DebatingaPostWestphalian

InternationalOrderMainstream
Weekly
DebatingaPostWestphalian
InternationalOrder
Sunday5April2015
byJayabrataSarkar
Overthepastthreeandahalfcenturies,theprinciplesandpracticesoftheWestphalian
Treaty(1648)graduallyspreadfromEuropetotherestoftheworld.TheWestphalianorder
assumedavitalimportanceforthreemainreasons.First,itsecularisedinternationalpolitics
bydivorcingitfromanyparticularreligiousfooting,anchoringitinsteadonthetenetsof
nationalinterestandreasonsofstate.Second,itpromotedsovereignty,thelegaldoctrine
thatnohigherauthoritystandsabovethestate,exceptthattowhichthestatevoluntarily
assents.Third,itacceptedaconceptionofinternationalsocietybasedonthelegalequalityof
states.Allsovereignstatespossessedthesamerightsandduties.Theyhadtherightto
managematterswithintheirboundarieswithoutoutsideinterference,aswellasthedutyto
abstainfrominterveninginthedomesticaffairsofotherstates.Thus,theWestphaliantreaty
marksthebirthofthenationstate,itselftheprimarysubjectofmoderninternationallaw.
Increasingly,however,scholarsandpolicymakersareaskingwhethertheWestphalian
internationalordercontinuetobeapplicableinthe21stcentury.Contemporaryworldis
shapedbycentripetalandcentrifugalforcesunderlinedbytheprocessofglobalisation
pullingmanyoftheplanetsinhabitantstogetherandfragmenting,pushingpeopleapart.It
wouldbefairtosuggestthattheworldisseeminglybecomingmorecosmopolitanbutatthe
sametimemoreparochial.Intricatepatternsoftransnationalexchangecompetewith
emotionaltiesofnationalidentity.Nationstatesareenmeshedinacomplexnetworkof
transnationalgovernancethatincludescorporations,banks,intergovernmentalandnon
governmentalorganisations.Insum,theworldtodayisbeingshapedbyforcesthatchallenge
theWestphalianstatecentricviewofinternationalpolitics.
Theconsequencesofglobalisationarenotlimitedonlytounderminingtherulesof
internationalrelationsbutalsocontestingthepowerthatlaywiththenationstateand
raisingittoahigherlevel,whichisdistantandspreadonagloballevel,separatedfrom
nationstatepolitics.Anationcannotdoanythingevenwhenithastakenmomentous
decisionsonpolicymatters,because,withincreasingproportiontheoperativepartofitis
dependentoristheresponsibilityofavarietyofnonstateactors,organisationsand
corporations.Thistrendacceleratedinthe1990swiththegrowingbeliefthatthemulti
dimensionalprocessesofglobalisationhadthecapacitytogreatlycompromise,ifnoterode,
statesovereignty.Asnationstatesbegintosharemorepowerwithnonstateentities,
internationalrelationsisincreasinglybecomingtwopronged,notjuststatetostate,but

betweenstatesontheonehandandsubnationalandsupranationalactorsontheother.
Itwouldnotbeoutofplacetosuggestthatweareenteringaphaseofglobalgovernance
bringingmoreuncertaintyandambiguityinanalreadyanarchicinternationalorder.The
CommissiononGlobalGovernancereferstoitasconstitutingthesumofthemany
individualsandinstitutions,publicandprivate,thatmanagetheircommonaffairs,notonly
involvingintergovernmentalrelationsbutasalsoinvolvingnongovernmentalorganisations
(NGOs),citizensmovements,multinationalcorporations,andtheglobalcapitalmarket.
