Class 9: Global Governance in the Nineteenth Century
a) ‘Prehistory’: The ‘system of sovereign states’
Non-European polities participated in this European system on an unequal ground, they
were not sovereign states. But then decolonisation happens and they became independent,
still the system was based for a very long time on inequality and hierarchy.
Abstraction of 17th and 18th-century experience. Basic claim: IR happens within a realm
(there is no overarching authority to organize IR) of anarchy => a dynamic of power politics,
and security dilemmas, there is a self-help
After the fall of the Roman Empire (which was a historically huge political unit) there was a
‘patchwork of polities and political entities’. From the 17th and 18th centuries onwards you
see a gradual consolidation of larger territorial units with the ruler claiming sovereignty.
States claim ‘sovereignty’: larger political units developed: two dimensions:
- Internally: lesser rulers are subordinated to the central ruler and the central ruler
claims the monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. They sometimes created
crises themselves to solve themselves and to look more powerful
- Externally not only from within that you don’t accept interference in your affairs but
also from outside eg: the Catholic Church can interfere less and less
Two explanations for this increasing claim to external sovereignty
1) A religious divide had developed: Catholicism and Protestantism
2) Power hunger from the rulers
=> gradually the sovereign state develops in the sub-Roman empire
Treaties of Westphalia (1648)
= a pece congress for the end of the 30-years war (had begun as a conflict in the Holy Roman
Empire), was mainly a religious conflict, the war.
The principle of sovereignty became an international legal rule however this is somewhat
nonsensical because there is no motion of sovereignty in these texts, it does not mention it
+ they set out to organise relations in the Holy Roman Empire (not in Europa). It
acknowledges that the reformation had happened and that there are different forms of
religions and that each ruler could decide for themselves what the particular religion in his
territory was and that the Roman Church could not interfere. Peace of Ausburg in 1555
named this principle already for the first time.
Mythical status in IR scholarship – “Westphalian sovereignty” – cuius regio, eius religio =
who’s territory, his religion ("Wiens gebied, diens religie", gebruikt in de Treaties of
Westphalia)
1
, Fabio Chigi - papal nuntius (representative of the
pope)– in capacity (only) as a mediator: practical
negotiations about how to end the 30-years war. Chigi
could have also acted as an arbitrator which means he
would have had the authority to take conclusions, a
mediator only facilitates the negotiations. There were
no influences to the negotiations from his side.
During the war Richelieu was guided by raison d’état in the preceding Thirty Years’ War:
religious considerations should be of no considerations, and they should not motivate
foreign relations.
- no rules to temper the conflicts that arose between states: not true!
=> Informal rules developed and they do lead to tempering of conflicts between European
sovereign states:
- ‘Law of nations’ = set of ideas developed by jurists and were put into political treaties
and circulated through Europe. They were a point of reference and were taken into
consideration.
- ‘Lines of amity’ (Treaty of 1559) = there is a fundamental difference between what
happened in Europe and what happened in the Americas. If a conflict erupted among
European states on American territory this conflict would not be taken as a
breakdown of the amical relations between European states = mediation of conflict
- ‘Balance of Power’ (Treaty of Utrecht, 1713) = on the European continent no
hegemonic actor should be allowed to emerge, independence of states was crucial
and no state should become more powerful. A guideline for states foreign policy.
Most important informal rule! relatively even distribution of power between the
rulers.
- Shared aristocratic identity and, to a certain extent, interests (cf. marriage
diplomacy): goede relaties tussen de vorsten
Book about law of war and peace, written bij Hugonis Grotti.
