Sovereignty is a norm of the International system upon which the ‘society of states’ rests.

A lord would grant land to another noble in exchange for protection and military services. This grant was called a fief. Those who received fiefs were called vassals. Within the fief, the vassal was the highest authority. Fiefs could be various seizes. Some were single estates just big enough for a knight and his family. Others were large, as big as an entire country or province.

← Cobban, Alfred. The Absolutist Rulers of Europe. 1969. The 1700s-Headlines in History. Ed. Stuart A. Kallen. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, Inc, 2001. 37-46

With a lock of nobles in Europe, Kings take control of more land and make more laws.

In 17th-18th century Europe, the age of absolutism, absolute monarchs ruled most of Europe. Absolute monarchs are rulers that have complete control over the government and its people. They claimed to rule by “divine right,” where their authority comes from God and they were above the law. The views of being a proper role as an absolute monarch differed very much between rulers and their subjects. Certain rulers had ideas that both the people and ruler should be united, some abused their power with no sympathy towards the people they rule, and the subjects that suffered from the rulings of the monarch had a completely different perspective than the rulers that were in power.

The wars going on throughout Europe through this era were claiming territories through conquest, marriage alliances, or inheritance agreements on the

The Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which ended the Thirty Year’s War, is considered a monumental event in International Relations because many theorize that the peace of 1648 marked the creation of a sovereignty-based international system. Astonishingly, in Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth, Andreas Osiander disagrees with the premises that the Thirty Year’s War was the Habsburgs failed attempt at establishing a hegemony, and that the Peace of Westphalia recognized that states right to sovereignty (252, 261). Instead, Orsiander claims that the Peace of Westphalia perfected “A system of mutual relations among autonomous political units…not based on sovereignty (270). In examining Osiander’s argument, I will particularly focus on the propaganda he claims perpetuates the Westphalian myth, and the settlement of the peace that Osiander touches on as evidence for his argument.

Redefining sovereignty is a bold statement and I commend you for it. I agree with you that freewill is apart of the problem of evil. Evil is a choice. I enjoyed reading your thoughts. As for your duty I appriciate your willingness to encourage others to "fight the good fight by calling forth the good in

Gangs and ‘clubs’ are very territorial “and resist the incursion of other [gangs] in their defined territories.” Furthermore, territorial wars are frequent due to the disputes over who has sovereignty over particular territory. (Barker & Human, 2009). These ideas seem to defend the argument that the emergence of neomedieval systems of returning to the middle ages with occurrence of overlapping sovereignty is causing motivations for modern day conflicts. Albeit that the conflict is military against non-governmental actors or bilateral non-government conflict. It can be seen as the neomedieval and refeudalization of the concept of legitimate sovereignty over authority.

The Westphalia treaty of 1648 which ended the Thirty Years War, can be described as one of the prominent milestones that shaped the principle of state sovereignty. These treaties, both signed in the western cities of current day Münster and Osnabrück, Germany. This paper will describe the conditions that made it necessary for a co-existing agreement in Europe at the time, which would later become the basis of a state’s self-determination and existence. It will also include the implications that the treaty had upon Europe, and the world today. The many political principles deriving from the Westphalian treaty would become apparent in modern-day society, whether embraced fully or used as a stepping stone to considering other principles, it would influence the way that international law, politics, and diplomacy would be determined. A state is defined as a legal entity with a permanent population, a well-defined territory, and a government capable of exercising sovereignty. The definition becomes important during this time period of the signing of the Peace Treaty, and for the overall international law for years to come.

There is a distinct difference between a nation, state, and nation-state. Modern Nation-State developed over the 20th century to compensate for the inadequacy portrayed by pluralistic empires and extreme nationalism. It is as a result of states seeking to expand their fixed territory that various wars emerged. Countries in Europe after experiencing the full effect of such wars opted to integrate thus forming the EU which is a transnational entity. In order to enjoy the full benefits of globalization it is expected in future transnational entity will play a major role than individual modern nation-state. Nevertheless, currently modern nation-states, still want to maintain the distinct characteristics of modern nation-states

Our planet is currently in the process of transforming into a “global village” where everyone and everything seems to be interconnected physically, as well as virtually. Thus, the occurrence of an idea and a phenomenon of global governance in the modern world is rather commonsensical than striking. Despite the overwhelming power of globalization that, as it had been believed in its incipient phase, had been expected to introduce the same standards and values everywhere, it caused reappearance of nationalistic ideas and manifestations of sovereignty in the number of countries. This undoubtedly is an act of willingness to maintain the identity and dissimilarity. However, global governance is not intended to take away the sovereignty of the

Territory is a crucial trait of the state. But how exactly does one acquire territory? In this essay, the seven traditional modes of gaining territory will be discussed, as well as territory in terms of the state.

This paper aims to discuss the rather amorphous concepts of ‘state sovereignty’ and ‘Globalization’ and how the notion of sovereignty has been diluted over the years by this phenomenon of globalization. To narrow down the analysis this paper will consider the dilution of sovereignty under the light of a primary force of globalization; Transnational Corporations. With the birth of the state, the concept of sovereignty originated. This included both internal and external sovereignty; however, the latter was recognized much later after the end of the ‘Thirty Years War’ and the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia. Internal Sovereignty was defined as the ability to exercise control and authority within the territorial boundaries of the state.

The principle of state sovereignty has long constituted a foundational cornerstone of international relations, but it has likewise come to pose substantial practico-theoretical dilemmas for those operating within the discipline. In light of such knowledge, it shall be necessary to undertake a sustained analysis of state sovereignty, as well as of the various quandaries which have come to surround it over time. Hence, this essay shall endeavour to juxtapose the historical emergence and evolution of state sovereignty with the new-fangled doctrine of R2P, which itself may be conceived of as one of the prime problematics currently confronting the time-honoured tradition of sovereignty. In so doing, recourse shall be made to the following questions: from whence did sovereignty first emerge, and what is its prime ideational underpinning? Why has sovereignty come to be embroiled in heated global debate since the termination of the cold-war? In which manner has the doctrine of R2P served to countervail that of sovereignty? How would realists and liberals conceive of this dilemma, and which of their respective positions may be said to hold more weight? Once having formulated responses to such questions, a conclusive proposal shall finally be made as to how the international community might go about negotiating the ongoing tension between sovereignty and R2P.

The connections that formed below the level of the state influenced the Westphalian notion of sovereignty. It became flimsy under their influence. Some of those connections such as contracts, treaties, coercion and imposition, selected; prove that the Westphalian notion of sovereignty deserves to be improved.