🇺🇳
History of International Relations
Chapter 1: The Founding Myth of Westphalia (1648-….)
The Treaties of Osnabrück and Münster (when together we refer to it as the treaty of Westphalia)
The Limits of Westphalia
Chapter 2: The Struggle for Power in Early Modern Europe
Part 1: The protagonists
Part 2: Events
Part 3: Consequences
Chapter 3: The French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars (1789-1815)
Part 1: The Protagonist
Part 2: The Events
Part 3: The Consequences
Chapter 4: Colonialism and Rise and Fall of the European Company-State (1600-1858)
Introduction
Part 1: Protagonists
Part 2: Events
Part 3: Consequences
Chapter 5: The Long Nineteenth Century, Part 1: The Concert of Europe and the Balance of Power (1815-1914)
Introduction
Part 1: Protagonists
Part 2: Events
Part 3: Consequences
Chapter 6: The Long Nineteenth Century, Part 2: The First Globalization (1815-1914)
Introduction
Part 1: Protagonists
Part 2: Events
Part 3: Consequences
Chapter 7: World War I and “the End of Nineteenth Century Civilization” (1914–1939)
Introduction
Part 1: Protagonists
Part 2: Events
A) World War I
B) The 1917 Russian Revolution and its Aftermath
C) Economic Order
D) Security Order
Part 3: Consequences
A) An Economic “New Deal” — A New Way of Thinking About the Economy
B) The Fragmentation of the World Economy
Chapter 8: World War II, Victory of the Allies, and founding of the post-1945 International Order (1939-1945)
Introduction
Part 1 — The Protagonists
A) Nazi Germany — the instigator
B) Imperial Japan — the Asian revisionist
C) United States — economic giant turned global leader
D) Soviet Union — from revolution to great-power war machine
E) British Empire — weakened but still central
Part 2 — The Events
A) The Eastern Front and Generalplan Ost — war + genocide in one package
B) The Pacific War and the atomic bomb — Japan’s empire, US entry, and the decision to use nukes
History of International Relations 1
, C) Founding a new international order — victory, enforcement, and the superpower system
Part 3: Consequences
A) Prelude to the Cold War
B) The creation of an “embedded liberal order”
Chapter 9: The Cold War, Embedded Liberalism, and Birth of the European Communities (1945–1985)
Introduction
Part 1: The Protagonists
Part 2: Events
Part 3: Consequences
Chapter 10: The Post–Cold War “Global Liberal Moment” (1989–2015)
Introduction: What is the “Global Liberal Moment”?
1) Emergence of neoliberalism
2) US unipolarity
Part 1: The Protagonist
A) Geographical expansion of liberal order
B) Deepening of liberal order (very important)
Part 2: Events
A) Neoliberal Globalization
B) The Global War on Terror
C) The Rise of China
Part 3: Consequences
A) Return to bipolarity? (question mark is important)
B) Crisis of neoliberalism
Chapter 1: The Founding Myth of Westphalia (1648-….)
The Treaties of Osnabrück and Münster (when together we refer to it as the treaty of
Westphalia)
→ Osnabrück = Focused on the settlement → Münster = Focused on the peace agreement between Spain
between the Holy Roman Empire and Sweden, and the Dutch Republic, recognizing Dutch independence and
regulating religious and constitutional issues within ending the Eighty Years’ War (= Austria wanting to centralize in
the Empire (like the rights of Protestant and The Netherlands to start a trend that would grow out and reach
Catholic states) and balancing power in Northern the entire European continent!)
Europe.
Context: around 1648 the Netherlands were still part of the Spanish Habsburg, The Roman Holy Empire was still
up but was very fragmented (ended with the Napoleonic wars), Austria (the Habsburgs) was trying to unify the
territories of the HRE but they failed!
The fact that the HRE did not get unified had big consequences for the course of history since it was such a
big and important chunk of the vast European continent
Habsburg wanted to create an European unity under the same dynasty
Big powers during this era: France, Habsburg (Spain, Austria, ect…) and the HRE
The main problem with the HRE was that the different territories had some rights that would often go against the
ones that the higher HRE wanted them to have.
→ “The treaty of Westphalia made the territorial state the cornerstone of the the modern state system”
→ Political consequences: Sovereign states instead of one empire
Because the Habsburgs could not unify Europe:
Each territorial ruler (a prince, duke, or republic) claimed authority over their own land.
History of International Relations 2
, This became the idea of sovereignty — every state is independent and equal in law, with no higher authority
above it.
So, Westphalia = the birth of the sovereign state (in theory).
→ International Relations: what does it mean?
Anarchy is not the same as Hierarchy
Inside a state → There is hierarchy (government > citizens).
Between states → There is anarchy (no world government above all states).
