Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T16:54:25.692Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Westphalian model and sovereign equality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 May 2011

PETER M. R. STIRK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although the Westphalian model takes many forms the association of Westphalian and sovereign equality is a prominent one. This article argues firstly that sovereign equality was not present as a normative principle at Westphalia. It argues further that while arguments for sovereign equality were present in the eighteenth century they did not rely on, or even suggest, a Westphalian provenance. It was, for good reasons, not until the late nineteenth century that the linkages of Westphalia and sovereign equality became commonplace, and even then sovereign equality and its linkage with Westphalia were disputed. It was not until after the Second World War, notably through the influential work of Leo Gross that the linkage of Westphalia and sovereign equality became not only widely accepted, but almost undisputed until quite recently. The article concludes by suggesting that not only did Gross bequeath a dubious historiography but that this historiography is an impediment to contemporary International Relations.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 38 , Issue 3 , July 2012 , pp. 641 - 660
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 2011

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

1 It is almost invidious to single out any particular text but see the important work by Jackson, Robert, The Global Covenant (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp. 385, 398Google Scholar .

2 Thus Philpott, Simon, ‘East Timor's Double Life: Smells Like Westphalian Spirit’, Third World Quarterly, 27 (2006), pp. 135–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar or, more seriously, Strange, Susan, ‘The Westfailure System’, Review of International Studies, 25 (1999), pp. 345–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Ginsburg, Tom, ‘Eastphalia as the Perfection of Westphalia’, Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 17 (2010), pp. 27–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

3 A full list would exhaust the word limit of this article but again a title of a much cited work will suffice: Lyons, Gene M. and Mastanduno, Michael (eds), Beyond Westphalia? (Baltimore: John Hopkins, 1995)Google Scholar .

4 Osiander, Andreas, ‘Sovereignty, International Relations and the Westphalian Myth’, International Organization, 55 (2001), pp. 251–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

5 For a recent explicit rebuttal see Sofer, Sasson, ‘The Prominence of Historical Demarcations: Westphalia and the New World Order’, Diplomacy & Statecraft, 20 (2009), pp. 1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

6 For example by Bobbitt, Philip, The Shield of Achilles (London: Penguin, 2003), pp. 501–520Google Scholar , apart from the brief response in a footnote on p. 866.

7 For a classic emphasis on the territorial state see Morgenthau, Hans J., Politics Among Nations (New York: Knopf, 1967), p. 264Google Scholar ; for the balance of power see Gilpin, Robert, War and Change in World Politics (Cambridge University Press 1981), p. 29CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

8 See the typical reference to the ‘Westphalian norm of nonintervention’ in Hehir, J. Bryan, ‘Intervention: From Theories to Cases’, Ethics and International Affairs, 9 (1993), p. 5Google Scholar .

9 Krasner, Stephen D., Sovereignty. Organized Hypocrisy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999)Google Scholar

10 See Clark, Ian, Legitimacy in International Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 51–70Google Scholar .

11 Gross, Leo, ‘The Peace of Westphalia, 1648–1948’, The American Journal of International Law, 42 (1948), pp. 28–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar . Gross's article is still described as ‘the most authoritative legal commentary on the treaty’ by Bobbitt, , Shield of Achilles, p. 866Google Scholar .

12 Buzan, Barry and Little, Richard, International Systems and World History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000)Google Scholar .

13 As pointed out by Lee, Thomas H., ‘International Law, International Relations Theory and Preemptive War: The Vitality of Sovereign Equality Today’, Law & Contemporary Problems, 67 (2004), p. 147Google Scholar .

14 Reus-Smit, Christian, The Moral Purpose of the State (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999), pp. 87–115Google Scholar ; Lebow, Richard Ned, A Cultural Theory of International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), pp. 262–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

15 Quoted in Osiander, , The States System of Europe, 1640–1990 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), p. 84CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

16 Osiander, , States System of Europe, pp. 84–85Google Scholar .

17 Thus Groenveld, Simon, ‘The Treaty of Münster as the Culmination of a Progressive Revolution’, in Bussmann, Klaus and Schilling, Heinz (eds), 1648. War and Peace in Europe. Essay Volume 1. Politics, Religion, Law and Society (Münster: Westfälisches Landesmuseum, 1998), p. 129Google Scholar . On these issues more widely, under the subheading ‘The great preoccupation; ceremonial and procedure’, see Anderson, M. S., The Rise of Modern Diplomacy 1450–1919 (London: Longman, 1993), pp. 56–68Google Scholar . This is not inconsistent with Dutch insistence on equality with Spain, their former overlord from whom they sought independence after eighty years of intermittent war.

