History of international relations
This personal summary is based on the lectures and course material of History of International
Relations, taught by Salih Işık Bora. Copyright on original texts, images, and diagrams rests with the
respective authors and rights holders.
Table of contents
1. Session 1: The Founding Myth of Westphalia (1648-) (p. 2)
1) The significance of Westphalia (p. 2)
2) The limits of Westphalia (p. 4)
2. Session 2: The Struggle for Power in Early Modern Europe (1500-1750) (p. 7)
1) The Protagonists (p. 7)
2) Events (p. 9)
3) Consequences (p. 12)
3. Session 3: The French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars (1789-1815) (p. 14)
1) Protagonists (p. 14)
2) Events (p. 15)
3) Consequences (p. 19)
4. Session 4: Colonialism and Rise and Fall of the European Company-state (1600-1858) (p. 20)
1) Protagonists (p. 20)
2) Events (p. 22)
3) Consequences (p. 24)
5. Session 5: The Long Nineteenth Century, Part 1: The Concert of Europe and the Balance of Power
(1815-1914) (p. 26)
1) Protagonists (p. 26)
2) Events (p. 28)
3) Consequences (p. 31)
6. Session 6: The First Globalization (1815-1914) (p. 32)
1) Protagonists (p. 32)
2) Events (p. 33)
3) Consequences (p. 36)
7. Session 7: World War I and “the End of Nineteenth Century Civilization” (1914-1939) (p. 36)
1) Protagonists (p. 37)
2) Events (p. 37)
3) Consequences (p. 40)
8. Session 8: World War II, Victory of the Allies, and Founding of the Post-1945 International Order (1939-
1945) (p. 41)
1) Protagonists (p. 42)
2) Events (p. 43)
3) Consequences (p. 45)
9. Session 9: The Cold War, Embedded Liberalism, and Birth of the European Communities (1945-1985)
(p. 46)
1) Protagonists (p. 47)
2) Events (p. 48)
3) Consequences (p. 51)
10. Session 10: The Post-Cold War “Global Liberal Moment” (1989-2015) (p. 52)
1) Protagonists (p. 53)
2) Events (p. 54)
3) Consequences (p. 55)
,Session 1: The Founding Myth of Westphalia (1648-)
1. The significance of Westphalia
1.1 Historical background
What is Westphalia?
- Refers to two peace treaties in 1648: Osnabrück and Münster both in the region of Westphalia,
Germany collectively know as the Peace of Westphalia
- Ended two gigantic wars:
The thirty years war (1618-1648)
Religious conflict between catholic and protestant states within the Holy Roman
Empire
Later on became a power of struggle between European great powers
Large part of central Europe destroyed resulted in the death of millions
Dutch independence war (1566-1648)
The rebellion of the seven united Netherlands against the Spanish Habsburgs
After eighty years of struggle they gained international recognition as an
independence state (Peace of Münster1)
What did Westphalia do? resulted in:
1) Territorial changes
France gained parts Alsace (Elzas, in uiterlijk noordoosten van Frankrijk)
Sweden received territories in northern Germany
The Netherlands and Switzerland were officially recognized as independent
German principalities had their rights confirmed
but: real significance did not lie in land gains, BUT in political structure and balance of power
Political consequences – change in the holy roman empire (HRE):
- What was the HRE:
Origins in coronation of Charlemagne as emperor in 800, but took shape more fully in 962
when Otto was crowned by the pope
Not centralized like monarchies such as France or England it was a loose confederation of
duchies, principalities, free cities, bishoprics…
The rules, emperors (keizers), were formally elected by prince-electors limited imperial
authority and created a system where local rules retained significant autonomy
Through history, emperors sought to assert dominance, but constant conflict with the papacy
and regional princes constrained their power
Empire institutions (exp. Imperial Diet) reflected a balance between emperor and estates
rather than centralized control
1 The Peace of Münster was a treaty concluded on May 15, 1648, in Münster between Spain and the Dutch Republic. This
treaty ended the Eighty Years' War between Spain and the rebels in the Dutch Republic and recognized the Republic as a
sovereign state.