Hierarchy = A system where there is Anarchy = A system where there is no central authority above states. In
a higher authority above all actors international politics, this means no “world government” that can enforce rules
that everyone must obey (e.g., on all countries.
inside a state, the government rules
States exist independently.
over its citizens).
They make their own rules and depend on diplomacy, alliances, or force
to settle disputes.
Why Sovereignty? (Since there is no world government)
Sovereignty = The principle that each state has authority over its own territory and domestic affairs, without
outside interference.
It emerged in Europe after the failure to centralize power under one empire (for example, the Habsburgs tried
to unite Europe under the Holy Roman Empire, but this didn’t work).
Instead of one hierarchy, Europe ended up with many independent states.
The link with Anarchy
In an anarchic international system, common rules are difficult to enforce because there is no world authority
above states.
Sovereignty is a solution: it gives each state clear rights and responsibilities, even in the absence of central
power.
The Limits of Westphalia
→ Why is Westphalia so important?
1. The treaties of Münster and Osnabrück were not as significant as people claim
Westphalia was not perceived to be a watershed moment for political order by the individuals involved in its
signing, it only in the 20th century that “Westphalia” started to be talked about as a foundational moment.
It is arbitrary to say that Westphalia was more important tan other treaties such as Augsburg (free religion
concept in the HRE in 1555) and Utrecht (1713)
Both the HRE and the Habsburg Empire survived Westphalia, the triumph of the sovereign state model in
European politics was so far
2. The myth of Westphalia is Eurocentric and Europa does not matter as much as poeple claim
Around the time of Westphalia, China as well as India shared a bigger GDP than Europe
The population of other empires such as the Mughal, Chinese and some other Arabic nation were much bigger
than the European population
History of International Relations 3
, Example: The Chinese Tribute System
In East Asia, instead of a Westphalian idea of sovereignty, China organized its foreign relations through
a tribute system, neighboring states (like Korea, Vietnam, and others) recognized the symbolic
superiority of the Chinese Emperor by sending tribute missions. In return, China offered protection,
trade opportunities, and legitimacy to these states.
→ This was a hierarchical system, but it worked as an alternative to the European idea of an anarchic
international order.
3. Many important events of European history did not take place in the European continent
Examples:
Treaty of Tordesillas (1494): division of the western hemisphere between the Spanish and the Portuguese
empire to claim possession of land and decided what belongs to who?
“The idea of territory orders was not invented in Westphalia but in the European colonies and then got
exported to the European continent”
“This way of dividing land was invented by Europeans but was never invented for us Europeans but for
the colonies we had.”
→ Modern territoriality was born with the Treaty of Tordesillas not the treaty of Westphalia because the
borders of Tordesillas were drawn because the found territories were unknown to them. They had no
knowledge of the cultural differences and had no intrest in knowing it, the only thing that mattered was the
“fair” division of land and territory between Spain and Portugal/
Borders of big pre-modern empires such as the Chinese, Ottoman or the Roman Empire were never fixed, the
‘frontier’ used to move and change often.
The Romans never drew maps so the Roman territory had been drawn because of the trade they made,
the wars they fought and the land they gained/lost. This proves that in our history territory was never that
vast, it changed according to factors!
Chapter 2: The Struggle for Power in Early Modern Europe
Part 1: The protagonists
a. The Great Powers of the Time
History of International Relations 4
, → Habsburg dynasty
In 1519, Charles Vth inherited territorial possessions from both
his father’s (Austrian Habsburgs) and mother’s (Spanish
Habsburgs) sides. Vast dynastic possessions across Europe
and in theAmericas. Moreover, he was Holy Roman Emperor.
With Charles Vth, Habsburgs ambitioned a universal monarchy
that could dominate Europe.
→ Kingdoms of France and England → Ottoman Empire
‘proto-national’ kingdoms that were starting to centralize for Empire based in Anatolia and the Balkans,
the first time and take their current shape. expanded into Europe. (imperial state)
🌐 Crucially this was not only a competition between distinct units of the same time but competition between
different political models:
b. Ottomans, Habsburgs, and the others…
History of International Relations 5
, → The Ottoman Empire was an imperial state meaning that its territorial ambitions were, in theory, universal. To
characterize the Ottoman Empire, Cambridge Professor Ayşe Zarakol talks of “Chinggisid sovereignty”.
→ The first resident ambassador sent by Ottomans abroad was to London in 1793! Until then, there was not really a
reciprocal exchange of diplomats.
The Habsburgs also aimed toward ‘universal monarchy’. This was justified, in large part, on grounds of
preserving the Catholic faith. On this note, see the writings of Tomasso Campanella. Unlike the Ottomans,
however, they accumulated power and territory as a ‘dynastic-composite state’. Through various means such as
conquest but also marriage ('Let others wage war; you, happy Austria, marry’), they amassed considerable
possessions across Europe.
