The Treaty of Westphalia

This view has been proved to be highly deceptive by more recent research; hence, the purpose of this chapter is to study how and when this perspective initially came into being in the first place. 

In spite of the fact that a worldwide assembly was the source of the Westphalian Peace, the outcome of that congress was not a universal peace treaty but rather a specific security arrangement centred in Central Europe.

In point of fact, it was not until the middle of the 18th century that a new, more “universal” interpretation of the Westphalian Peace began to gain traction in intellectual debates and in the practise of treaty-making in Europe.

This occurred as a result of repeated affirmation, eventually occurring even between states that had not been party to the Peace itself; this resulted in its portrayal as the foundation of a universal state system and the droit de gens. 

To put it another way, the influential concept of the “Westphalian system” may be traced back not to the late 1940s, as had been previously believed, but rather to the thoughts of diplomats, statesmen, and philosophers living in the 18th century.

The Idea Behind the Treaty of Westphalia

The Westphalian peace was not the result of a groundbreaking moral epiphany but rather of a pragmatic concession to reality. 

It was founded on the principle that sovereign nations should not intervene in one another’s internal affairs and should keep their aspirations in control by maintaining a general equilibrium of power among themselves.

In Europe’s battles, no single claim to truth or universal rule had managed to emerge victorious. 

Instead, the ability to exercise sovereign sovereignty over one’s own area was given to each individual state.

Each state would recognise the domestic structures and religious vocations of the other states in the group, and it would abstain from contesting the other states’ right to exist.

The influence of the Treaty of Westphalia

The Effects that the Treaty of Westphalia Will Have on Future Generations

So, what exactly did this crucial juncture mean in the grand scheme of things? 

To begin, the so-called Westphalian international system acknowledged that world politics would not be subject to the rule of a single universal authority. 

This was true regardless of whether the authority in question was the Holy Roman Empire or the Pope. Instead, there would be a continuous and ever-changing dynamic interplay of nations, each of which would be looking out for its own advantage while still attempting to maintain their sovereignty.

The goal of constructing a new world based on a new paradigm was not one of the negotiators’ objectives.They would not have understood what you were talking about if you had tried to explain the Westphalian paradigm to them.They were looking for a pragmatic solution, but the pragmatic solution they came up with led towards a new idea of international order and authority.

Last but not least, the Treaty of Westphalia left an enduring legacy, serving as a model for subsequent attempts to broker peace.The Peace of Westphalia did not, of course, put an end to future wars, but it did provide a model for how to negotiate peace agreements. 

The mere concept of an international peace congress is now capable of being replicated, as was seen, for instance, during the talks for the Treaty of Versailles following World War I, as well as in countless summit meetings held in our own times.

International Relations following the Treaty of Westphalia

In the absence of a leviathan or hegemon, it is common practise to presume that the relationships between states are unstructured.

The task of conceptualising the state has typically been delegated to political theorists by international theorists.This is likely because international theorists are aware of Kenneth Waltz’s warning against providing reductionist explanations of international processes and consequences.In spite of this, even those theories of international relations that openly reject the business of state theory still tacitly support a number of assumptions concerning the nature and personality of the nations that comprise the international system.

Conclusion

It is generally agreed that the Peace of Westphalia was a significant turning point in the path of religious pluralism and secularisation. 

The Imperial Estates were given more power as a result of this agreement, and they were given the ability to participate in critical policy decisions alongside the Emperor.

These decisions included matters of peace and war. Because the Franco-Spanish negotiations in Münster did not bring peace between France and Spain and left open conflict areas like Lorraine, the rumoured ambition of the Habsburgs for a “universal monarchy” was thwarted as a result of this. 

This was especially true due to the fact that the negotiations took place in Münster.