18 Osiander, , States System of Europe, p. 44Google Scholar .

19 Osiander, , States System of Europe, p. 45Google Scholar .

20 This restriction was not accepted as applying to the hereditary lands of the Emperor. See Article 5 of the Treaty of Osnabrück.

21 Thus Philpott, Daniel, Revolutions in Sovereignty (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), p. 85Google Scholar .

22 Osiander, ‘Sovereignty’, p. 273. See also, Böckenförde, Ernst-Wolfgang, ‘Der Westfälische Frieden und das Bündnisrecht der Reichstände’, Der Staat, 8 (1969), pp. 449–478Google Scholar .

23 Steiger, Heinhard, ‘Der Westfälische Frieden – Grundgesetz für Europa?’, in Duchhardt, H. (ed.), Der Westfälische Frieden (Oldenbourg: Historische Zeitschrift, Beihefte 26, 1998), pp. 68–69Google Scholar . For the complications see also the discussion of the right to send legations in, Wolfgang, Johann Textor, Synopsis of the Law of Nations [1680] vol. 2 (Washington: Carnegie, 1916), pp. 138–139Google Scholar .

24 See Thomson, Janice E., Mercenaries, Pirates and Sovereigns (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), pp. 35–36Google Scholar . See also, Heeren, A. H. L., A Manual of the History of the Political System of Europe and its Colonies (London: Bohn, 1873), p. 160Google Scholar .

25 Croxton, Derek, ‘The Peace of Westphalia of 1648 and the Origins of Sovereignty’, The International History Review, 21 (1999), pp. 587–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

26 Fassbender, Bardo, ‘Die verfassungs- und völkerrechtsgeschichtliche Bedeutung de Westfälsichen Friedens von 1648’, in Erberich, Ingo et al. (eds), Frieden und Recht (Stuttgart: Boorberg, 1998), pp. 29–30Google Scholar . See also, Steiger, ‘Der Westfälische Frieden’, p. 68.

27 Various editions of the treaties are available at: {http://www.pax-westphalica.de/ipmipo/index.html}. For the literal translation see Osiander, ‘Sovereignty’, p. 272.

28 Krüger, Herbert, Allgemeine Staatslehre (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1964), pp. 824–825Google Scholar .

29 Thus the eminent German publicist, Johann Stephan Pütter, writing in 1795, as quoted by Fassbender, ‘Die verfassungs- und völkerrechtsgeschichtliche Bedeutung’, p. 31. Böckenförde seems to transpose this later understanding back to 1648, but quotes late eighteenth century sources in support of the more coherent concept, ‘Der Westfälische Frieden’, pp. 472–3.

30 See Rachel, Samuel, Dissertation on the Law of Nature and of Nations [1676] vol. 2 (Washington: Carnegie, 1916), pp. 224–225Google Scholar . This also applies to Pufendorf, Samuel, The Present State of Germany (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2007)Google Scholar .

31 Ward, Robert, An Enquiry into the Foundation and History of the Law of Nations in Europe, vol. 2 (Dublin: Wogan, 1795), p. 219Google Scholar .

32 Viventot, Alfred Ritter von, Quellen zur Geschichte der deutschen Kaiserpolitik Oesterreichs während der französischen Revolutionskriege 1790–1801, vol. 1 (Vienna: Braumüller, 1873), pp. 208–210Google Scholar .

33 For the contrast between interest and passions more generally see Hirschman, Albert O., The Passions and the Interests (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977)Google Scholar ; for raison d'état see Meinecke, Frederick, Machiavellism (New Brunswick: Transaction, 1998)Google Scholar and Haslam, Jonathon, No Virtue Like Necessity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002)Google Scholar .

34 On the importance of the text and his life see Keen-Soper, H. M. A. and Schweizer, Karl W., ‘Introduction’, in Keen-Soper, H. M. A. and Schweizer, Karl W. (eds), François de Callières. The Art of Diplomacy (New York: Leicester University Press, 1983), pp. 1–54Google Scholar .

35 Ibid., pp. 125–6.

36 Ibid., p. 139.

37 Missy, Jean Rousset de, Mémoires sur le rang et la préséance entre les souverains de l'Europe (Amsterdam: L'Honoré, 1746), p. 3Google Scholar .