France and England may seem more similar to sovereign states in their current form but they were not entirely.
They continued to closely resemble the dynastic-composite state form. Even in these states, authority was largely
indirect. Central states did not have the power to overrule the autonomy
of local towns, lords and so on…Centralized standing armies were small, states had little to no independent tax
collection capacity, things such as national identity were at a very early stage.
Part 2: Events
🌐 War was the decisive factor in the triumph of the sovereign state. But which kind of war?
→ Certain types of wars forced rulers to centralize power, build bureaucracies, and strengthen the state.
→ Between roughly 1490 and 1720, Europe was constantly at war.
These conflicts:
Destroyed old medieval and dynastic systems (like the Holy Roman Empire)
Strengthened or created new centralized states (like France and the Netherlands)
Introduced new rules of diplomacy and power politics among states
→ So, warfare was the engine driving the creation of modern states.
1. Proxy wars & civil wars
→ Italian Wars (1494-1559)
Italy entered the Early Modern era as the richest part of
Europe…That said it was politically divided and remained so.
Throughout the late 15th and early 16th century, Italy was
a battleground for great power competition. In essence,
France and the Habsburgs both allied with rival city states
to augment their political power and territory through
conquest, marriage etc…
History of International Relations 6
, These were proxy-wars that were fought trough alliances, marriages and conquest
They weakened Italy and shifted European power northwards, toward France, Spain, and the Habsburgs — the
real “great powers” of early modern Europe.
→ Thirty Years War (1618-1648)
Started as a religious civil war inside the Holy Roman Empire:
The Habsburg Emperor tried to centralize power and reimpose Catholic unity.
Protestant princes resisted, aided by foreign powers like Sweden and France.
It became a massive pan-European war involving nearly all major states.
The Habsburgs failed to unify the Empire.
The Treaty of Westphalia (1648) confirmed that each state (large or small) had sovereignty over its own
affairs.
This war cemented the decline of universal empires and strengthened the principle of state independence.
🌐 In other cases, these wars led not to fragmentation but to centralization and the emergence of ‘proto-
nation-states’…
→ French Wars of Religion (1562-1598)
Infighting among the nobility over a religious divide between protestants and catholics (this divide overlapped
with matters of economic interest as well…confiscating church property was quite lucrative).
King Henry IV acceded to the throne in a rather unique position as a protestant prince who converted to
Catholicism (‘Paris vaut bien une messe’). This was an important step in the building of an absolutist state in
France.
Henry IV’s pragmatic approach laid the foundations of absolutism in France — the idea that the king’s
authority stands above religious division.
→ This was an important step toward the centralized, sovereign state.
→ Dutch Revolt (1566-1648)
Netherlands a very rich region of Europe and dynastic possession of the Habsburgs. Revolted against the Spanish
Habsburgs. This revolt consumed the Habsburgs for decades and led to the formation of the country that still
exists today…
The Dutch Republic emerged as an independent, sovereign state — recognized in 1648.
It became a major commercial and maritime power, symbolizing the success of a modern, independent state
breaking from a dynastic empire.
2. Great Power wars
These were large-scale wars between major European empires.
They mark the end of the dream of universal empire and the rise of the European state system based on
balance of power.
History of International Relations 7
, → Habsburg-Ottoman Wars (1526-1699)
Habsburgs bid for universal Catholic monarchy may have succeeded had the Ottomans not put constant military
pressure on them. The Ottomans annexed Hungary and laid siege to Vienna twice in 1529 and 1683, they
threatened Austrian Habsburg power at its core.
Although less known, they also constituted a major naval threat to the Spanish Habsburgs. The Ottomans laid
siege to Malta in 1565. In the end, both sides were weakened and lost their pretension to hegemony in Europe and
their claim to universal rule.
This eventually helped smaller, sovereign states (like France, England, and the Netherlands) rise to
prominence.
→ War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714)
After the Habsburgs lost much of their power, France suddenly emerged as the leading power in European
politics. Towards the end of the 17th century, France could muster almost half a million men under arms which
was far greater than any other European power.
After the Habsburg dynasty died out in Spain, Louis XIV (‘the Sun King’) almost succeeded in ensuring that his
nephew (Philip of Anjou) gets the throne of France and Spain at the same time. Through this war, a coalition of
powers led by England dealt a major blow to French power.
The ensuing Peace of Utrecht (1713) was important as it codified that dynastic rights could not lead to major
territorial changes (the dynastic agglomeration pathway to territorial expansion was definitely closed).
The Peace of Utrecht effectively ended the old “dynastic agglomeration” model (expanding power through
marriages and inheritances).
It reinforced territorial sovereignty and stability of borders — core principles of the modern state system.
