Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T19:30:01.586Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Was Westphalia ‘all that’? Hobbes, Bellarmine, and the norm of non-intervention

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2012

JONATHAN HAVERCROFT
JONATHAN HAVERCROFT*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Oklahoma, 455 West Lindsey Street, Norman, Oklahoma 73019, USA
*
*Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recently, historians of the international system have called into question the significance of the Treaties of Westphalia in 1648 as the moment when the international system formed. One of their primary arguments is that the non-intervention norm typically associated with Westphalian notions of sovereignty developed much later. This paper will examine the early 17th-century debates over the right of the Pope to depose monarchs in the defense of spiritual matters. I read Part III and Part IV of Hobbes’ Leviathan in its intellectual context to see how his theory of sovereignty was partially developed to support a theory of non-intervention. This reading leads to two important contributions to current political science debates. First, it refutes the growing consensus that non-intervention developed as an aspect of sovereignty only in the late 18th and early 19th century. Second, the paper addresses current attempts to assert a right of humanitarian intervention. By exploring similarities between these recent debates and those between Bellarmine and Hobbes in the 17th century, I offer a fresh perspective on what is at stake in current claims to international community.

Keywords

sovereigntynon-interventionWestphaliaHobbesBellarmine
Type
Research Article
Information
Global Constitutionalism , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , March 2012 , pp. 120 - 140
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Annan, Kofi. 1999. “Two Concepts of Sovereignty.” The Economist, September 18.Google Scholar
Bellarmine, Robert. 1949. Power of the Pope in Temporal Affairs, translated by Moore, G. A.. Chevy Chase, MD: Country Dollar Press.Google Scholar
Bellarmine, Robert. 1951. The Supreme Pontiff, translated by Moore, G. A.. Chevy Chase, MD: Country Dollar Press.Google Scholar
Bickerton, Christopher J., Cunliffe, Philip, and Gourevitch, Alexander. 2007. “Introduction: The unholy alliance against sovereignty.” In Politics without Sovereignty: A Critique of Contemporary International Relations, edited by Birkerton, C. J., Cunliffe, P. and Gourevitch, A.. New York, NY: University College London Press.Google Scholar
Bull, Hedley. 1977. The anarchical society : a study of order in world politics. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Calvin, John. 1960. Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, translated by Battles, F. L.. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1999. The New Military Humanism. Vancouver, BC: New Star Books.Google Scholar
Donnelly, Jack. 1993. “Human rights, humanitarian crisis, and humanitarian intervention.” International Journal 48(4):607–40.Google Scholar
Finnemore, Martha. 2003. The Purpose of Intervention. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Finnemore, Martha. 2008. “Paradoxes in Humanitarian Intervention.” In Moral Limit and Possibility in World Politics, edited by Price, R.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Godman, Peter. 2000. The Saint as Censor: Robert Bellarmine between Inquisition and Index. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV.Google Scholar
Hardt, Michael, and Negri, Antonio. 2001. Empire. 1st pbk. edn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbes, Thomas. 1996. Leviathan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. 2001. The Responsibility to Protect. Ottawa, ON: International Development Research Centre.Google Scholar
Jackson, Robert H. 1990. Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Third World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, Robert H. 2007. Sovereignty. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
James, I, King of England. 1994. “Triplici Nodo, Triples Cuneus. Or an Apologie for the Oath of Allegiance.” In King James VI and I: Political Writings, edited by Sommerville., J. P.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Krasner, Stephen D. 1993. “Westphalia and All That.” In Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change, edited by Goldstein, J. and Keohane., R. O.Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Krasner, Stephen D. 1999. Sovereignty: organized hypocrisy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kumm, Mattias. 2009. “The Cosmopolitan Turn in Constitutionalism: On the Relationship between Constitutionalism in and beyond the State.” In Ruling the World? Constitutionalism, International Law, and Global Governance, edited by Dunoff, Jeffrey L. and Trachtman., Joel P.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lang, Anthony F. 2009. “Conflicting Rules: Global Constitutionalism and the Kosovo Intervention.” Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding. 3(2):185–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lievsay, John Leon. 1973. Venetian Phoenix: Paolo Sarpi and Some of His English Friends (1606–1700). Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
Maduro, Miguel Poiares. 2003. “What if it is as good as it gets?” European Constitutionalism Beyond the State, edited by Weiler, J. H. H. and Marlene Wind., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Morgenthau, Hans. 1967. “To Intervene or Not to Intervene.” Foreign Affairs 45:425–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onuf, Nicholas. 1991. “Sovereignty: Outline of a conceptual history.” Alternatives 16(4):425–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onuf, Nicholas Greenwood. 1994. “Civitas Maxima: Wolff, Vattel and the Fate of Republicanism.” The American Journal of International Law 88(2):280–303.Google Scholar
Philpott, Daniel. 2001. Revolutions in Sovereignty. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Salmon, J. H. M. 1991. “Catholic resistance theory, Ultramontanism, and the royalist response, 1580–1620.” In The Cambridge History of Political Thought 1450–1700, edited by Burns, J. H. and Goldie., M.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sommerville, J. P. 1992. Thomas Hobbes : political ideas in historical context. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
Sommerville, J. P. 1994. “Principle Events in James’ life.” In King James VI and I: Political Writings, edited by Sommerville., J. P.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Teschke, Benno. 2003. The Myth of 1648. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Tull, James. 2008. Public Philosophy in a New Key: Imperialism and Civic Freedom. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
United Nations. General Assembly. 2005. World Summit Outcome. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
Security Council. 2006. Resolution 1674: Protection of civilians during armed conflict. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
General Assembly. 2009. Implementing the responsibility to protect: report of the Secretary General. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
van Creveld, Martin. 1999. The Rise and Decline of the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vincent, R. J. 1974. Nonintervention and International Order. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wiener, Antje. 2008. The Invisible Constitution of Politics: Contested Norms and International Encounters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar