption
of that declaration did not violate any applicable rule of international law.114
However, even amongst the judges the verdict demonstrated contention as reflected in
the outcome of a nine in favour to five against vote. Significantly, Westphalias legacy
relevantly influenced the discussions of the Court. In particular, the separate opinion of
Judge Canado Trindade articulates his approach to this case by examining the works of
Roman law, Grotius, and Pufendorf to reach his final conclusion.115 The Westphalian model
may be challenged by contemporary changes (such as globalization), but its values, such as
sovereignty, secular government, and diplomacy, linger in the minds of policy makers and
legal authorities.
While Westphalia has been largely portrayed inaccurately by IR scholars as well as
historians,116 employing historiography has produced evidence to suggest that the Peace
was in fact a similar forum to the ICJ. The false understanding of Westphalia is also the
result of nineteenth and twentieth century historiography influenced by [the] anti-Hapsburg
propaganda.117 The Peace of Westphalia, in articles V, VII, XVII outlined precise language
and functions to provide an apparatus for disputes between political entities or rulers and
issues of contestation to be heard before competent Judges.118 In doing so the treaties of

114 International Court of Justice, Accordance With International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of
Independence in Respect of Kosovo, http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/16010.pdf, accessed 17
February, 2012, p. 14
115 International Court of Justice, Accordance With International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of
Independence in Respect of Kosovo, http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/16010.pdf, accessed 17
February, 2012, p. 13
116 Osiander, pp. 267, 268
117 Sofer, p. 8; Osiander, p. 264
118 Avalon Project, Treaty of Westphalia, 24 October 1648,

21

Alberstadt
Relevance of Westphalia on INR Law
18 April 2012
Westphalia specifically articulated not only the participants of the treaty, but who would
benefit from them, and who it would be applicable too. Those party to the treaty were
granted equal treatment and freedom from prejudice in their implementations or obligations
of the treaty.119
As the previous section demonstrated similarities between both language and function of
the Peace and the ICJ, this next section will utilize specific cases of the ICJ to demonstrate
Westphalias continuing influence. It will begin with the February 2012 case of
Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany versus Italy: Greece intervening). This
case seeks resolution to a dispute between Italy and Germany where Germany asserts Italy
breached Germanys legal immunity by recalling financial reparation issues from WWII
under the Third Reich from 1943 to 1945 against Italian citizens.
To establish jurisdiction and relevancy, the ICJ first had to identify the origins of State
immunity and the identification of the principles underlying immunity in the past 120 under
international law. It did so under the pretext of customary international law which
demonstrated the precedent of immunity as mutually respected by state actors put into
effect by 1980. It next had to demonstrate legal application of jurisdiction whereby the acts
by Germany upon Italian citizens were committed on Italian soil, or rather the issue before
the Court is confined to acts committed on the territory of the forum State by the armed
forces of a foreign State.121 This is significant because the Court approaches a case using

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/westphal.asp, accessed 26 November 2011


119 Avalon Project, VI, XXII, LXIV, Treaty of Westphalia, Yale University, 4 October 1648,
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/westphal.asp, accessed 26 November 2011
120 International Court of Justice, Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy: Greece
Intervening), 3 February 2012, http://www.icjcij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&code=ai&case=143&k=60&p3=0 , accessed 17 February 2012, p. 3
121 International Court of Justice, Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy: Greece
Intervening), 3 February 2012, http://www.icjcij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&code=ai&case=143&k=60&p3=0 , accessed 17 February 2012, p. 4

22

Alberstadt
Relevance of Westphalia on INR Law
18 April 2012
Westphalian principles by first deciding on jurisdiction based on the governments relation
to a territory and then by deciding the results of the acts committed.
Comparably, Westphalian treaties pertained to the atrocities of conflict but also the
restoration of valuables, inheritances, and so on during the Thirty Years War. This example
of a legal dispute brought before the ICJ also pertains to the acts committed during war and
their continuing relevance decades later. Simply put, the Peace of Westphalia created a
model of which later agreements or treaties could be copied from because Westphalia was
the first to have the international dynamics and complexity needed to relevantly impact
contemporary law. Westphalian issues are not outdated, nor are the approaches to solving
them.
For instance, the Court next investigated state practice, or customary law which includes
norms. However, here the relationship between this case and Westphalia is that in the
treaties of Westphalia, the parties sought to codify as well as create normative principles.
Shearer argues Westphalia was the development from usage and practice of a substantial
body of new customary rules.122 Krasner likewise asserts Westphalia tried to establish a
set of commonly accepted principles regarding the practice of religion that would govern
relations between sovereigns and their subjects.123 Despite differences in these statements,
it is clear that Westphalia did give recognition and establishment to norms that would lend
lasting contributions to the evolution of international relations and law.
The second case that lends relevancy to this papers thesis is Paraguay versus United
States of America (9 April 1998). This case was one of dispute regarding the sovereignty of
the United States in regards to trying and convicting a national of Paraguay. This national