Globalgovernancedoesnotsolelyreferonlytotheformalinstitutionsandorganisations
throughwhichthemanagementofinternationalaffairsisorisnotsustained,butincludes
anysystemsofruleatalllevelsofhumanactivityfromthefamilytotheinternational
organisationinwhichthepursuitofgoalsthroughtheexerciseofcontrolhastransnational
repercussions.Itmightalsomeancollectiveactionstowardsanattempttoestablish
internationalinstitutionsandnormstocopewiththecausesandconsequencesofadverse
supranational,transnational,ornationalproblems.Itisinessenceaboutgoverningwithout
sovereignauthority,engaginginrelationshipsthattranscendnationalfrontiers,or,simply
put,asortofinternationalgovernancesimilartowhatgovernmentsdoathome.Global
governancemeansactivitiessupportedbysharedvaluesthatmayresultfromformallegal
dutiesandthatdonotinevitablydemandthesupportofnationalpoliticalpowertoover
comeobstaclesandenhancetheiraccomplishment.However,therisingimportanceof
governancewithoutgovernmentbearswitnesstoanewformofanarchy.Itinvolvesnotonly
theabsenceofahigherstatutoryorganisation,butalsoencompassesanextensive
disaggregationofregulatorypowersprescribedbylawsoastoallowformuchgreater
flexibility,innovationandexperimentationinthedevelopmentandapplicationofnewer
waystocomprehenddisparatenationstatesacrosstheworld.
ApoliticalconceptualisationofapostWestphalianinternationalorderisconstitutiveoffour
significantfeatures.
TheAgencyofTransnationalCorporation
Theincreasingimportanceoftheglobaleconomyandglobalinterdependencehaveforced
developedstatesorthetradingstatestoconcentrateonincreasingtheirshareoftheworld
economy.Stateswherecapital,labourandtechnologyaremobile,andwheretheydominate
theeconomy,theurgetoincreasethemarketsharehassupplantedthatofterritorial
acquisition.Atransnationalormultinationalcorporation(TNC),headquarteredinone
countryandoperatingwhollyorpartiallyownedsubsidiariesinoneormoreothercountries,
hasgeneratedcontroversybecauseoftheireconomicandpoliticalpowerandthemobility
andcomplexityoftheiroperations.Withonequarteroftheworldsproductiveassetsunder
theircontrol,TNCshavethepotentialtoaffectthefunctioningofregulatoryagenciesof
nationalgovernmentscompromisingtheirsovereignty.Theproblemismoreseriousfrom
themomentwhenthemostimportantdecisionsonaneconomic,financialand
developmentallevelaretakennotbystatesbutbygroupsofpowerbyholdingcompanies,
multinationals,lobbiesandthesocalledmarketdemonstratinghowglobalcorporations
havethecapacitytocircumventandalterthedomesticpoliciesofstates.Whilethedegreeof
globaleconomicchallengestonationalsovereigntyvariesfromcountrytocountryand
assumesafarmorecomplexdimensioninpoorerThirdWorldnations,onethingisclear:
thatfundamentallytheWestphaliannotionofnationstatessovereigntyisbeinghampered
andredrawnifitisnotinperil.Statesdonothavetherequisitepower,authorityorresources
tooperate,negotiateorresisttheincreasedpoliticalpoweroftheTNCsoperatingatglobal
distances.Asstatesstruggletoredesigntheirsovereigntyinaglobalworld,mega
corporationshavebeguntoassumeanevermorestatelessquality,leavingthemlessandless

accountabletoanygovernmentanywhere.Theproblemfacingindividualgovernmentsina
postindustrialglobaleconomicorderishowtobenefit,generateandmaintainamutually
beneficialpatternofcooperationinthefaceofcompetingeffortsbygovernments(andnon
governmentalactors)tomanipulatethesystemfortheirownbenefit?
NonGovernmentalOrganisations
Beginningwiththelastdecadeofthe20thcenturyNGOshavesubstantiallyproliferatedthe
internationalrelationssystem.Thegrowthofnonstate/nongovernmentactorsor
organisations(NGOs)haveinlargepartbeenfuelledbytheperceivedinabilityofboth
domesticandinternationalinstitutionstorespondtothesocial,economicandpolitical
consequencesofrapidadvancesinscienceandtechnology,growingeconomic
interdependenceandpoliticalfragmentation.
Themotivationsthathaveledtothedevelopmentofthistrendarepoliticaldiplomaticwith
increasedNGOrepresentationtotheUN,academicdebatingontheconceptofglobalcivil
society,andtechnical,thatis,theinternetandthecommunicationssystemsthatfavourthe
rapiddisseminationoftheinformation.NGOsofthetransnationalvariantsuchasFreedom
HouseintheUSA,MedecinsSansFrontieresinFrance,AmnestyInternational,Greenpeace,
HumanRightsWatchetc.,whooftenplayapervasiveroleinglobalaffairs,endorsewell
definedgoals,mobilisingnetworks,framingissuesforpublicconsumptionandpromoting
newnormsintheirareaofactivity,suchashumanrights,minorityrights,medical
assistance,refugees,environmentalprotection,disasterrelief,humanitarianaidor
developmentassistance,especiallyinwartornsocieties.