→ Great Northern War (1700-1721)
A war between Russia and Sweden for domination of the Baltic Sea. It occurs at the periphery of Europe.
Important in retrospect because it marks the rise of Russian power in Europe and the entry of Russia into the
European society of states.
History of International Relations 8
, 🧠 Core idea
→ War didn’t just destroy — it built.
→ The pressures of constant warfare forced rulers to centralize power, organize taxes, build armies, and
govern more efficiently.
→ That’s how modern sovereign states were born out of the chaos of early modern Europe.
Part 3: Consequences
1. Triumph of anarchy as the organizing principle of European politics
→ In international relations, anarchy doesn’t mean chaos — it means no central authority above states. There is no
“world government” to enforce peace or rules.
Firstly the Habsburgs and, subsequently, the French had attempted to establish hegemony in Europe. Neither of
the two succeeded…
This failure left Europe without a single hegemony (leader) instead, it produced a pluralist system: multiple
powers, roughly equal, coexisting in competition.
Anarchy became not only a spontaneous outcome but something that European states committed to preserve.
The ‘balance of power’ started to be consolidated as a norm of international relations in Europe. This was
especially apparent with the 1713 Peace of Utrecht. As one scholar puts it, these Treaties ‘established the British
objective of a continental “balance of power” as the goal of the European states-system’ (Lascurettes 2020: 83).
By the early 18th century, anarchy (no central ruler) and balance of power (self-regulation through alliances)
became the core logic of international politics — the same system that still defines global politics today.
2. Sovereignty was (partially) consecrated as the internal organizing principle of European states
→ While anarchy shaped how states related to each other, sovereignty defined how power worked inside each state.
Two thinkers in particular gave this idea its theoretical foundation:
→ New ideas about political power were gradually emerging. Most illustrative of this is the fact that the first major
theoretical works on state sovereignty were produced. Both of these works were written in the context of civil wars,
the French Wars of Religion for Jean Bodin and the English Civil War for Hobbes. The arguments advanced can 3 only
be understood against this backdrop.
→ Jean Bodin’s Six Livres de la République (1576) and Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan (1651) are two of the foremost
examples.
Bodin defines sovereignty as the ‘absolute and perpetual power of a Republic’. He distinguishes between property
and sovereignty, which essentially amounts to recognize the existence of a public realm that is even above the
King.
The state exists above the monarch.
The Crown represents the continuity of public authority — it cannot be sold, divided, or given away.
The fundamental laws of the Kingdom (Lois fondamentales du royaume), initially customary, were codified in
1575. These laws recognize the indisponibility of the Crown which means that the King cannot designate his own
successors; the inalienability of the royal realm which means that the King cannot transfer territorial authority (see
the Edict of Moulins 1566); the instantaneous devolution of the Crown (‘the King is dead, long live the new King’)
which means that the Kingdom always outlives the King. Notions such as ‘national interest’ (as opposed to
dynastic interest) start to make an appearance around the same time.
History of International Relations 9
, The idea of a “national interest” began to appear — the notion that the state has goals separate from the
ruler’s personal or dynastic interests.
→ Then, there is Thomas Hobbes…
He is considered by many authoritative scholars as the first truly modern political philosopher (see Quentin
Skinner). He is the one who definitely secularizes the conversation about state power.
1. Humans in the “state of nature” are equal and free, but live in constant fear (“war of all against all”).
2. To escape this, they give up some freedoms and delegate power to a ruler — the Leviathan — who enforces
peace and security.
3. The sovereign’s authority is legitimate because it comes from the consent of the people.
“This done, the multitude so united in one person is called a Commonwealth, in Latin Civitas. This is the generation
of that great LEVIATHAN, or rather (to speak more reverently) of that mortal god, to which we owe under the
immortal God, our peace and defence. For by this authority, given him by every particular man in the
Commonwealth, he hath the use of so much power and strength conferred on him, that by terror thereof, he is
enabled to conform the wills of them all, to peace at home, and mutual aid against their enemies abroad.”, Chapter
XVII, Leviathan.
Power comes not from God, but from the collective agreement of individuals.
The people exist before the ruler — they are ontologically prior.
This implies an early form of popular sovereignty:
political power originates from the people, even if they transfer it to a monarch.
Hobbes modernized the idea of sovereignty — the state is a human creation designed to guarantee peace and
order.
→ Together, Bodin and Hobbes laid the intellectual → Their ideas paved the way for later thinkers (like
foundation of the modern state: Rousseau and Locke) and ultimately for the French
Revolution (1789), where:
Bodin → legal sovereignty (state authority over
territory and subjects). The people explicitly claimed sovereignty for
themselves.
Hobbes → philosophical sovereignty (state as a human
construct born from consent). The nation replaced the dynasty as the source of
legitimate authority.
