Pretext
The Peace of Westphalia was a conference arranged between the warring entities of France, Hapsburg Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Dutch Spain, and Holy Roman principalities in the Spring of 1648. They were fighting over political and religious disagreement between Catholics, Swiss Calvinists, and Protestants, with the fall of the Holy Roman Empire, that had manifested in the Protestant Reformation that was countered by the Catholic inquisitions. In short, it was a very messy time of religious conflict and chaos. Elites in charge sought stability.
The Peace culminated in the signing of treaties of Munster in May 1648, and later in Osnabruck, in October 1648, in what is now modern Germany by the many imperial and religious delegations sent on behalf of the kingdoms and various entities that they represented. The Venetians served as mediators.1 The treaties ended the Thirty Yearsâ War (1618â1648) and the religious conflict between the Papacy and Lutheranism (though not all hostilities ceased), and set in motion a new system of sovereign nations and boundaries with non-interference in others affairs as a right of exclusivity. Switzerland was recognized as an independent country, as was Holland, from Spain. The kingdom of Sweden in the north, and France in the west, divided considerable territory between them and what is now modern-day Germany. Religion was given as equal (secular) before the law, with territorial rulers allowed to determine which was legally recognized. A new political start to years of religious and territorial chaos. Of course not all agreed, with the Holy See and Papacy considering the settlement as deeply unjust.
The decline of the Holy Roman Empire and end of the Thirty Yearsâ War were long and complicated political-religious events that have convoluted histories. This book does not discuss that historical narrative, though these issues deeply affected the motivations and thinking at that time, but rather what political manifestation the substance of The Peace of Westphalia has led us to now. The Peace of Westphalia was about the power to bring this new ideal of regional exclusivity to differing ideas, cultures, and religions, in the then-nouveau concept of the ânation-stateâ, or the creation of the international system. That ideal, while criticized in the past,2 is now being put to the test today. Simply, a single claim of universal rule may now be necessary to return to what was left off in 1648 and restarted in this twenty-first century, namely, one definitive authority to set order amongst uncertainty, however politically unpalatable that may be to some, or perhaps to even revisit the highly contentious issue of âone-world governanceâ. George Soros theme of reflexivity, (reality at first distanced then converged with a cognition or awareness) to create a new paradigm reinforced from previous events, comes to mind. Which, and according to Henry Kissinger, was what the world was pushing toward before Westphalia (due to endless wars fueled by religion and imperialism), but not one participant (religious, dynastic, or imperial) had the individual might or political alliances in place to push this construct forward post-Reformation. Only pyrrhic victories were being had in both blood and treasure. It was the alarmed and empowered elites in these nations who called for changes, to put an end to cycles of continuously vicious wars, for their own self-survival and wealth preservation.
But what really is the nation, according to Hegel, Marx, Kissinger, and North? Not merely in their theories, but also in their deeds. Today, humanity faces similar threats, not so much from religious wars, but from public goods issues: climate change, plastic garbage, uncontrollable economic migration, etc. Can empowered elites deliver this time? A key question is where precisely does the power of the sovereign state evolve from? We consider Westphalian viewpoints from three perspectives, economic, philosophic, and historical. The debate about the current world order, namely, the denominator of the nation-state, is structured around the entire concept of Westphalia.
Westphalia is based on exclusivity, which is all but dead in todayâs interconnected, digital world
Introduction
If one looks at the world from space, no national borders can be seen, at all, anywhere. The view is of a geographical expanse of continents, fertile areas, deserts, seas, oceans, valleys, mountains, and islands all with their own natural boundaries and demarcations. That is the natural order of things. However, when one is on the ground, it is a different reality. Man-made borders and limits exist, on land, in the sea, and in the air. Some borders are visible, some not. Breaching these borders willfully, without permission, will usually result in severe consequences and punishment. This is the order of a man-made system, known as the Peace of Westphalia, that was perfected 350 years ago in a conference to end ongoing European continental wars fueled mostly by religious and dynastic disagreement, in an area of northern Germany. It set the pretext for the formation of the modern ânation-stateâ which today we assume as a normal and un-debated reference point.
The Westphalian system of nation-states then (herein defined as simply, âWestphaliaâ) is the post-reformation construct of sovereign state governance that still exists as the foundation for all modern countries today. It enshrined three exclusivity principles in the treaty for the formation of the modern nation-state: (1) State sovereignty, (2) Equality of the state, and (3) Non-interference in the internal affairs of one state to another. The third point is the most critical and relevant to pressing global issues today, in particular in an overpopulated world that is consistently diverging politically. Westphalia is simply rooted in a very different historical narrative and understanding of the world as we now know it.