38 Vattel, Emer de, The Law of Nations (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2008), Preliminaries, p. 75Google Scholar .

39 Dickinson, Edwin DeWitt, The Equality of States (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1920), p. 85CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

40 Rutherforth, Thomas, Institutes of Natural Law, vol. 2 (Cambridge: Bentham, 1756), p. 512Google Scholar .

41 Vattel, , The Law of Nations, Book 4, chap. 6, para. 79, pp. 695–696Google Scholar .

42 Rutherforth, , Institutes of Natural Law, vol. 2, p. 470Google Scholar .

43 Vattel has often been portrayed as a proto-positivist. For correction of this see Zerbuchen, Simone, ‘Vattel's law of nations and just war theory’, History of European Ideas, 35 (2009), pp. 409–410Google Scholar .

44 Quoted in Kremer, Bernd Mathias, Der Westfälische Friede in der Deutung der Aufklärung (Tübingen: Mohr, 1989), p. 68Google Scholar .

45 Ibid., p. 72.

46 Ibid., pp. 68–91.

47 Pütter, John Stephen, An Historical Development of the Present Political Constitution of the German Empire, vol. 3 (London: Payne, 1790), p. 223Google Scholar .

48 Ibid., pp. 223–4. See also, with reference to an earlier date, the assertion by Campbell, John that the King of Prussia ‘considers himself as the Guardian of the Germanick Constitution’, The Present State of Europe (London: Thomas Longman, 1750), p. 139Google Scholar and the depiction of the conflict in Germany during the Seven Years War as a civil war by Mauduit, Israel, Considerations on the Present War in Germany (London: John Wilkie, 1760), p. 19Google Scholar , a tract described by Anderson, as ‘the most influential English pamphlet of the period’, The Rise of Modern Diplomacy, p. 173Google Scholar .

49 In his speech on Fox's India Bill (1783), in Fidler, David P. and Welsh, Jennifer M (eds), Empire and Community. Edmund Burke's Writings and Speeches on International Relations (Boulder: Westview Press, 1999), p. 176Google Scholar . For French views see Rayneval, Joseph de, Institutions du droit public d'Allemagne (Leipzig: Maison des Orphelins et de Fromman, 1766), especially pp. 462–468Google Scholar .

50 On the production of histories of treaties see Toscano, Mario, The History of Treaties and International Politics (Baltimore: John Hopkins, 1966)Google Scholar .

51 Mably, Gabriel Bonnot de, Collection complète des oeuvres, 5 (Aaalen: Scientia 1977), p. 238Google Scholar .

52 Toscano, , The History of Treaties, pp. 60–66Google Scholar .

53 Jenkinson, Charles, A Collection of All the Treaties of Peace, Allaince, and Commerce between Great-Britain and Other Powers (London: Debrett, 1785), p. 1Google Scholar . On the customary and misguided conflation of Dutch independence and the peace of Westphalia see Osiander, ‘Sovereignty, International Relations and the Westphalian Myth’, p. 268.

54 Hampsher-Monk, Iain, ‘Edmund Burke's Changing Justification for Intervention’, The Historical Journal, 48 (2005), p. 66CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

55 Rayneval, , Institutions du droit public d'Allemagne, pp. 1–13, 59–69Google Scholar . For the caution expressed by other French authors see Custrin, Charles-Frédéric Necker de, Description du gouvernement present du corps Germanique (Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing 2009[1741]), pp. 290–296Google Scholar and Anquetil, Louis-Pierre, Motifs des guerres et de traits de paix de la France pendant les règnes de Louis XIV, Louis XV et Louis XVI (Paris: Lerguillez, 1798), pp. 60–64Google Scholar .

56 The consolidation of the image was undoubtedly aided by other developments associated with the Westphalian model. As noted above these are deliberately excluded from consideration here. It is worth noting that one such development is the emergence of the concept of territoriality as central to the modern state. Thus Georg Jellinek, who included territory as one of his three ‘elements’ of the state claimed that the first text to pronounce territory to be essential to the concept of the state did not appear until 1817: Allgemeine Staatslehre (Berlin: Julius Springer, 1929), p. 395.