Offers an early codification of when it was rightful to go to war
and how you ought to behave. A tool to constrain (beperken) war
(and facilitate colonialism)
2
, Two twin movements together that lead to the breakdown:
- Gradual de-legitimation of aristocratic culture and society (not yet a breakdown of
aristocratic identity!): The aristocratic bonds of transnational shared identity and
solidarity completely collapsed (also explains the outbreak of WW1) ⇒ cooperation
becomes way more difficult
- Gradual shifts in the distribution of power (more hegemonic powers)
=> French revolution => French Revolutionary Wars => Napoleonic War
‘Wars of the coalitions’
1) French revolutionary wars
- 1792-1797 ‘War of the First Coalition’: France declared war on Austria and
Prussia because they felt Austria and Prussia were putting pressure on them
and trying to direct the outcome of the French Revolution by stationing
troops on the border of France. Austria and Prussia did not want the French
king and queen would be deposed (afgezet); They made that official policy by
creating the Declaration of Pillnitz (1791) by saying to be careful, don’t take
the revolution too far. As a response, France declared war and defeated the
Austrians and the Prussians => radicalization of the French Revolution, the
French king was eventually decapitated
- 1798 ‘The War of the Second Coalition’: France decided to invade Egypt; for
the allies Austria and Prussia this was a good opportunity to take back some
of their country now that the French were in Egypt. The French won again
because the French army by this time had nationalized (= mass mobilization
from the people and more loyalty to the French state caused great successes
for the French) and the Austrian-Prussia didn’t yet.
- Austria and Russia (!) do declare war on France again together with the Brits.
France wins again.
- ‘The war of the Fourth Coalition’: Prussia declares war on France because
France is getting to be too powerful and is becoming hegemonic. The French
win again and expanded further.
2) Napoleonic wars
- 1808-1814 the Peninsular war (Spain and Portugal) with Napoleon already: France
invades the Iberian peninsula because Portugal refused to join the continental
system made by Napoleon in order to make trade between Britain and the European
continent impossible.=> war for national self-liberation of Spain and Portugal
- ‘The war of the Fifth Coalition’ 1809: When Austria unsuccessfully attacks France
- 1812 Invasion of Russia by France: it forced Russia to join the intercontinental
system, early failure of Napoleonic wars because winter sets in and the Russian put
up serious opposition => beginning of the end of the Napoleonic empire
3
a) ‘Prehistory’: The ‘system of sovereign states’
Non-European polities participated in this European system on an unequal ground, they
were not sovereign states. But then decolonisation happens and they became independent,
still the system was based for a very long time on inequality and hierarchy.
Abstraction of 17th and 18th-century experience. Basic claim: IR happens within a realm
(there is no overarching authority to organize IR) of anarchy => a dynamic of power politics,
and security dilemmas, there is a self-help
After the fall of the Roman Empire (which was a historically huge political unit) there was a
‘patchwork of polities and political entities’. From the 17th and 18th centuries onwards you
see a gradual consolidation of larger territorial units with the ruler claiming sovereignty.
States claim ‘sovereignty’: larger political units developed: two dimensions:
- Internally: lesser rulers are subordinated to the central ruler and the central ruler
claims the monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. They sometimes created
crises themselves to solve themselves and to look more powerful
- Externally not only from within that you don’t accept interference in your affairs but
also from outside eg: the Catholic Church can interfere less and less
Two explanations for this increasing claim to external sovereignty
1) A religious divide had developed: Catholicism and Protestantism
2) Power hunger from the rulers
=> gradually the sovereign state develops in the sub-Roman empire
Treaties of Westphalia (1648)
= a pece congress for the end of the 30-years war (had begun as a conflict in the Holy Roman
Empire), was mainly a religious conflict, the war.
The principle of sovereignty became an international legal rule however this is somewhat
nonsensical because there is no motion of sovereignty in these texts, it does not mention it
+ they set out to organise relations in the Holy Roman Empire (not in Europa). It
acknowledges that the reformation had happened and that there are different forms of
religions and that each ruler could decide for themselves what the particular religion in his
territory was and that the Roman Church could not interfere. Peace of Ausburg in 1555
named this principle already for the first time.