A precursor to Westphalia was the Magna Carta, or âGreat Charterâ of 1215, when a group of English nobles demanded legal and property rights from the English King, John I. The Divine Rights of Kings was until then, the codified rule of the land. What the king controlled, he ruled and was the unquestioned judge, jury, and executioner of all his subjects. Like the Magna Carta, it was the elites and people at the top (ânoblesâ) who benefit the most from the Westphalian construct, and still do to this day. These concepts are not new. Throughout history, all societies, be they feudal, communist, dynastic, animist, or democratic: elites have emerged to rule, guide, and be served by those in the rest of the masses of society. Equanimity nor egalitarianism has never been a hallmark of mankindâs systems of governance, no matter how much effort was expended on democracy as an enlightened form of perfected governance given. Westphalia is not an inalienable concept in itself, yet is presented that way as to certify elite interests and to gain buy-in from the other âTwo Estatesâ. Westphalia is simply an ordering system demanded in times of great political, religious, and cultural chaos.
Concepts of ânational bordersâ were not well developed up until the Peace of Westphalia. Walls, such as Hadrianâs Wall, built by the Roman Empire in Britain, and the Great Wall, built by the Chinese, usually marked the administrative boundaries of any given empire against hostile, non-defined, frontiers. During Frankish times, steps were taken to demarcate borders in what is now central Europe and Italy, by creating baronies and duchies. At the apex of the high Middle ages, and with ongoing Crusades to the Middle East that brought back the rich spoils of conquest, provincial barons and dukes were beginning to garner wealth, territory, and military power for themselves that they did not want to share with far off regents or in particular, the Papacy, which was the originator of the crusades in 1095.
Without consensus and support from these said barons and religious leaders, kings could not wage war and claim distant lands. Consensus dictated compromise. The Magna Carta, despite any contemporary grade school historic interpretations to the contrary, never had anything to do with the rights of the common Medieval man: be he peasant or serf. It was about elites serving and protecting the interests of other elites, a âself-reinforcementâ of their system, with its strength found in unity and numbers.
When Thomas Jefferson penned the US Declaration of Independence 550 years later, in summer 1776, and 56 previously British colonial subjects signed it, the definition of âcitizensâ also had a narrow connotation: White, Protestant, adult male, property owners, over 21, in essence the âelite strataâ of that day. In that privileged sense, the Declaration of Independence was similar in design to the Magna Carta: that being to fit a very targeted audience, protecting their wealth and power.
The Thirty Yearsâ War and Germanic Movements as a Foundation for Westphalia
Westphalia was a product of the Reformation. But especially important inasmuch of the ultimate result of the Reformation is the struggle of the Protestant church for a political existence, in particular in Germany. The Protestant Church, even as it occurred directly, interfered frequently in secular affairs causing worldly entanglements and disputes over political possessions. Subjects of Catholic princes became Protestant, and claimed rights to church property, altering the nature of these possessions.
In Germany conditions were still advantageous to Protestantism, in that the special former imperial fiefs had now become principalities. But in countries like Austria, the Protestants stood partly without the princes, partly against them, and in France they had to be given fortresses for the safety of their religious practices. Without wars, the existence of Protestantism would never have been secured, because it was not their conscience, but the political and private possessions, which were seized against the rights of the church and were later reclaimed by them. This constant fighting and chaos between Protestants and Catholics was essentially at the core of the Thirty Yearsâ War, and led to Westphalia.
Through the Peace of Westphalia the Protestant church was then recognized as independent, bringing tremendous humiliation to the Catholic church. This peace has often been thought of as the German palladium because it established a political constitution for Germany. But in fact this constitution was a declaration of the private rights of the countries into which it had fallen. There was no thought to and no idea on the purpose of a state.
In Westphalia there is expressed the purpose of perfect particularity, and the private law determines the exclusivity of all relations; and that all relations are so determined by private law so that the interests of the individual parts to act for themselves against the interest of the whole, or to refrain from doing what their interest demands and or even required by law, is kept and secured in a most inviolable manner. In other words, the state reigns supreme and settles legal issues exclusively within its own borders.
Immediately after the Westphalian declaration it became clear th...