Westphalian sovereignty

the widely regarded beliefs of the Peace known as the Westphalian Myth: “[The Peace of Westphalia] is silent on the issue of sovereignty…There is nothing in it about the balance of power…it is because of the arbitrary habit of regarding 1648 as a milestone in the evolution of sovereignty that this concept is projected”. Because the Peace, according to Osiander, did not mention sovereignty-related terms, it could not have established sovereignty for modernized Europe, but did establish “a system of

I - Introduction 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

Sovereignty is a norm of the International system upon which the ‘society of states’ rests. Territorial sovereignty refers specifically to the power of the state ‘the territorial limits within which state authority may be exercised on an exclusive basis.’ This essay will explore the concept and development of sovereignty within the system of states. Firstly, it will identify the state system before the ‘Peace of Westphalia’ in 1648, then it will compare the ever changing forms of sovereignty since

THE NEW SOVEREIGNTY IN THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM THE NEW SOVEREIGNTY IN THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM How have connections that have formed below the level of the state influenced the Westphalia notion of sovereignty? Westphalian sovereignty as defined in the classical model cannot remain anymore in the international system because of the changes that have occurred in international relations. Nowadays the anarchic states are connected to each other. Any move by

Relevance of Sovereignty Sovereignty, in its’ most traditional Westphalian view, is defined by scholars as the principal and expectation that states have legal and political supremacy –or ultimate authority–within their territorial boundaries (F.L.S. 47), but as the world continues to grow and complex, the relevance of Westphalian sovereignty is repeatedly questioned. Many factors now play into the role of sovereignty, complicating the once simplistic view. These factors include the expanding necessity

The standard of the popular sovereignty implies, that the authority of a state is to govern itself or another state. When thinking upon our current international political system we can see that it has currently seen better days. According to Stephen Krasner and Moises Naim we can safely presume that many actions need to be taken and a sense of Shared Sovereignty needs to be installed. This would not only allow for the greater protection of certain states, but would also account for the interaction

The standard of the popular sovereignty implies, that the authority of a state is to govern itself or another state. Further, under our constitution, those who wield the executive power of the Government are responsible to the legislatures and through them, to the people. Krasner: According to Krasner it can be stated that governance and transitional administration are inadequate. For this reason Krasner created three elements in which he viewed conventional sovereignty, however, each still may

” If humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to gross and systematic violation of human rights that offend every precept of our common humanity?” said the former Secretary-General of United Nations, Kofi Annan. (source) This statement reflects the challenge that’s been facing the international community for several decades. Indeed, the international community (represented by the United Nations) has legitimized the coercive action against

actions and decisions of them. Moreover, other non-state actors cannot escape from the impact of the nation-states. That is, global governance is fundamentally in accord with the Westphalian system that is centered on the nation-states and they are mutually complementary. Many scholars argue that the authority and sovereignty of nation-states is transferring to a global level in terms of the management and the resolution of global issues. Although it is true

Exclusive control meant an end to sharing joint sovereignty with other states, pertaining to their respective domestic jurisdictions. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, as states transformed into nation-states, the Westphalian system came to be regarded as the international system. Therefore with the advent of international relations between states and globalization, it becomes immediately obvious that the Westphalian system is obsolete, although the state survives in a more advanced