57 Wight, Martin, Systems of States (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1977), p. 136Google Scholar .

58 Oddly, Reus-Smit, quotes this with approval, The Moral Purpose of the State, p. 102Google Scholar . Amidst the upheavals Martens, Georg Friedrich von regarded whether or not the French Revolution would inaugurate a new epoch, the fifth, in international law as an open question, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht (Göttingen: Dieterich, 1796), p. 8Google Scholar .

59 Jellinek, Georg, Die Lehre von den Staatenverbindungen (Goldbach: Keip 1996 [1882]), pp. 145–146Google Scholar .

60 As emphasised by Metternich. See Kissinger, Henry, A World Restored (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1957), p. 21Google Scholar .

61 See the still valuable study by Peterson, Genevieve, ‘Political Equality at the Congress of Vienna’, Political Science Quarterly, 60 (1945), pp. 532–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

62 Simpson, Gerry, Great Powers and Outlaw States (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 67–76, 93–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

63 Peterson, , ‘Political Equality’, pp. 538–539 and 541–542Google Scholar ; Kissinger, , A World Restored, pp. 151–152 and 167Google Scholar ; Nicolson, Harold, The Congress of Vienna (New York: Grove, 1946), pp. 141–143Google Scholar .

64 Peterson, ‘Political Equality’, pp. 536–7.

65 Gentz, Friederich, Fragments upon the Balance of Power in Europe (London: Peltier, 1806), pp. 57–58Google Scholar .

66 Gentz, Friederich, On the State of Europe before and after the French Revolution (London: Hatchard, 1802), pp. 10–13Google Scholar .

67 ‘The Antelope’, US Reports, 23 (1825), p. 122Google Scholar .

68 Carnazza-Amari, Giuseppe, Traité de droit international public en temps de paix, vol. 1 (Paris: Larose, 1880), p. 379Google Scholar .

69 Lorimer, James, The Institutes of the Law of Nations, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: Blackwood, 1883), pp. 170–172Google Scholar . See also the extensive list of authors cited by Nys, Ernest, Études de droit international et de droit politique (Brussels: Alfred Castaigne, 1901), pp. 9–13Google Scholar .

70 Koskenniemi, Martti, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 4Google Scholar .

71 Oppenheim, Lassa, International Law, vol. 1 (London: Longmans, 1912), pp. 100–101Google Scholar .

72 Koskenniemi, , Gentle Civilizer, p. 227Google Scholar . See also, Diggelmann, Oliver, Anfänge der Völkkerechtssoziologie (Zürich: Schultess, 2000)Google Scholar .

73 Klüber, Jean Louis, Droit des gens moderne de l'Europe (Stuttgart: Cotta, 1819)Google Scholar and Hefter, August Wilhelm, Das europäische Völkerrecht der Gegenwart auf den bisherigen Grundlagen (Berlin: Müller 1888 [1884])Google Scholar . On this trend see Yasuaki, Onuma, ‘When was the Law of International Society Born?’, Journal of the History of International Law, 2 (2000), pp. 37–38Google Scholar . The presumption has been extensively criticised by Anghie, Anthony, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004)Google Scholar . See also the work of Benton, Lauren, most recently, A Search for Sovereignty (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010)Google Scholar

74 Nys, , Études, p. 46Google Scholar .

75 Neither of these aspects can be followed up here but see Finnemore, Martha, The Purpose of Intervention (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2003), pp. 1–51Google Scholar and Schmitt, Carl, The Nomos of the Earth (New York: Telos, 2003), pp. 304–308Google Scholar .

76 See Simpson, , Great Powers, pp. 132–164Google Scholar and Reus-Smit, , The Moral Purpose, 140–145Google Scholar .

77 Scott, James Brown (ed.), The Proceedings of the Hague Peace Conferences. The Conference of 1907, vol. 2 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1921), p. 620Google Scholar . The majority of those excluded from the First Conference but present at the Second were Latin American, Simpson, , Great Powers, p. 135Google Scholar .

78 Scott, (ed.), The Proceedings, p. 628Google Scholar .

79 See the judgement of Emerson, Rupert that they were ‘disguising the new as adequately as possible in the juristic trappings of the old’, State and Sovereignty in Modern Germany (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1928), p. 128Google Scholar .

80 Lawrence, T. J., Essays on Some Disputed Questions in Modern International Law (Cambridge: Deighton, 1885), p. 206Google Scholar .