ThemajorityoftheNGOsaimtoindirectlyinfluencethedecisionsofthestateactorstobring
changesinpoliciesofgovernmentsorinternationalorganisations,bymeansof
demonstrations,mediapressure,recruitmentofpoliticalleadersandopinionformers.
AnexamplewoulddemonstratethesignificantpresencethatNGOshaveinapost
Westphaliaglobalisedworld.NGOssuchasPartnersinHealth,ProgrammeforAppropriate
TechnologyinHealth(PATH)MedecinsSansFrontieres,GlobalAllianceForImproved
Nutritionetc.haveplayedapivotalroleincreatingapublichealthgovernance
environmentbypartneringtheWorldHealthOrganisationtofightepidemicssuchasSARS,
AIDS/HIVthatareagravethreattoglobalhealthsecurity,livelihoodofpopulations,the
functioningofhealthsystemsandthestabilityandgrowthofeconomies.Inthisregarditis
necessarytomentiontheroleofChinaAIDSRoadmapTacticalSupport(CHARTS),aUK
ChinapartnershipperforminganirreplaceableroleinChinasarduousbattleagainstthe
disease.
Second,itmustbementionedthatwiththeemergenceofNGOsinpublichealthprogrammes
innovativehealthstrategiessuchasglobalhealthgovernance(GHG),anewkindofa
politicalprocessandglobalpublicgoodsforhealth(GPGH),whichisanewkindof
substantivepolicygoal,hasemerged.GHGinvolvesnonstateactors,suchasGlobalFund
seekingtoeradicateAIDS,TB,andMalaria,inthegovernanceprocessofstatutory
internationalbodiesasboardofdirectorsorasvotingmembers.Ontheother,NGO
sponsoredGPGH,aregoodsandservicestheconsumptionofwhichisnonexcludableand
nonrivalacrossboundariesandinvolvingcountriesandpeoplethataredifferentinregional
groupings.GPGHdoesnotserveinterestsofgreatpowersbutseekstoproduceglobally
accessiblehealthgoodsandservices.
GlobalSecurityandTerrorism

Theextentofthedebateonglobalsecurityaroseintheearly1990sasaUSledpolitical
responsetowhatitviewedastheslow,arduousprocessoftheUN,astheworldsconscience
keeperofpeace,tostrategisemilitaryoptionsintroubledregions.YetUSsponsoreddefence
doctrines,encapsulatedinaglobalsecurityparadigm,pushedaheadforratificationinthe
UNSecurityCouncil,remainacomplicatedventure,highlightedbythemilitaryinterventions
inAfghanistan,thesecondwarintheGulfandIraqunderthebannerofUSbackedcoalition
forcesortheCoalitionoftheWillingpost9/11againstglobalterrororganisationslikethe
AlQaeda.Theoperationofsuchmilitaryadventurism,witheasierexitpoliciesforstates
unwillingtocarryonalongdrawnandprotractedconflictwithterrorgroups,reinforcedthe
viewasthejustwarswentonthatthereremainedastrongtransatlanticsplit,with
differentviewsontheuseofmilitaryforcestillexisting.
Consideringthatnewnonclassicalasymmetrictransnationalthreatsareinacontinuous
increaseanddiversification,withpolycentricterrorgroupsoperatingwithhitech
sophisticatedweaponstargetingvitalcommunication,defenceinstallationsandglobal
businessinterests,anincreasingnumberofstatesquestiontheWestphaliaregulationswhich
clearlydistinguishbetweenwhatisinternalandwhatisinternational,findingthemselvesin
thesituationstoexpandtheirconceptionsonsecurityanddefence.Certainly,thecategory
oftraditionalmilitaryalliancesinthepostColdWarperiodisnotdatedevenasnew
regionalorevensubregionalsecurityinitiativesanddefenceregimesarebeingconstructed.
