What are the fundamental differences between a Weberian and Westphalian State, and how did the
latter come about?
Saghaar Taghiyah Wright:
“Our object in the construction of the state is the greatest happiness of the whole, and not that of any one class,”
(Plato, 475:3). To discuss states in the context of international politics is to firstly, define them as the political
embodiment of the goals, ambitions, moral and ethical alignments of the people it represents, and secondly, as
well as most relevant to the content of this essay, recognise them as the primary actors within the environment
of international politics. If states exist as actors, then international politics is both the stage and the script, and to
understand one of these concepts, is to at least begin an understanding of the other. The primary concern of this
essay is to investigate if this connection extends to international politics and particularly, the Westphalian
theory of states, through a thorough exploration of the origins of the Westphalian state and its subsequent
effects upon the realm of international politics, with a secondary concern in further developing an understanding
of states, through a comparative analysis of the most popular conceptions of state (Weberian and Westphalian).
To proceed with the first aim of this essay, the Westphalian state, the system that it operates within (the modern
state system), as well as the theoretical attributes associated with both, are both named after, and created by, the
Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 (Stirk, 2015:3). This treaty came about as an end to the Thirty Years War, a war
of religion between the Catholics and the Protestants. As there was no clear victor, the ‘peace of Westphalia’
established jurisprudence that would be centered around avoidance of the conditions that lead to the Thirty
Years War, as well inadvertently creating the foundation of the modern international political system, a system
that dictated the practice of non-interference, personal sovereignty, and agency for nations, and sole power over
one's territory (Patton, 2019:2). To establish the link between this theory and the primary goal of this essay,
would be to emphasise that the conception of the Westphalian state (whose nuances will be explored further on
in this essay) in the Treaty of Westphalia, laid the framework for modern international diplomacy, was the first
attempt at codifying an international standard of practice for states to adhere to, and provided a basis on which
later international entities, such the United Nations or the European Union, to exist and interact with other
traditional states (Patton, 2019:3). Summarised?, the conception of the Westphalian state, was also the creation
of an international political system.
However, while the Westphalian state system certainly laid the groundwork for a version of international
politics, there exists much debate on whether said version of international politics can continually and
sustainably meet the needs of a rapidly developing international environment. International relations scholars
and academics have, of late, noted the diminished relevance of Westphalian principles, as states develop from
separate individuals to parts of a global entity, as a result of globalisation, global trade, and the creation of
global entities such as the United Nations that, to an extent, undermine state sovereignty (Lawson, 2017:5). It is
then, the conclusion of this author, that while states continue to act as agents in the field of international politics,
latter come about?
Saghaar Taghiyah Wright:
“Our object in the construction of the state is the greatest happiness of the whole, and not that of any one class,”
(Plato, 475:3). To discuss states in the context of international politics is to firstly, define them as the political
embodiment of the goals, ambitions, moral and ethical alignments of the people it represents, and secondly, as
well as most relevant to the content of this essay, recognise them as the primary actors within the environment
of international politics. If states exist as actors, then international politics is both the stage and the script, and to
understand one of these concepts, is to at least begin an understanding of the other. The primary concern of this
essay is to investigate if this connection extends to international politics and particularly, the Westphalian
theory of states, through a thorough exploration of the origins of the Westphalian state and its subsequent
effects upon the realm of international politics, with a secondary concern in further developing an understanding
of states, through a comparative analysis of the most popular conceptions of state (Weberian and Westphalian).
To proceed with the first aim of this essay, the Westphalian state, the system that it operates within (the modern
state system), as well as the theoretical attributes associated with both, are both named after, and created by, the
Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 (Stirk, 2015:3). This treaty came about as an end to the Thirty Years War, a war
of religion between the Catholics and the Protestants. As there was no clear victor, the ‘peace of Westphalia’
established jurisprudence that would be centered around avoidance of the conditions that lead to the Thirty
Years War, as well inadvertently creating the foundation of the modern international political system, a system
that dictated the practice of non-interference, personal sovereignty, and agency for nations, and sole power over
one's territory (Patton, 2019:2). To establish the link between this theory and the primary goal of this essay,
would be to emphasise that the conception of the Westphalian state (whose nuances will be explored further on
in this essay) in the Treaty of Westphalia, laid the framework for modern international diplomacy, was the first
attempt at codifying an international standard of practice for states to adhere to, and provided a basis on which
later international entities, such the United Nations or the European Union, to exist and interact with other
traditional states (Patton, 2019:3). Summarised?, the conception of the Westphalian state, was also the creation
of an international political system.
However, while the Westphalian state system certainly laid the groundwork for a version of international
politics, there exists much debate on whether said version of international politics can continually and
sustainably meet the needs of a rapidly developing international environment. International relations scholars
and academics have, of late, noted the diminished relevance of Westphalian principles, as states develop from
separate individuals to parts of a global entity, as a result of globalisation, global trade, and the creation of
global entities such as the United Nations that, to an extent, undermine state sovereignty (Lawson, 2017:5). It is
then, the conclusion of this author, that while states continue to act as agents in the field of international politics,
