History of international relations
Hoofdstuk 1: The Founding Myth of Westphalia (1648- )
1. The significance of Westphalia
1.1 The Treaties of Osnabrück and Münster = peace of Westphalia
• Münster: The Netherlands officially became independent from Spain.
• They ended two major wars: the Thirty Years’ War (in the Holy Roman Empire) and the
Eighty Years’ War (between Spain and the Netherlands).
• They redefined the structure of the Holy Roman Empire, granting more autonomy to
its member states.
• Europe after Westphalia treaty
1° Territorial changes:
• The United Provinces (the Netherlands) became an independent state.
• Belgium (the Southern Netherlands) remained under Spanish rule.
• Sweden gained territories in Northern Germany.
• Overall, the treaties marked the end of major European wars.
2° Political organization of the red area on the map – the Holy Roman Empire:
• The Holy Roman Empire consisted of many semi-independent states.
• Austria, led by the Habsburgs, tried to unify the Empire but failed.
• Austrian Habsburg dynasty had aimed to centralize power within the Holy Roman
Empire, but their defeat in the Thirty Years’ War prevented them from doing so.
• The victorious powers imposed changes in the political structure of the Empire
that ensured it remained decentralized.
• The many composite states (around 350–400) were guaranteed the right to levy
taxes and conduct diplomacy independently.
• The Empire remained decentralized, with local princes holding power.
• As a result, the political power of the Empire weakened.
• Spain was still relatively powerful at the time.
• The Habsburgs’ goal was to create a universal monarchy in Europe — a form of
European and dynastic unity — but this did not succeed.
• The Habsburg ambition for a universal empire in Europe was therefore decisively defeated.
1.2 Westphalia: the emergence of the sovereign state and birth of IR
• “The Treaty of Westphalia made the territorial state the cornerstone of the modern state
system” (Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations 1948: 294).
• Europe remained disunited into sovereign states: the ‘international’ was born.
• Sovereignty was consecrated as the dominant principle of international order. The
world became divided into sovereign (and nominally equal) states, each with ultimate
authority over its own territory.
• According to IR scholars (e.g., Hans Morgenthau), this marked the foundation of the
modern discipline of International Relations.
• Before Westphalia, the medieval European order was composed of overlapping
authorities and jurisdictions — particularly the Catholic Church and the Holy Roman
Empire, both of which had universal claims to rule. Sovereignty was impossible under
such a hierarchical order, because it conflicted with a universal authority.
1.3 “International Relations”: what does it mean?
• Absence of monopoly on legitimate violence
- “Max Weber defined the state by the monopoly of legitimate violence. Let us say that
international society is characterized by the absence of an authority that holds the
, monopoly of legitimate violence.” (Raymond Aron, Peace and War: A theory of
International Relations, 1962: p.42)
- Example of hierarchy: If the Catholic Church or the Holy Roman Emperor can tell
you what to do ⇒ this is hierarchy. In such a case, the state is not fully sovereign but
subordinate.
- Sovereignty: Means that a state holds ultimate authority over its own territory.
If every state is sovereign ⇒ this leads to anarchy in the international system.
- Anarchy: There is no authority with the monopoly of legitimate violence.
Ultimate political power is distributed among territorial units.
This is what people refer to as the ‘international’ as opposed to the ‘domestic’.
• Anarchy ≠ Hierarchy
- “Hierarchic elements within international structures limit and restrain the exercise
of sovereignty but only in ways conditioned by the anarchy of the larger system.”
(Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics, 1979: 115-116)
• What does this mean for International Relations?
- Core assumption: politics under hierarchy is fundamentally different from politics
under anarchy.
- Hierarchy: an authority to which everyone owes obedience.
- Anarchy: in the political sense, the absence of a central authority.
- The difference between domestic and international politics lies in the difference
between hierarchy and anarchy.
- Sovereignty was born partly out of attempts to unify Europe.
➔ The Treaty of Westphalia is considered to have instated sovereignty & anarchy among
European states, and laid the foundations of the international system that would eventually
spread to the entire world
2. The Limits of Westphalia
2.1 Limit 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’s only in the 20th century that “Westphalia”
started to be talked about as a foundational moment (see Phillips 2023, p.546-547,
Chapter 37 of the Textbook).
• It is difficult to designate a ‘year 0’ as change tends to be incremental.
• People involved in the negotiations of Westphalia did not perceive themselves to be
‘inventing sovereignty’.
• The word ‘sovereignty’ is not even mentioned in the Treaties.
It is arbitrary to say that Westphalia was more important than other Treaties such as
Augsburg (1555) or Utrecht (1713)
• Many important features of diplomacy, balance of power etc. can even be dated
back to the city-states of Renaissance Italy.
• It is not self-evident why the Treaty of Westphalia is more important than Utrecht
(1713) or Augsburg (1555).
Both the Holy Roman Empire and the Habsburg Empire survived Westphalia. The
triumph of the sovereign state model in European politics was far from obvious
(more on this in Session 2!)
• Many of the pre-modern features of European politics, notably the role of dynastic
rights, remained intact after Westphalia.
, • European states in 1648 were still very far from being nation-states as we know them today.
2.2 Limit 2)The myth of Westphalia is Eurocentric and Europe does not matter as much as
people claim
• Europe is not that important; China and India were much bigger powers at the time.
• At the time, the international order was very different from Europe’s — a tribute system.
o The tribute system was based on hierarchy, not on anarchy.
o There was no balance of power.
o China was considered the center of the world.
• The core assumption of Westphalia is that the current international system was invented
in Europe and spread outwards.
• The academic convention in IR is still to consider that we live in the international system
created in Early Modern Europe. This is, for example, apparent when you look at a
chronological list of Great Powers.
• European origins of the international system are partially true: contemporary legal
norms such as sovereignty and bordering practices first appeared in Europe.
• However, this interpretation is teleological — it implies Europe’s history was always
destined to be central.
• In reality, Europe’s global dominance lasted only a relatively brief period in the 19th and
20th centuries.
• GDP evidence shows that for most of history, Europe’s share of world GDP was smaller
than that of regions such as China and India.
• In 1648, European states were overshadowed by empires such as the Qing Empire
(China) and the Mughal Empire (India).
➢ Both had populations larger than all European great powers combined and
comparable economic development.
➢ Yet they are rarely treated as central actors in world politics.
• In East Asia, 1648 did not mark a move toward sovereignty. The China-centered tribute
system (hierarchical order) persisted for centuries afterwards.
• A possible reason why Westphalia remains emphasized is that, in 2025, international
order-making is still shaped by ‘European’ or ‘Western’ practices (e.g., ambassadors,
borders, international law, sovereignty), whereas arrangements like the tribute system
have disappeared.
2.3 Limit 3)Many important events of European history didnt take place in the European
continent
• A possible alternative to Westphalia: the Treaty of Tordesillas (1494)
o It represents an earlier significant moment in the development of the
international order, showing that important changes in political order happened
before Westphalia and often outside Europe.
o It divided the non-European world between Spain and Portugal through a clearly
defined line, challenging the idea that Westphalia was the unique “year zero” of
modern international order.
• Pre-Modern vs Modern conceptions of Territory…
- “The County of Hawenstein, the Black Forest, the Upper and Lower Brisgaw, and the
Towns situate therein, appertaining of Antient Right to the House of Austria, viz.
Neuburg, Friburg, Edingen, Kenzingen, Waldkirch, Willingen, Bruenlingen, with all
their Territorys; as also, the Monasterys, Abbys, Prelacys, Deaconrys, Knight-Fees,
Commanderships, with all their Bayliwicks, Baronys, Castles, Fortresses, Countys,
, Barons, Nobles, Vassals, Men, Subjects, Rivers, Brooks, Forests, Woods, and all the
Regales, Rights, Jurisdictions, Fiefs and Patronages, and all other things belonging to
the Sovereign Right of Territory, and to the Patrimony of the House of Austria, in all
that Country.” (Article LXXXVIII, Treaty of Münster 1648).
- “…they, their said representatives, acting in their name and by virtue of their powers
herein described, covenanted and agreed that a boundary or straight line be
determined and drawn north and south, from pole to pole, on the said ocean sea,
from the Arctic to the Antarctic pole. This boundary or line shall be drawn straight,
as aforesaid, at a distance of three hundred and seventy leagues west of the Cape
Verde Islands… And all lands, both islands and mainlands… on the eastern side of
the said bound… shall belong to… the said King of Portugal… And all other lands… on
the western side… shall belong to… the said King and Queen of Castile…” (Article I,
Treaty of Tordesillas 1494)
Pre-modern territory:
- Authority gradually spread from a center.
- Borders were often fluid, depending on influence, culture, or feudal rights.
- It was a continuum, not a strict separation: you went from "increased influence of
one power" to "increased influence of another" in an area.
- Think of how medieval kingdoms worked: no rigid lines like on a modern map
Modern territory:
- The idea of absolute separation of territories via clear boundaries (e.g., a line on a map).
- This is what we consider "national borders" today.
- The Treaty of Tordesillas (1494) is a key example: Spain and Portugal drew a clear
line on the world map to determine who could claim which territory.
• Many of the most important practices, or concepts that are considered to be European
have been invented by Europeans outside of Europe. They were imported to Europe later…
o As a particularly salient example: look at how modern territoriality was invented.
o Modern territoriality can be understood as the practice of considering that two
territorial units are placed in a state of absolute separation through an abstract
geometric principle (a border).
o Before this, authority was considered to be diffusing outwards from a centre in a
gradual manner. It is not a binary distinction where one steps from being 100% in
Belgium into being 100% in the Netherlands but an incremental shift as the
respective influences of Brussels and The Hague fade away.
o This way of drawing borders was not born in Westphalia (1648) but in Tordesillas (1494).
o It applied not to Europe but to the extra-European possessions of Spain and Portugal.
o In Europe, pre-modern practices of designating territory remained intact well
after Westphalia where territories were designated by features of human and
cultural geography rather than their latitude and longitude on a map.
Hoofdstuk 2: The Struggle for Power in Early Modern Europe (1500-1750)
1. The Protagonists
(1) The Habsburg Dynasty
In 1519, Charles 5th inherited territorial possessions from both his father’s (Austrian
Habsburgs) and mother’s (Spanish Habsburgs) sides. Vast dynastic possessions across
Europe and in the Americas. Moreover, he was Holy Roman Emperor.
With Charles Vth, Habsburgs ambitioned a universal monarchy that could dominate Europe.
Hoofdstuk 1: The Founding Myth of Westphalia (1648- )
1. The significance of Westphalia
1.1 The Treaties of Osnabrück and Münster = peace of Westphalia
• Münster: The Netherlands officially became independent from Spain.
• They ended two major wars: the Thirty Years’ War (in the Holy Roman Empire) and the
Eighty Years’ War (between Spain and the Netherlands).
• They redefined the structure of the Holy Roman Empire, granting more autonomy to
its member states.
• Europe after Westphalia treaty
1° Territorial changes:
• The United Provinces (the Netherlands) became an independent state.
• Belgium (the Southern Netherlands) remained under Spanish rule.
• Sweden gained territories in Northern Germany.
• Overall, the treaties marked the end of major European wars.
2° Political organization of the red area on the map – the Holy Roman Empire:
• The Holy Roman Empire consisted of many semi-independent states.
• Austria, led by the Habsburgs, tried to unify the Empire but failed.
• Austrian Habsburg dynasty had aimed to centralize power within the Holy Roman
Empire, but their defeat in the Thirty Years’ War prevented them from doing so.
• The victorious powers imposed changes in the political structure of the Empire
that ensured it remained decentralized.
• The many composite states (around 350–400) were guaranteed the right to levy
taxes and conduct diplomacy independently.
• The Empire remained decentralized, with local princes holding power.
• As a result, the political power of the Empire weakened.
• Spain was still relatively powerful at the time.
• The Habsburgs’ goal was to create a universal monarchy in Europe — a form of
European and dynastic unity — but this did not succeed.
• The Habsburg ambition for a universal empire in Europe was therefore decisively defeated.
1.2 Westphalia: the emergence of the sovereign state and birth of IR
• “The Treaty of Westphalia made the territorial state the cornerstone of the modern state
system” (Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations 1948: 294).
• Europe remained disunited into sovereign states: the ‘international’ was born.