Chapter 3: The French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars (1789-1815)
History of International Relations 10
History of International Relations
Chapter 1: The Founding Myth of Westphalia (1648-….)
The Treaties of Osnabrück and Münster (when together we refer to it as the treaty of Westphalia)
The Limits of Westphalia
Chapter 2: The Struggle for Power in Early Modern Europe
Part 1: The protagonists
Part 2: Events
Part 3: Consequences
Chapter 3: The French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars (1789-1815)
Part 1: The Protagonist
Part 2: The Events
Part 3: The Consequences
Chapter 4: Colonialism and Rise and Fall of the European Company-State (1600-1858)
Introduction
Part 1: Protagonists
Part 2: Events
Part 3: Consequences
Chapter 5: The Long Nineteenth Century, Part 1: The Concert of Europe and the Balance of Power (1815-1914)
Introduction
Part 1: Protagonists
Part 2: Events
Part 3: Consequences
Chapter 6: The Long Nineteenth Century, Part 2: The First Globalization (1815-1914)
Introduction
Part 1: Protagonists
Part 2: Events
Part 3: Consequences
Chapter 7: World War I and “the End of Nineteenth Century Civilization” (1914–1939)
Introduction
Part 1: Protagonists
Part 2: Events
A) World War I
B) The 1917 Russian Revolution and its Aftermath
C) Economic Order
D) Security Order
Part 3: Consequences
A) An Economic “New Deal” — A New Way of Thinking About the Economy
B) The Fragmentation of the World Economy
Chapter 8: World War II, Victory of the Allies, and founding of the post-1945 International Order (1939-1945)
Introduction
Part 1 — The Protagonists
A) Nazi Germany — the instigator
B) Imperial Japan — the Asian revisionist
C) United States — economic giant turned global leader
D) Soviet Union — from revolution to great-power war machine
E) British Empire — weakened but still central
Part 2 — The Events
A) The Eastern Front and Generalplan Ost — war + genocide in one package
B) The Pacific War and the atomic bomb — Japan’s empire, US entry, and the decision to use nukes
History of International Relations 1
, C) Founding a new international order — victory, enforcement, and the superpower system
Part 3: Consequences
A) Prelude to the Cold War
B) The creation of an “embedded liberal order”
Chapter 9: The Cold War, Embedded Liberalism, and Birth of the European Communities (1945–1985)
Introduction
Part 1: The Protagonists
Part 2: Events
Part 3: Consequences
Chapter 10: The Post–Cold War “Global Liberal Moment” (1989–2015)
Introduction: What is the “Global Liberal Moment”?
1) Emergence of neoliberalism
2) US unipolarity
Part 1: The Protagonist
A) Geographical expansion of liberal order
B) Deepening of liberal order (very important)
Part 2: Events
A) Neoliberal Globalization
B) The Global War on Terror
C) The Rise of China
Part 3: Consequences
A) Return to bipolarity? (question mark is important)
B) Crisis of neoliberalism
Chapter 1: The Founding Myth of Westphalia (1648-….)
The Treaties of Osnabrück and Münster (when together we refer to it as the treaty of
Westphalia)
→ Osnabrück = Focused on the settlement → Münster = Focused on the peace agreement between Spain
between the Holy Roman Empire and Sweden, and the Dutch Republic, recognizing Dutch independence and
regulating religious and constitutional issues within ending the Eighty Years’ War (= Austria wanting to centralize in
the Empire (like the rights of Protestant and The Netherlands to start a trend that would grow out and reach
Catholic states) and balancing power in Northern the entire European continent!)
Europe.
Context: around 1648 the Netherlands were still part of the Spanish Habsburg, The Roman Holy Empire was still
up but was very fragmented (ended with the Napoleonic wars), Austria (the Habsburgs) was trying to unify the
territories of the HRE but they failed!
The fact that the HRE did not get unified had big consequences for the course of history since it was such a
big and important chunk of the vast European continent
Habsburg wanted to create an European unity under the same dynasty
Big powers during this era: France, Habsburg (Spain, Austria, ect…) and the HRE
The main problem with the HRE was that the different territories had some rights that would often go against the
ones that the higher HRE wanted them to have.
→ “The treaty of Westphalia made the territorial state the cornerstone of the the modern state system”
→ Political consequences: Sovereign states instead of one empire
Because the Habsburgs could not unify Europe:
Each territorial ruler (a prince, duke, or republic) claimed authority over their own land.
History of International Relations 2
, This became the idea of sovereignty — every state is independent and equal in law, with no higher authority
above it.
So, Westphalia = the birth of the sovereign state (in theory).
→ International Relations: what does it mean?
Anarchy is not the same as Hierarchy
Inside a state → There is hierarchy (government > citizens).
Between states → There is anarchy (no world government above all states).
Hierarchy = A system where there is Anarchy = A system where there is no central authority above states. In
a higher authority above all actors international politics, this means no “world government” that can enforce rules
that everyone must obey (e.g., on all countries.
inside a state, the government rules
States exist independently.
over its citizens).
They make their own rules and depend on diplomacy, alliances, or force
to settle disputes.
Why Sovereignty? (Since there is no world government)
Sovereignty = The principle that each state has authority over its own territory and domestic affairs, without
outside interference.
It emerged in Europe after the failure to centralize power under one empire (for example, the Habsburgs tried
to unite Europe under the Holy Roman Empire, but this didn’t work).
Instead of one hierarchy, Europe ended up with many independent states.
The link with Anarchy
In an anarchic international system, common rules are difficult to enforce because there is no world authority
above states.
Sovereignty is a solution: it gives each state clear rights and responsibilities, even in the absence of central
power.
The Limits of Westphalia
→ Why is Westphalia so important?
1. The treaties of Münster and Osnabrück were not as significant as people claim
Westphalia was not perceived to be a watershed moment for political order by the individuals involved in its
signing, it only in the 20th century that “Westphalia” started to be talked about as a foundational moment.
It is arbitrary to say that Westphalia was more important tan other treaties such as Augsburg (free religion
concept in the HRE in 1555) and Utrecht (1713)
Both the HRE and the Habsburg Empire survived Westphalia, the triumph of the sovereign state model in
European politics was so far
2. The myth of Westphalia is Eurocentric and Europa does not matter as much as poeple claim
Around the time of Westphalia, China as well as India shared a bigger GDP than Europe
The population of other empires such as the Mughal, Chinese and some other Arabic nation were much bigger
than the European population
History of International Relations 3
, Example: The Chinese Tribute System
In East Asia, instead of a Westphalian idea of sovereignty, China organized its foreign relations through
a tribute system, neighboring states (like Korea, Vietnam, and others) recognized the symbolic
superiority of the Chinese Emperor by sending tribute missions. In return, China offered protection,
trade opportunities, and legitimacy to these states.
→ This was a hierarchical system, but it worked as an alternative to the European idea of an anarchic
international order.
3. Many important events of European history did not take place in the European continent
Examples:
Treaty of Tordesillas (1494): division of the western hemisphere between the Spanish and the Portuguese
empire to claim possession of land and decided what belongs to who?
“The idea of territory orders was not invented in Westphalia but in the European colonies and then got
exported to the European continent”
“This way of dividing land was invented by Europeans but was never invented for us Europeans but for
the colonies we had.”
→ Modern territoriality was born with the Treaty of Tordesillas not the treaty of Westphalia because the
borders of Tordesillas were drawn because the found territories were unknown to them. They had no
knowledge of the cultural differences and had no intrest in knowing it, the only thing that mattered was the
“fair” division of land and territory between Spain and Portugal/
Borders of big pre-modern empires such as the Chinese, Ottoman or the Roman Empire were never fixed, the
‘frontier’ used to move and change often.
The Romans never drew maps so the Roman territory had been drawn because of the trade they made,
the wars they fought and the land they gained/lost. This proves that in our history territory was never that
vast, it changed according to factors!
Chapter 2: The Struggle for Power in Early Modern Europe
Part 1: The protagonists
a. The Great Powers of the Time
History of International Relations 4
, → Habsburg dynasty
In 1519, Charles Vth inherited territorial possessions from both
his father’s (Austrian Habsburgs) and mother’s (Spanish
Habsburgs) sides. Vast dynastic possessions across Europe
and in theAmericas. Moreover, he was Holy Roman Emperor.
With Charles Vth, Habsburgs ambitioned a universal monarchy
that could dominate Europe.
→ Kingdoms of France and England → Ottoman Empire
‘proto-national’ kingdoms that were starting to centralize for Empire based in Anatolia and the Balkans,
the first time and take their current shape. expanded into Europe. (imperial state)
🌐 Crucially this was not only a competition between distinct units of the same time but competition between
different political models:
b. Ottomans, Habsburgs, and the others…
History of International Relations 5
, → The Ottoman Empire was an imperial state meaning that its territorial ambitions were, in theory, universal. To
characterize the Ottoman Empire, Cambridge Professor Ayşe Zarakol talks of “Chinggisid sovereignty”.
→ The first resident ambassador sent by Ottomans abroad was to London in 1793! Until then, there was not really a
reciprocal exchange of diplomats.
The Habsburgs also aimed toward ‘universal monarchy’. This was justified, in large part, on grounds of
preserving the Catholic faith. On this note, see the writings of Tomasso Campanella. Unlike the Ottomans,
however, they accumulated power and territory as a ‘dynastic-composite state’. Through various means such as
conquest but also marriage ('Let others wage war; you, happy Austria, marry’), they amassed considerable
possessions across Europe.
France and England may seem more similar to sovereign states in their current form but they were not entirely.
They continued to closely resemble the dynastic-composite state form. Even in these states, authority was largely
indirect. Central states did not have the power to overrule the autonomy
of local towns, lords and so on…Centralized standing armies were small, states had little to no independent tax
collection capacity, things such as national identity were at a very early stage.
Part 2: Events
🌐 War was the decisive factor in the triumph of the sovereign state. But which kind of war?
→ Certain types of wars forced rulers to centralize power, build bureaucracies, and strengthen the state.
→ Between roughly 1490 and 1720, Europe was constantly at war.
These conflicts:
Destroyed old medieval and dynastic systems (like the Holy Roman Empire)
Strengthened or created new centralized states (like France and the Netherlands)
Introduced new rules of diplomacy and power politics among states
→ So, warfare was the engine driving the creation of modern states.
1. Proxy wars & civil wars
→ Italian Wars (1494-1559)
Italy entered the Early Modern era as the richest part of
Europe…That said it was politically divided and remained so.
Throughout the late 15th and early 16th century, Italy was
a battleground for great power competition. In essence,
France and the Habsburgs both allied with rival city states
to augment their political power and territory through
conquest, marriage etc…
History of International Relations 6
, These were proxy-wars that were fought trough alliances, marriages and conquest
They weakened Italy and shifted European power northwards, toward France, Spain, and the Habsburgs — the
real “great powers” of early modern Europe.
→ Thirty Years War (1618-1648)
Started as a religious civil war inside the Holy Roman Empire:
The Habsburg Emperor tried to centralize power and reimpose Catholic unity.
Protestant princes resisted, aided by foreign powers like Sweden and France.
It became a massive pan-European war involving nearly all major states.
The Habsburgs failed to unify the Empire.
The Treaty of Westphalia (1648) confirmed that each state (large or small) had sovereignty over its own
affairs.
This war cemented the decline of universal empires and strengthened the principle of state independence.
🌐 In other cases, these wars led not to fragmentation but to centralization and the emergence of ‘proto-
nation-states’…
→ French Wars of Religion (1562-1598)
Infighting among the nobility over a religious divide between protestants and catholics (this divide overlapped
with matters of economic interest as well…confiscating church property was quite lucrative).
King Henry IV acceded to the throne in a rather unique position as a protestant prince who converted to
Catholicism (‘Paris vaut bien une messe’). This was an important step in the building of an absolutist state in
France.
Henry IV’s pragmatic approach laid the foundations of absolutism in France — the idea that the king’s
authority stands above religious division.
→ This was an important step toward the centralized, sovereign state.
→ Dutch Revolt (1566-1648)
Netherlands a very rich region of Europe and dynastic possession of the Habsburgs. Revolted against the Spanish
Habsburgs. This revolt consumed the Habsburgs for decades and led to the formation of the country that still
exists today…
The Dutch Republic emerged as an independent, sovereign state — recognized in 1648.
It became a major commercial and maritime power, symbolizing the success of a modern, independent state
breaking from a dynastic empire.
2. Great Power wars
These were large-scale wars between major European empires.
They mark the end of the dream of universal empire and the rise of the European state system based on
balance of power.
History of International Relations 7
, → Habsburg-Ottoman Wars (1526-1699)
Habsburgs bid for universal Catholic monarchy may have succeeded had the Ottomans not put constant military
pressure on them. The Ottomans annexed Hungary and laid siege to Vienna twice in 1529 and 1683, they
threatened Austrian Habsburg power at its core.
Although less known, they also constituted a major naval threat to the Spanish Habsburgs. The Ottomans laid
siege to Malta in 1565. In the end, both sides were weakened and lost their pretension to hegemony in Europe and
their claim to universal rule.
This eventually helped smaller, sovereign states (like France, England, and the Netherlands) rise to
prominence.
→ War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714)
After the Habsburgs lost much of their power, France suddenly emerged as the leading power in European
politics. Towards the end of the 17th century, France could muster almost half a million men under arms which
was far greater than any other European power.
After the Habsburg dynasty died out in Spain, Louis XIV (‘the Sun King’) almost succeeded in ensuring that his
nephew (Philip of Anjou) gets the throne of France and Spain at the same time. Through this war, a coalition of
powers led by England dealt a major blow to French power.
The ensuing Peace of Utrecht (1713) was important as it codified that dynastic rights could not lead to major
territorial changes (the dynastic agglomeration pathway to territorial expansion was definitely closed).
The Peace of Utrecht effectively ended the old “dynastic agglomeration” model (expanding power through
marriages and inheritances).
It reinforced territorial sovereignty and stability of borders — core principles of the modern state system.
→ Great Northern War (1700-1721)
A war between Russia and Sweden for domination of the Baltic Sea. It occurs at the periphery of Europe.