Ontheotherhand,theUSasthehegemonpowerisseekingtoshapeanefficientandreliable
globalsecuritynetworkideologicallyreorderedtolendclarityandpurposetoanunclear
globalpoliticomilitaryarchitecture.But,asmentionedearlier,recentmilitaryactionsbythe
USanditsallies,particularlyinIraqandAfghanistan,andthephasedmilitarypulloutthat
hasfollowed,suggestthattheUSwouldhavetosettleforafarlessfulfilmentofitsapproved
objectiveithadinitiallysetouttoachieveinthoseregions.
Thus,USintentionstoassumedominanceoverananarchichostileunpredictableworldof
statesandtothwartstatesopposedtofreedomanddemocracycannotbeachievedthrough
anexclusiveclassofmilitarypartnerstatespursuingaunilateralpoliticalcourseofaction.A
comprehensiveglobalpoliticaldialogueisrequiredthatmustadheretoaconsensual
participatoryanddemocraticrepresentationofstatesindebatingthemultidimensional
natureofsecuritychallengesacrosstheworld.Itisinthelightofthisdevelopmentthatthe
UNmustbeendorsedasanimportantpartnerinthiscollectiveinitiative.
HumanitarianIntervention
HumanitarianinterventionbeganatthesametimeastheadoptionoftheUNCharterin
1945,withitsfirmrestatementoftheprincipleofnationalsovereigntybasedonpower
realities,thatis,thoseinpowerphysicallyareinchargelegally.WiththeUniversal
DeclarationonHumanRights,however,andlatertheInternationalCovenantonGenocide,
tomentiononlythemostprominentinternationalagreements,thecountervailingprinciple
ofnationalobligationsbegantotakeform.Previously,nationalgovernmentswere
responsibleonlyforinterstateobligations,butthenewhumanrightslegislationcreateda
setofnormsdesignedtoregulateagovernmentsrelationswithitsownpopulation.Theidea
begantospreadthatgovernmentscouldbejudgedaslegitimateornotintermsofinternal,
aswellasexternal,behaviour.Internaldespotism,aswellasexternalaggression,couldcosta
givengovernmentitsrighttorule.
Atfirstthisprinciplewasusedsparingly.Theinternationalcommunitycastigatedthe
apartheidregimeofSouthAfricaandchallengeditslegitimacy,butonlyauthorisedtheuseof
sanctionsandembargoesinanefforttochangethegovernmentspolicies.Intheearlyyears

ofthe1990s,theSecurityCouncilauthorisedthecreationofdefactoUNtrusteeship
governmentsinCambodiaandSomalia,countrieswhere,becausegovernmentshad
collapsed,theCouncildecidedthesituationoflocalpopulationscreatedhumanitariancrises
thatwerealsothreatstoregional,ifnotinternational,peaceandsecurity.InHaiti,the
internationalcommunitydecidedoratleastacquiescedintheviewstronglyheldbytheUS
GovernmentthattheHaitianGovernmentwasillegitimate.TheUnitedStatestookthelead
inreplacingthatgovernmentbyforcibleintervention.Mostrecently,theUN,NATO,and
OrganisationofSecurityandCooperationinEurope(OSCE)introducedintheBalkansade
factointernationaltrusteeshipregimeinasituationwherenationalsovereigntiesinconflict
existed.
Thedebatesurroundingtherighttohumanitarianinterventionissymptomaticofa
tendencytosubordinatetheinstitutional.Itrelates,apparently,tonothinglessthanthe
demandforacoherentsequenceforthetransformingimpactofhumanrightsasthe
grammarofuniversalconvenience.Thecastironprincipleofnoninterferenceinthe
internalaffairsofstates,thetouchstoneoftraditionalinternationallawunderthestate
centredsystem,isreplacedinthecontemporarypostWestphalianorderbytherightifnot
theactuallegaldutytointervenewithforcetoobligeotherstatestoimplementbasic
humanrights.