2
, In 16th century (under Habsburg dynasty) the empire became a key player in EU politics
but also deeply fragmented by Reformation, which Protestant and Catholic states divided
- What did the Habsburgs want:
Aiming to centralize power in the Holy Roman Empire: more power to emperor, less to
smaller states build a kind of ‘universal empire’ under their leadership
BUT:
Habsburgs lost the Thirty Years War Victors (such as Sweden and France) did not want any
single power to become strong deliberately ensured that the empire remained decentral
The treaties officially confirmed that: German princes could levy their own taxes; conduct
diplomacy independently; could determine which religion was allowed in their territory
“cuius regio, eius religio” = wiens gebied, diens religie
Consequence: empire remained political patchwork of small states with much individual power; not
unified, centralized state as the Habsburgs wanted
Why is the peace of Westphalia so important?
= often seen as the beginning of the modern state system – the way international politics still largely
work today with core ideas:
Sovereignty: each state is independent within its own borders + may decide for itself what
happens inside them
Equality between states: small and large states are in theory equal
Non intervention: other states may not interfere in the domestic affairs of other countries
Fixed borders and diplomacy: states negotiate through diplomacy, not solely through war
1.2 Significance of Westphalia for International relations
Before 1648: EU was a system of medieval order with overlapping powers and hierarchies system
of independent countries as it is today
Medieval system: Catholic church held both spiritual and political power; HRE had highest authority; below
them hundred of kings, dukes, bishops…; power overlapped: king could be subject to both pope and emperor
No clear distinct between ‘domestic’ and ‘foreign authority’, everything was
intertwined within a hierarchical system with universal religious framework
+ no sovereignty possible for regions
After 1648: Peace of Westphalia ended this hierarchical worldview sovereignty became the central
principle of the international order
Sovereignty = state is highest and ultimate authority within its own borders no one may interfere
Each state may decide its own religion, laws policies
There is no higher authority above states
EU became a system of independent states, not a single empire
Hierarchy anarchy:
Hierarchy = system with clear leader and subordinates (Catholic Church, Holy Roman Emperor…);
‘domestic’
3
,Anarchy = absence of authority that holds monopoly of legitimate violence political power is
distributed into territorial units and divided; ‘international’
But how can we have common rules without an authority? = important lesson in IR
Why do IR theorists say that Westphalia brought “anarchy”?
In international relations theory (exp realism), the world is seen as an anarchist system
There is no world government (no central authority above states)
States live in self help system: must protect own security and interests
Power security and survival are the core concepts
SO: within countries there is hierarchy – state has a monopoly on violence and lawmaking; between
countries there is anarchy – no overreaching authority
Conclusion: The Treaty of Westphalia is considered to have instated sovereignty & anarchy among EU
states, and laid foundations of international system that would eventually spread to the entire world
2. The limits of Westphalia
2.1 1648 is an arbitrary date – why Westphalia is not the real ‘starting point’
a) many books about IR act like 1648 is the year 0 of the modern world order not true: political
change happens gradually not suddenly (sovereign states didn’t just fall out of the sky)
no clear dividing line: political and diplomatic change occur step by step the world didn’t just
suddenly became modern on 24 October 1648, it took centuries before the system truly took shape
so 1648 is more of a symbolic moment, than a strict boundary between old and modern
b) Westphalia often gets all the attention, BUT there were other important treaties:
Peace of Augsburg (1555): ruler determines the religion in its territory ("Cuius regio, eius
religio") implies that the idea of territorial autonomy already existed before 1648
Peace of Utrecht (1713): further developed the balance of power between states and was
crucial for modern diplomacy
Renaissance Italy (14th-15th century): city states like Florence and Venice already had an
advanced diplomatic network and a balance of power long before Westphalia
c) Even after 1648 kings and dynasties continued to shape EU system (exp – war of Spanish succession
between 1701 and 1714, was about who had the right to Spanish throne national sovereignty)
4
, was often about family interests, not about states as units; not modern states with national
interests like today, BUT diplomacy about dynastic right inheritance and marriages
d) The word sovereignty doesn’t even appear in the treaties of Münster or Osnabrück some
people just wanted to end these wars ‘inventing sovereignty’
only centuries later historians and IR thinkers began to say that Westphalia was the beginning of
modern politics
2.2 Insisting on Westphalia is Eurocentric
Eurocentric = we look at the world history as if Europe was the centre of the world; the engine of the
process; the inventor of the modern world order
Westphalian narrative of the world says that modern international system originated in EU, and
then spread to the rest of the world
The Westphalian order was a regional EU system: only dealt with EU states rest of the world
wasn’t included, yet we believe the entire world was shaped by the EU model
EU was not the centre of world power in 1648, didn’t have the highest GDP:
China: Qing dynasty, one of the largest and most developed empires in the world
India: Mughal empire, immense wealth and population
Ottoman empire: A powerful empire that controlled Southern Europe, the Middle-East and
North-Africa
Europe: divided into dozens of warring states, economically and demographically smaller
EU dominance started later: 19th century with the industrial revolution, colonialism and
imperialism EU became the dominant global region
+ 20th century: EU exported its political model – states, borders, sovereignty – to the rest of world
many historians say: “Westphalian system only became global during EU imperialism ≠ 1648”
In east Asia wasn’t a shift toward sovereignty in 1648 Chinese-based tribute system2 would
persist for several centuries = based on hierarchy
Conclusion: why would a series of events unfolding on periphery of world politics be so important
than?