Important in retrospect because it marks the rise of Russian power in Europe and the entry of Russia into the
European society of states.
History of International Relations 8
, 🧠 Core idea
→ War didn’t just destroy — it built.
→ The pressures of constant warfare forced rulers to centralize power, organize taxes, build armies, and
govern more efficiently.
→ That’s how modern sovereign states were born out of the chaos of early modern Europe.
Part 3: Consequences
1. Triumph of anarchy as the organizing principle of European politics
→ In international relations, anarchy doesn’t mean chaos — it means no central authority above states. There is no
“world government” to enforce peace or rules.
Firstly the Habsburgs and, subsequently, the French had attempted to establish hegemony in Europe. Neither of
the two succeeded…
This failure left Europe without a single hegemony (leader) instead, it produced a pluralist system: multiple
powers, roughly equal, coexisting in competition.
Anarchy became not only a spontaneous outcome but something that European states committed to preserve.
The ‘balance of power’ started to be consolidated as a norm of international relations in Europe. This was
especially apparent with the 1713 Peace of Utrecht. As one scholar puts it, these Treaties ‘established the British
objective of a continental “balance of power” as the goal of the European states-system’ (Lascurettes 2020: 83).
By the early 18th century, anarchy (no central ruler) and balance of power (self-regulation through alliances)
became the core logic of international politics — the same system that still defines global politics today.
2. Sovereignty was (partially) consecrated as the internal organizing principle of European states
→ While anarchy shaped how states related to each other, sovereignty defined how power worked inside each state.
Two thinkers in particular gave this idea its theoretical foundation:
→ New ideas about political power were gradually emerging. Most illustrative of this is the fact that the first major
theoretical works on state sovereignty were produced. Both of these works were written in the context of civil wars,
the French Wars of Religion for Jean Bodin and the English Civil War for Hobbes. The arguments advanced can 3 only
be understood against this backdrop.
→ Jean Bodin’s Six Livres de la République (1576) and Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan (1651) are two of the foremost
examples.
Bodin defines sovereignty as the ‘absolute and perpetual power of a Republic’. He distinguishes between property
and sovereignty, which essentially amounts to recognize the existence of a public realm that is even above the
King.
The state exists above the monarch.
The Crown represents the continuity of public authority — it cannot be sold, divided, or given away.
The fundamental laws of the Kingdom (Lois fondamentales du royaume), initially customary, were codified in
1575. These laws recognize the indisponibility of the Crown which means that the King cannot designate his own
successors; the inalienability of the royal realm which means that the King cannot transfer territorial authority (see
the Edict of Moulins 1566); the instantaneous devolution of the Crown (‘the King is dead, long live the new King’)
which means that the Kingdom always outlives the King. Notions such as ‘national interest’ (as opposed to
dynastic interest) start to make an appearance around the same time.
History of International Relations 9
, The idea of a “national interest” began to appear — the notion that the state has goals separate from the
ruler’s personal or dynastic interests.
→ Then, there is Thomas Hobbes…
He is considered by many authoritative scholars as the first truly modern political philosopher (see Quentin
Skinner). He is the one who definitely secularizes the conversation about state power.
1. Humans in the “state of nature” are equal and free, but live in constant fear (“war of all against all”).
2. To escape this, they give up some freedoms and delegate power to a ruler — the Leviathan — who enforces
peace and security.
3. The sovereign’s authority is legitimate because it comes from the consent of the people.
“This done, the multitude so united in one person is called a Commonwealth, in Latin Civitas. This is the generation
of that great LEVIATHAN, or rather (to speak more reverently) of that mortal god, to which we owe under the
immortal God, our peace and defence. For by this authority, given him by every particular man in the
Commonwealth, he hath the use of so much power and strength conferred on him, that by terror thereof, he is
enabled to conform the wills of them all, to peace at home, and mutual aid against their enemies abroad.”, Chapter
XVII, Leviathan.
Power comes not from God, but from the collective agreement of individuals.
The people exist before the ruler — they are ontologically prior.
This implies an early form of popular sovereignty:
political power originates from the people, even if they transfer it to a monarch.
Hobbes modernized the idea of sovereignty — the state is a human creation designed to guarantee peace and
order.
→ Together, Bodin and Hobbes laid the intellectual → Their ideas paved the way for later thinkers (like
foundation of the modern state: Rousseau and Locke) and ultimately for the French
Revolution (1789), where:
Bodin → legal sovereignty (state authority over
territory and subjects). The people explicitly claimed sovereignty for
themselves.
Hobbes → philosophical sovereignty (state as a human
construct born from consent). The nation replaced the dynasty as the source of
legitimate authority.
Chapter 3: The French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars (1789-1815)
History of International Relations 10