Yet,whateverthepostWestphalianinternationalordermaybe,itcannotignorethe
persistenceofsomeofthemainstaysoftheWestphalianorder.Forastart,thereisthe
unequaldistributionofpowertoconsider.Andwithinthiscontextitisfittingtoaskwhatis
actuallynewinthediscourseonhumanitarianintervention.RichardFalkcomments:Are
wedealingmainlywithachangeindiscursiverealitysuchthatwhathasmainlychangedis
language,notbehaviour,withmajorstatesstillretainingonabehaviourallevela
discretionaryoptiontouseforce?Thetruechoiceinthisareais,asOlivierCortenrecalls,
betweenanewinternationalhumanitarianorder,formalisedandregulatedbytheUnited
Nations,andtherighttointervene,onthepretextofremovingaperceivedunfriendly
governmentwhichmaybeexercisedfreelyandunilaterallybythemostpowerfulstatesand
whoseimplementationgivesrisetothedangeroftheemergenceofanewworldorder
expressedasaPaxAmericana.
Anumberofviewpointsaboundthatspeculateaboutthepossibledirectionsofstatecraft,
diplomacyandgovernanceinanerathathasmovedbeyondthedominantparadigmof
internationalrelationsofthemid17thCenturytheWestphalianorderwithgovernments
hesitantlyandgingerlymakingtheirwaytowardsnewer,untriedpracticesinvolvingsuch
competitorsforpowerasTNCsandNGOs,borderlessstatesandreligiouslybased
internationalterroristsecuritythreatsintheearly21stCentury.Historyteachesand
demonstratesthatpowerstructures,nomatterhowlonglived,areneverimmutableand
that,slowlyorrapidly,suchstructureschange,metamorphoseordisappearaltogether.The
Westphalianlegacydidnotbequeathusanydeterminedinstitutionalmodel,itonlyopened
horizons.Withthelossofabsoluteandexclusivestatecenteredness,thepostWestphalian
eraisoneofconstantinnovationandexperimentationwithnotionsofpower,political
structuresandinstitutionaldynamicsunderlinedbythelosingvalidityoftraditional
definitionsofpowerinpurelymilitaryandpoliticalterms.
Theunpredictabilityofanewinternationalorderormoreappropriatelyitsconstant
makingandremakingmayinadifferentrolebringbackthesalienceofthenationstateas
powerfulactorsconstantlypushingforanewregulatoryculturebyenhancingthe
structurationofaninternationalsystemthatposesachallengebybeingelusive.

WhatformswouldapostWestphalianworldorderwithitsbeliefinmanoeuvrabilityinan
infinitelyopenspacetake?Suterhasputforwardfourcogentfuturepossibilities.First,a
continuationofthecurrentinternationalorder,thatistermedasSteadyStatesecond,
greaterinternationalcooperationthroughastrengthenedUnitedNations,asaWorldState
third,acontinueddeclineofnationalgovernmentswitheconomiesbeingrunby
transnationalcorporationstermedEarthInc.andfourth,abreakdownofnationstatesand
oftransnationalcorporationsresultinginnationalandinternationalchaos,theWildState.
Uponreflection,eachofthefourpredictionsiscapableofrealisation.
Readings
1.AnthonyElliot,ContemporarySocialTheory:AnIntroduction,Routledge,USA,2009,
pp.310317,322328.
2.MichaelVaughan,AfterWestphalia,whitherthenationstate,itspeopleandits
governmentalinstitutions,paperpresentedattheInternationalStudiesAssociationAsia
PacificRegionalConferenceonSeptember29,2011.
3.S.Tutuianu,TowardsGlobalJustice:SovereigntyinanInterdependentWorld,Springer,
UK,,2013,pp.4344,5970.
4.EdwardMarks,FrompostColdWartopostWestphalia,AmericanDiplomacy,URL:
(http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_14/marks_westph.html)
(availablefromNovember18,2014)
5.CarloBordoni,ACrisisoftheState:EndofthepostWestphalianmodel,SocialEurope
Journal,URL:(http://www.socialeurope.eu/2013/02/acrisisofthestatetheendof
postwestphalianmodel)(availablefromDecember4,2014)
6.JoseManuelPureza,TowardsapostWestphalianInternationalism,Eurozine,URL:
(http://www.eurozine.com/articles/20020426purezaen.html)(availablefrom
November21,2014)
7.D.P.Fidler,2003,SARS:PoliticalpathologyofthefirstpostWestphalianpathogen,
JournalofLaw,MedicineandEthics,vol.31,Issue4,December,pp.485505.
DrJayabrataSarkarisanAssociateProfessor,DepartmentofPoliticalScience,
DeshbandhuCollege,NewDelhi.