Possible response could be that we, in 2025, live in a world in which "EU" or "Western"
practices of international organization remain dominant (appointment of ambassadors, the
drawing of borders…)
Other arrangements, such as the tribute system, have, however, disappeared
2A system in which smaller or weaker states gave gifts or payments (tribute) to a more powerful empire — usually in
exchange for protection, trade rights, or peace. No concept of sovereignty, power form above to beneath.
5
,2.3 EU history cannot be reduced to events happening on the EU continent
Many of most important practices/concept that are considered to be European have been invented
by Europeans outside of Europe imported by Europe later
Example – modern territoriality:
Territoriality: the idea that the world is divided into clearly demarcated areas, separated by
fixed lines, orders
In modern world that means: border is drawn on map, you are either entirely inside one
country or entirely in another; it’s a binary division: inside/outside, us/them, legal/illegal
In earlier times: power and authority faded gradually from the centre to periphery; there
were overlapping zones of influence; borders were cultural and functional geometric
Moving in Middle ages: you didn’t just cross a border, you moved from a zone were
one had influence, to another were gradually someone else became more important
this way of drawing borders was not born in Westphalia but in Tordesillas (1494):
Agreement between Spain and Portugal that divided the non-EU world SP and PT were the
two largest maritime and colonial powers
They asked the pope who could claim which parts of the “new world” Pope draw a straight
line from pole to pole: everything west (America) was from SP; everything east (Africa, Asia) was from PT
first example of a world geometrically divided – using mathematical boundaries, not natural or
cultural ones; had a far more modern view on territory, even though it was 150 years before WestP.
6
This personal summary is based on the lectures and course material of History of International
Relations, taught by Salih Işık Bora. Copyright on original texts, images, and diagrams rests with the
respective authors and rights holders.
Table of contents
1. Session 1: The Founding Myth of Westphalia (1648-) (p. 2)
1) The significance of Westphalia (p. 2)
2) The limits of Westphalia (p. 4)
2. Session 2: The Struggle for Power in Early Modern Europe (1500-1750) (p. 7)
1) The Protagonists (p. 7)
2) Events (p. 9)
3) Consequences (p. 12)
3. Session 3: The French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars (1789-1815) (p. 14)
1) Protagonists (p. 14)
2) Events (p. 15)
3) Consequences (p. 19)
4. Session 4: Colonialism and Rise and Fall of the European Company-state (1600-1858) (p. 20)
1) Protagonists (p. 20)
2) Events (p. 22)
3) Consequences (p. 24)
5. Session 5: The Long Nineteenth Century, Part 1: The Concert of Europe and the Balance of Power
(1815-1914) (p. 26)
1) Protagonists (p. 26)
2) Events (p. 28)
3) Consequences (p. 31)
6. Session 6: The First Globalization (1815-1914) (p. 32)
1) Protagonists (p. 32)
2) Events (p. 33)
3) Consequences (p. 36)
7. Session 7: World War I and “the End of Nineteenth Century Civilization” (1914-1939) (p. 36)
1) Protagonists (p. 37)
2) Events (p. 37)
3) Consequences (p. 40)
8. Session 8: World War II, Victory of the Allies, and Founding of the Post-1945 International Order (1939-
1945) (p. 41)
1) Protagonists (p. 42)
2) Events (p. 43)
3) Consequences (p. 45)
9. Session 9: The Cold War, Embedded Liberalism, and Birth of the European Communities (1945-1985)
(p. 46)
1) Protagonists (p. 47)
2) Events (p. 48)
3) Consequences (p. 51)
10. Session 10: The Post-Cold War “Global Liberal Moment” (1989-2015) (p. 52)
1) Protagonists (p. 53)
2) Events (p. 54)
3) Consequences (p. 55)
,Session 1: The Founding Myth of Westphalia (1648-)
1. The significance of Westphalia
1.1 Historical background
What is Westphalia?
- Refers to two peace treaties in 1648: Osnabrück and Münster both in the region of Westphalia,
Germany collectively know as the Peace of Westphalia
- Ended two gigantic wars:
The thirty years war (1618-1648)
Religious conflict between catholic and protestant states within the Holy Roman
Empire
Later on became a power of struggle between European great powers
Large part of central Europe destroyed resulted in the death of millions
Dutch independence war (1566-1648)
The rebellion of the seven united Netherlands against the Spanish Habsburgs
After eighty years of struggle they gained international recognition as an
independence state (Peace of Münster1)
What did Westphalia do? resulted in:
1) Territorial changes
France gained parts Alsace (Elzas, in uiterlijk noordoosten van Frankrijk)
Sweden received territories in northern Germany
The Netherlands and Switzerland were officially recognized as independent
German principalities had their rights confirmed
but: real significance did not lie in land gains, BUT in political structure and balance of power
Political consequences – change in the holy roman empire (HRE):
- What was the HRE:
Origins in coronation of Charlemagne as emperor in 800, but took shape more fully in 962
when Otto was crowned by the pope
Not centralized like monarchies such as France or England it was a loose confederation of
duchies, principalities, free cities, bishoprics…
The rules, emperors (keizers), were formally elected by prince-electors limited imperial
authority and created a system where local rules retained significant autonomy
Through history, emperors sought to assert dominance, but constant conflict with the papacy
and regional princes constrained their power
Empire institutions (exp. Imperial Diet) reflected a balance between emperor and estates
rather than centralized control
1 The Peace of Münster was a treaty concluded on May 15, 1648, in Münster between Spain and the Dutch Republic. This
treaty ended the Eighty Years' War between Spain and the rebels in the Dutch Republic and recognized the Republic as a
sovereign state.
2
, In 16th century (under Habsburg dynasty) the empire became a key player in EU politics
but also deeply fragmented by Reformation, which Protestant and Catholic states divided
- What did the Habsburgs want:
Aiming to centralize power in the Holy Roman Empire: more power to emperor, less to
smaller states build a kind of ‘universal empire’ under their leadership
BUT:
Habsburgs lost the Thirty Years War Victors (such as Sweden and France) did not want any
single power to become strong deliberately ensured that the empire remained decentral
The treaties officially confirmed that: German princes could levy their own taxes; conduct
diplomacy independently; could determine which religion was allowed in their territory
“cuius regio, eius religio” = wiens gebied, diens religie
Consequence: empire remained political patchwork of small states with much individual power; not
unified, centralized state as the Habsburgs wanted
Why is the peace of Westphalia so important?
= often seen as the beginning of the modern state system – the way international politics still largely
work today with core ideas:
Sovereignty: each state is independent within its own borders + may decide for itself what
happens inside them
Equality between states: small and large states are in theory equal
Non intervention: other states may not interfere in the domestic affairs of other countries
Fixed borders and diplomacy: states negotiate through diplomacy, not solely through war
1.2 Significance of Westphalia for International relations
Before 1648: EU was a system of medieval order with overlapping powers and hierarchies system
of independent countries as it is today
Medieval system: Catholic church held both spiritual and political power; HRE had highest authority; below
them hundred of kings, dukes, bishops…; power overlapped: king could be subject to both pope and emperor
No clear distinct between ‘domestic’ and ‘foreign authority’, everything was
intertwined within a hierarchical system with universal religious framework
+ no sovereignty possible for regions
After 1648: Peace of Westphalia ended this hierarchical worldview sovereignty became the central
principle of the international order
Sovereignty = state is highest and ultimate authority within its own borders no one may interfere
Each state may decide its own religion, laws policies
There is no higher authority above states
EU became a system of independent states, not a single empire
Hierarchy anarchy:
Hierarchy = system with clear leader and subordinates (Catholic Church, Holy Roman Emperor…);
‘domestic’
3
,Anarchy = absence of authority that holds monopoly of legitimate violence political power is
distributed into territorial units and divided; ‘international’
But how can we have common rules without an authority? = important lesson in IR
Why do IR theorists say that Westphalia brought “anarchy”?
In international relations theory (exp realism), the world is seen as an anarchist system
There is no world government (no central authority above states)
States live in self help system: must protect own security and interests
Power security and survival are the core concepts
SO: within countries there is hierarchy – state has a monopoly on violence and lawmaking; between
countries there is anarchy – no overreaching authority
Conclusion: The Treaty of Westphalia is considered to have instated sovereignty & anarchy among EU
states, and laid foundations of international system that would eventually spread to the entire world
2. The limits of Westphalia
2.1 1648 is an arbitrary date – why Westphalia is not the real ‘starting point’
a) many books about IR act like 1648 is the year 0 of the modern world order not true: political
change happens gradually not suddenly (sovereign states didn’t just fall out of the sky)
no clear dividing line: political and diplomatic change occur step by step the world didn’t just
suddenly became modern on 24 October 1648, it took centuries before the system truly took shape
so 1648 is more of a symbolic moment, than a strict boundary between old and modern
b) Westphalia often gets all the attention, BUT there were other important treaties:
Peace of Augsburg (1555): ruler determines the religion in its territory ("Cuius regio, eius
religio") implies that the idea of territorial autonomy already existed before 1648
Peace of Utrecht (1713): further developed the balance of power between states and was
crucial for modern diplomacy
Renaissance Italy (14th-15th century): city states like Florence and Venice already had an
advanced diplomatic network and a balance of power long before Westphalia
c) Even after 1648 kings and dynasties continued to shape EU system (exp – war of Spanish succession
between 1701 and 1714, was about who had the right to Spanish throne national sovereignty)
4
, was often about family interests, not about states as units; not modern states with national
interests like today, BUT diplomacy about dynastic right inheritance and marriages
d) The word sovereignty doesn’t even appear in the treaties of Münster or Osnabrück some
people just wanted to end these wars ‘inventing sovereignty’
only centuries later historians and IR thinkers began to say that Westphalia was the beginning of
modern politics
2.2 Insisting on Westphalia is Eurocentric
Eurocentric = we look at the world history as if Europe was the centre of the world; the engine of the
process; the inventor of the modern world order
Westphalian narrative of the world says that modern international system originated in EU, and
then spread to the rest of the world
The Westphalian order was a regional EU system: only dealt with EU states rest of the world
wasn’t included, yet we believe the entire world was shaped by the EU model
EU was not the centre of world power in 1648, didn’t have the highest GDP:
China: Qing dynasty, one of the largest and most developed empires in the world
India: Mughal empire, immense wealth and population
Ottoman empire: A powerful empire that controlled Southern Europe, the Middle-East and
North-Africa
Europe: divided into dozens of warring states, economically and demographically smaller
EU dominance started later: 19th century with the industrial revolution, colonialism and
imperialism EU became the dominant global region
+ 20th century: EU exported its political model – states, borders, sovereignty – to the rest of world
many historians say: “Westphalian system only became global during EU imperialism ≠ 1648”
In east Asia wasn’t a shift toward sovereignty in 1648 Chinese-based tribute system2 would
persist for several centuries = based on hierarchy
Conclusion: why would a series of events unfolding on periphery of world politics be so important
than?
Possible response could be that we, in 2025, live in a world in which "EU" or "Western"
practices of international organization remain dominant (appointment of ambassadors, the
drawing of borders…)
Other arrangements, such as the tribute system, have, however, disappeared
2A system in which smaller or weaker states gave gifts or payments (tribute) to a more powerful empire — usually in
exchange for protection, trade rights, or peace. No concept of sovereignty, power form above to beneath.
5
,2.3 EU history cannot be reduced to events happening on the EU continent
Many of most important practices/concept that are considered to be European have been invented
by Europeans outside of Europe imported by Europe later
Example – modern territoriality:
Territoriality: the idea that the world is divided into clearly demarcated areas, separated by
fixed lines, orders
In modern world that means: border is drawn on map, you are either entirely inside one
country or entirely in another; it’s a binary division: inside/outside, us/them, legal/illegal
In earlier times: power and authority faded gradually from the centre to periphery; there
were overlapping zones of influence; borders were cultural and functional geometric
Moving in Middle ages: you didn’t just cross a border, you moved from a zone were
one had influence, to another were gradually someone else became more important
this way of drawing borders was not born in Westphalia but in Tordesillas (1494):
Agreement between Spain and Portugal that divided the non-EU world SP and PT were the
two largest maritime and colonial powers
They asked the pope who could claim which parts of the “new world” Pope draw a straight
line from pole to pole: everything west (America) was from SP; everything east (Africa, Asia) was from PT
first example of a world geometrically divided – using mathematical boundaries, not natural or
cultural ones; had a far more modern view on territory, even though it was 150 years before WestP.
6