122 Ivan A. Shearer, Starkes International Law, 11th edition, Butterworths, London, 1994, p. 11
123 Krasner, Westphalia, p. 242

23

Alberstadt
Relevance of Westphalia on INR Law
18 April 2012
received a conviction of murder by a U.S court, but this was reached without informing the
subject of his consular rights. His conviction resulted in a scheduled execution for 14 April,
leading to Paraguay's request that the ICJ intervene on behalf of the subject (Angel
Franciso Breard) as a matter of urgency. The ICJ judges struggled with deciding
jurisdiction over this issue, but had only two days to deliberate and reach a verdict.
This case demonstrates significance because it illustrates the continuing relevancy of
Westphalia in that the treaty presented legal equality of its participants, as does the ICJ.
Westphalia also stipulated areas of sovereignty or autonomy by the actors present, which
provided the origins of modern state sovereignty as a consequence.124 The implications of
this are legal sovereignty and mutual respect by international states to refrain from
interfering in domestic courts.125 While in this controversial case Paraguay petitioned the
ICJ to intervene, it still exemplifies a Westphalian premise of diplomatic sovereignty in
regards to the relation between a national and their territorial and political origin.
While this may seem a breach of U.S sovereignty, it was done so in a diplomatic and
ultimately official method. Paraguay asked the ICJ to intervene and overturn the conviction
of guilty to prevent Breard's execution. The case continued after deliberation by the judges,
because while the perspective of the violation of U.S autonomy by Paraguay held merit, so
too did Paraguay's case against the U.S violating diplomatic or consular agreements, albeit
without intention. The Court then proceeded with Paraguay's case despite the United States'
apology and earlier attempts to remedy the situation.
The Court's position sought to balance the respect of each states sovereignty and legal
equality, but also the rights of Breard, and Breard's victim. Judge Oda provided articulate

124 Stec, p. 378


125 Buzan & Little, p. 90

24

Alberstadt
Relevance of Westphalia on INR Law
18 April 2012
opinion in his declaration, stating I would like to add, however, that if Mr. Breard's rights
as they relate to humanitarian issues are to be respected, then, in parallel, the matter of the
rights of victims of violent crime...should be taken into consideration.126 As a result, this
case was eventually removed from the court's list in November 1998, but Breard's
execution was still carried out. However, it indicates the weight of Westphalia's legacy by
showing how the principles set out during the treaties continue to influence international
law and while they became norms today, they continue to change and evolve with context.
A main issue at Westphalia sought the resolution of religious jurisdictional disputes.
However, following Westphalia and the Peace's influential outcomes, the issue of religion
evolved into the issue of nationalism.127 Because the Peace codified boundaries of political
units and territories, combined with its secular nature, this influenced the shift away from
solely religious affiliation to national affiliation as designated by where one lived and owed
allegiance to.
Westphalia provided for religious tolerance, importantly through the specification of
equal representation of Catholic and Protestant members of the diet (LXVI, LXVII). 128 The
ICJ clearly follows this example as it too includes specifications for accurate national
representation in its statutes of the court.129 Normative customs expressed in Westphalia,
customs which date to medieval and Roman times, are are mutual recognition, adherence
to treaties, safe conduct of ambassadors, condemnation of piracy, and protection of aliens

126 Judge Shigeru Oda, ICJ, Summary of Judgments, Advisory Opinions, and Orders of the International
Court of Justice, 9 April 1998, http://www.icjcij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=08&case=99&code=paus&p3=5, accessed 17 February 2012, p.
32
127 Farr, p. 158
128 Avalon Project, Treaty of Westphalia, 4 October 1648, Yale University,
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/westphal.asp, accessed 26 November 2011; Beaulac, p. 187
129 International Court of Justice, Statute of the Court, Chapter II, Articles 2-5, http://www.icjcij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=2&p3=0, accessed 17 February, 2012

25

Alberstadt
Relevance of Westphalia on INR Law
these still continue in contemporary legal practice.130

18 April 2012

These Westphalian principles, such as sovereignty, secular government, and diplomacy,


grant significant influence to contemporary international relations and law.131 Globalization
challenges this, but does not defeat this Westphalian legacy. To this end, Benedict Anderson
argues, the reality is quite plain: the end of the era of nationalism, so long prophesied, is
not remotely in sight.132 Furthermore, this dissertation demonstrated that Westphalias
enduring contribution to IR stemmed not from a big bang but from a deliberate process.
Realists prove correct in their assertion that states continue, but neoliberals more accurately
articulate the composition of the international system as including other actors such as
institutions.
In opposition to this dissertation's thesis is the irrelevancy of Westphalia's critical
analysis. Sebastian Schmidt argues that while Westphalia has been inaccurately analyzed by
historians and IR scholars, the continued efforts to deconstruct the 1648 outcomes prove
fruitless. He argues the Westphalia concept has outlived its usefulness ... Continued
references to a Westphalian system and the like are far more likely to obscure than
illuminate.133
Yet this dissertation sought to argue that despite Westphalia's inaccurately portrayed
legacy, it continues to lend relevancy to developments in international law. It also showed
that with critical analysis of IR theory as well as historiography, the inaccuracies were not

130 Robert Jackson, International Community Beyond the Cold War, Beyond Westphalia: State
Sovereignty & International Intervention, edited by Gene M Lyons, Michael Mastanduno, Johns Hopkins
University Press, London, 1995, p. 62
131 David Held, Democracy and the New International Order, Cosmopolitan Democracy. An Agenda for a
New World Order, Polity Press, Cambridge, 1995, pp. 103-4
132 Anderson, p. 3
133 Schmidt, p. 619

26

Alberstadt
Relevance of Westphalia on INR Law
18 April 2012
too far off; states were not created during, but deliberately resulted after.134 The
international system was not created during, but the framework for it was created and
encouraged. While Eric A. Engle states the Westphalian system is literally obsolete,
surpassed by technologies which did not exist when it was created,135 this dissertation
demonstrated that the system is not obsolete; it has endured the evolution of international
and the passage of time because of its effectiveness. The examination of the actual treaties
provides evidence of its lasting impact on international relations and law. These impacts
were examined in direct comparison to cases brought before the ICJ.
In conclusion, this paper only critically explored the origins of Westphalia against its
legacy (as embodied in the ICJ as an institution). The explorations of the evolutionary
process of similar treaties, agreements, and institutions that led up to and followed
Westphalia were out of necessity, due to time and word limitations, excluded. However,
chronological analysis of these could provide an important next step in the defense of the
Peaces importance. This dissertation could not, within its constraints, include all the many
discussions of other treaties and congresses prior to 1648 and up to 1945, but this
demonstrates an opportunity for further academic works on the subject.
This dissertation sought to further argue that the realist analysis of the Peace unreliably
examines Westphalia's impact. It sought to instead promote neoliberalism as a more
credible theoretical approach to studying Westphalia. The primary reason for this was
neoliberalism's inclusion of other actors, such as institutions, which more justly describes
not only the Westphalian system, but its model for today. It also analyzed globalization as a
key challenger to the Westphalian model, but concluded that while it tests the durability of
134 Clarie A. Cutler, Critical Reflections on the Westphalian Assumptions of International Law and
Organization: A Crisis of Legitimacy, Review of International Studies, 2001, Volume 27, p. 134
135 Engle, p. 26

27

Alberstadt
Relevance of Westphalia on INR Law
18 April 2012
the system; Westphalia's legacy continues to relevantly influence current affairs.
Finally, this dissertation sought to sufficiently demonstrate that Westphalia greatly
influences international law. Its deliberations and outcomes consistently impact the
development and evolution of today's international relations and law. While admittedly
Westphalia has become inaccurately portrayed by IR scholars and historians alike, this does
not negate its legacy for today's practices. The Peace of Westphalia impacts modern
international law through its many principles codified in its treaties. The principles such as
diplomacy, mechanisms of peace in opposition to the use of force, sovereignty and secular
governments (religious tolerance) exemplify key areas of Westphalian influence on modern
international law.
Word Count: 6,648

28

Você também pode gostar