4. Discuss why Andreas Osiander believes that the accepted IR narrative about Westphalia is a myth.

Osiander (2001) believes the widely accepted narrative that the modern idea of sovereignty has its
beginnings in the Peace of Westphalia is a textbook example of confirmation bias. IR scholars are willing
to accept the myth as truth because it fits with their expectations; they see what they want to see and
ignore the parts that don’t align. He also posits that because the treaties are difficult to read and
comprehend without expert knowledge of the Holy Roman Empire, IR students tend to adopt the
conventional interpretation. Osiander (2001) contends that much of the misinformation can be
attributed to a 1948 article authored by Leo Gross that assumes facts not in evidence. He points out
that Gross himself examined the treaties, found supporting evidence to be lacking and chose to ignore
his findings.

Osiander (2001) examined the generally-accepted beliefs regarding the 1648 Peace, looking for proof
within the treaties to support or dispute. Some of the beliefs with no corroborating evidence are these:

Generally-Accepted Belief Evidence to the Contrary

The Thirty Years’ War was fought to protect small
states and independent cities from Habsburg
aggression.
The sovereignty of individual nation-states was
established.
Non-intervention in the affairs of independent
states was codified.
The Eighty Years’ War between Spain and the
Netherlands was concluded.
The Peace of Westphalia treaties included all
participants in the Thirty Years’ War.
By 1648, the Habsburg dynasty was experiencing
a decline and in no position to be an aggressor.
On the other hand, France, Sweden and other
actors rigorously pursued every opportunity to
diminish the remaining power of the Habsburgs.
According to Osiander (2001), “But quite apart
from the fact that most of the states in question
had been around for a long time, neither their
survival nor even their independence was at
stake in this way.” The Peace is silent on the
question of sovereignty.
The Peace is silent on the practice of non-
intervention.
This war was ended with the Treaty of Munster in
January 1648 and was not officially part of the
Peace of Westphalia in October 1648.
The only signatories were the Holy Roman
Empire, France and Sweden.

Osiander (2001) concludes that the traditional interpretation of the Peace of Westphalia is not a result
of a factual analysis of the treaty documents but rather a fiction built on anti-Habsburg propaganda. He
continues this line of reasoning by arguing that our current understanding of sovereignty should be
informed by industrialization and the growing interdependence among countries for “cooperation and
mutual restraint” instead of 17th-century Europe.

Osiander, A. (2001). Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth.

International Organization, 55(2), 251-287. doi:10.1162/00208180151140577