Mythical status in IR scholarship – “Westphalian sovereignty” – cuius regio, eius religio =
who’s territory, his religion ("Wiens gebied, diens religie", gebruikt in de Treaties of
Westphalia)
1
, Fabio Chigi - papal nuntius (representative of the
pope)– in capacity (only) as a mediator: practical
negotiations about how to end the 30-years war. Chigi
could have also acted as an arbitrator which means he
would have had the authority to take conclusions, a
mediator only facilitates the negotiations. There were
no influences to the negotiations from his side.
During the war Richelieu was guided by raison d’état in the preceding Thirty Years’ War:
religious considerations should be of no considerations, and they should not motivate
foreign relations.
- no rules to temper the conflicts that arose between states: not true!
=> Informal rules developed and they do lead to tempering of conflicts between European
sovereign states:
- ‘Law of nations’ = set of ideas developed by jurists and were put into political treaties
and circulated through Europe. They were a point of reference and were taken into
consideration.
- ‘Lines of amity’ (Treaty of 1559) = there is a fundamental difference between what
happened in Europe and what happened in the Americas. If a conflict erupted among
European states on American territory this conflict would not be taken as a
breakdown of the amical relations between European states = mediation of conflict
- ‘Balance of Power’ (Treaty of Utrecht, 1713) = on the European continent no
hegemonic actor should be allowed to emerge, independence of states was crucial
and no state should become more powerful. A guideline for states foreign policy.
Most important informal rule! relatively even distribution of power between the
rulers.
- Shared aristocratic identity and, to a certain extent, interests (cf. marriage
diplomacy): goede relaties tussen de vorsten
Book about law of war and peace, written bij Hugonis Grotti.
Offers an early codification of when it was rightful to go to war
and how you ought to behave. A tool to constrain (beperken) war
(and facilitate colonialism)
2
, Two twin movements together that lead to the breakdown:
- Gradual de-legitimation of aristocratic culture and society (not yet a breakdown of
aristocratic identity!): The aristocratic bonds of transnational shared identity and
solidarity completely collapsed (also explains the outbreak of WW1) ⇒ cooperation
becomes way more difficult
- Gradual shifts in the distribution of power (more hegemonic powers)
=> French revolution => French Revolutionary Wars => Napoleonic War
‘Wars of the coalitions’
1) French revolutionary wars
- 1792-1797 ‘War of the First Coalition’: France declared war on Austria and
Prussia because they felt Austria and Prussia were putting pressure on them
and trying to direct the outcome of the French Revolution by stationing
troops on the border of France. Austria and Prussia did not want the French
king and queen would be deposed (afgezet); They made that official policy by
creating the Declaration of Pillnitz (1791) by saying to be careful, don’t take
the revolution too far. As a response, France declared war and defeated the
Austrians and the Prussians => radicalization of the French Revolution, the
French king was eventually decapitated
- 1798 ‘The War of the Second Coalition’: France decided to invade Egypt; for
the allies Austria and Prussia this was a good opportunity to take back some
of their country now that the French were in Egypt. The French won again
because the French army by this time had nationalized (= mass mobilization
from the people and more loyalty to the French state caused great successes
for the French) and the Austrian-Prussia didn’t yet.
- Austria and Russia (!) do declare war on France again together with the Brits.
France wins again.
- ‘The war of the Fourth Coalition’: Prussia declares war on France because
France is getting to be too powerful and is becoming hegemonic. The French
win again and expanded further.
2) Napoleonic wars
- 1808-1814 the Peninsular war (Spain and Portugal) with Napoleon already: France
invades the Iberian peninsula because Portugal refused to join the continental
system made by Napoleon in order to make trade between Britain and the European
continent impossible.=> war for national self-liberation of Spain and Portugal
- ‘The war of the Fifth Coalition’ 1809: When Austria unsuccessfully attacks France
- 1812 Invasion of Russia by France: it forced Russia to join the intercontinental
system, early failure of Napoleonic wars because winter sets in and the Russian put
up serious opposition => beginning of the end of the Napoleonic empire
3