81 Taylor, Hannis, A Treatise of International Public Law (Chicago: Callaghan, 1901), p. xvGoogle Scholar .

82 Despagnet, Frantz, Cours de droit international public (Paris: Larose, 1894), pp. 17–18Google Scholar .

83 Dupuis, Charles, Le principe d'équilibre et la concert européen (Paris: Perrin, 1909), p. 20Google Scholar .

84 Oppenheim, Lassa, International Law, vol. 1 (London: Longmans, 1905), p. 60Google Scholar .

85 Mirabelli, Andrea Rapisardi, Le Congrès de Westphalie (Leyden: Brill, 1929), pp. 14–15Google Scholar .

86 Mirabelli, , Le Congrès, p. 29Google Scholar .

87 Nys, , Études, pp. 1–46Google Scholar .

88 Huber, Max, ‘Die Gleichheit der Staaten’, in Berolzheimer, F. (ed.), Rechtswissenschaftliche Beiträge (Stuttgart: Enke, 1909), p. 118Google Scholar .

89 Lawrence, T. J., The Principles of International Law, 3rd edition (Boston: Heath, 1908), p. 242Google Scholar . The Preface is dated 1900.

90 Lawrence, T. J., The Principles of International Law, 6th edition (Boston: Heath, 1910), p. 288Google Scholar .

91 Hicks, Frederick Charles, ‘The Equality of States at the Hague Conferences’, American Journal of International Law, 2 (1908), p. 538CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

92 Hicks, ‘The Equality of States’, p. 539.

93 Dickinson, , The Equality of States, p. 5Google Scholar .

94 Ibid., p. 4.

95 Ibid., p. 5.

96 Ibid., p. 153.

97 Cosgrove, Kenneth, ‘Review of Le Congrès de Westphalie by Andrea Rapisardi Mirabelli, American Journal of International Law, 25 (1931), pp. 184–185Google Scholar .

98 Dickinson, , The Equality of States, p. 233Google Scholar .

99 See Russell, Ruth B., A History of the UN Charter. The Role of the US 1940–1945 (Washington: Brookings Institution, 1958), pp. 51–56Google Scholar .

100 Quoted in Russell, , A History, p. 134Google Scholar .

101 Russell, , A History, p. 135Google Scholar .

102 In addition to Russell, A History, see also Simpson, , Great Powers, pp. 165–193Google Scholar , Schlesinger, Stephen C., Act of Creation (Boulder: Westview, 2003)Google Scholar , though focusing on disputes between the great powers, and Nincic, Djura, The Problem of Sovereignty in the Charter and Practice of the UN (The Hague: Martinus Nijhof, 1970), especially pp. 36–135Google Scholar .

103 Documents of the UN Conference on International Organization, vol. 11 (London: UN Information Organizations, 1945), p. 170Google Scholar .

104 There were, of course, numerous other issues. See Simpson, , Great Powers, pp. 165–193Google Scholar .

105 Documents of the UN Conference, p. 107.

106 Quoted in Bain, William, Between Anarchy and Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 134CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

107 As noted by Herz, John H., Politics in the Atomic Age (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959), p. 78Google Scholar .

108 Herz, John H., ‘The Impact of the Technological Scientific Process on the International System’, in Said, A. A. (ed.), Theory of International Relations: The Crisis of Relevance (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1968), p. 117Google Scholar .

109 Jackson, Robert H., Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990)Google Scholar .

110 For an account of the triumph and its significance see James, Allan, ‘The Equality of States: Contemporary Manifestations of an Ancient Doctrine’, Review of International Studies, 18 (1992), pp. 377–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

111 Sereni, Angel Piero, The Italian Conception of International Law (New York: Columbia University Press, 1943), p. 124Google Scholar .

112 Lande, Adolf, ‘Revindication of the Legal Principle of the Equality of States, 1871–1914’, Political Science Quarterly, 62 (1947), pp. 258–286 and 398–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

113 Lande, ‘Revindication’, p. 417.

114 Krasner, Sovereignty.

115 Clark, Ian, ‘Bringing Hegemony Back in: The US and International Order’, International Affairs, 85 (2009), p. 23CrossRefGoogle Scholar . See also the same author's ‘How Hierarchical Can International Society Be?’, International Relations, 23 (2009), pp. 464–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar and ‘Towards and English School Theory of Hegemony’, European Journal of International Relations, 15 (2009), pp. 203–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

116 Clark, ‘Bringing Hegemony Back in’, p. 24.

117 Knutsen, Torbjørn, The Rise and Fall of World Orders (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999), p. 11Google Scholar .