• Sovereignty was consecrated as the dominant principle of international order. The
world became divided into sovereign (and nominally equal) states, each with ultimate
authority over its own territory.
• According to IR scholars (e.g., Hans Morgenthau), this marked the foundation of the
modern discipline of International Relations.
• Before Westphalia, the medieval European order was composed of overlapping
authorities and jurisdictions — particularly the Catholic Church and the Holy Roman
Empire, both of which had universal claims to rule. Sovereignty was impossible under
such a hierarchical order, because it conflicted with a universal authority.
1.3 “International Relations”: what does it mean?
• Absence of monopoly on legitimate violence
- “Max Weber defined the state by the monopoly of legitimate violence. Let us say that
international society is characterized by the absence of an authority that holds the
, monopoly of legitimate violence.” (Raymond Aron, Peace and War: A theory of
International Relations, 1962: p.42)
- Example of hierarchy: If the Catholic Church or the Holy Roman Emperor can tell
you what to do ⇒ this is hierarchy. In such a case, the state is not fully sovereign but
subordinate.
- Sovereignty: Means that a state holds ultimate authority over its own territory.
If every state is sovereign ⇒ this leads to anarchy in the international system.
- Anarchy: There is no authority with the monopoly of legitimate violence.
Ultimate political power is distributed among territorial units.
This is what people refer to as the ‘international’ as opposed to the ‘domestic’.
• Anarchy ≠ Hierarchy
- “Hierarchic elements within international structures limit and restrain the exercise
of sovereignty but only in ways conditioned by the anarchy of the larger system.”
(Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics, 1979: 115-116)
• What does this mean for International Relations?
- Core assumption: politics under hierarchy is fundamentally different from politics
under anarchy.
- Hierarchy: an authority to which everyone owes obedience.
- Anarchy: in the political sense, the absence of a central authority.
- The difference between domestic and international politics lies in the difference
between hierarchy and anarchy.
- Sovereignty was born partly out of attempts to unify Europe.
➔ The Treaty of Westphalia is considered to have instated sovereignty & anarchy among
European states, and laid the foundations of the international system that would eventually
spread to the entire world
2. The Limits of Westphalia
2.1 Limit 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’s only in the 20th century that “Westphalia”
started to be talked about as a foundational moment (see Phillips 2023, p.546-547,
Chapter 37 of the Textbook).
• It is difficult to designate a ‘year 0’ as change tends to be incremental.
• People involved in the negotiations of Westphalia did not perceive themselves to be
‘inventing sovereignty’.
• The word ‘sovereignty’ is not even mentioned in the Treaties.
It is arbitrary to say that Westphalia was more important than other Treaties such as
Augsburg (1555) or Utrecht (1713)
• Many important features of diplomacy, balance of power etc. can even be dated
back to the city-states of Renaissance Italy.
• It is not self-evident why the Treaty of Westphalia is more important than Utrecht
(1713) or Augsburg (1555).
Both the Holy Roman Empire and the Habsburg Empire survived Westphalia. The
triumph of the sovereign state model in European politics was far from obvious
(more on this in Session 2!)
• Many of the pre-modern features of European politics, notably the role of dynastic
rights, remained intact after Westphalia.
, • European states in 1648 were still very far from being nation-states as we know them today.
2.2 Limit 2)The myth of Westphalia is Eurocentric and Europe does not matter as much as
people claim
• Europe is not that important; China and India were much bigger powers at the time.
• At the time, the international order was very different from Europe’s — a tribute system.
o The tribute system was based on hierarchy, not on anarchy.
o There was no balance of power.
o China was considered the center of the world.
• The core assumption of Westphalia is that the current international system was invented
in Europe and spread outwards.
• The academic convention in IR is still to consider that we live in the international system
created in Early Modern Europe. This is, for example, apparent when you look at a
chronological list of Great Powers.
• European origins of the international system are partially true: contemporary legal
norms such as sovereignty and bordering practices first appeared in Europe.
• However, this interpretation is teleological — it implies Europe’s history was always
destined to be central.
• In reality, Europe’s global dominance lasted only a relatively brief period in the 19th and
20th centuries.
• GDP evidence shows that for most of history, Europe’s share of world GDP was smaller
than that of regions such as China and India.
• In 1648, European states were overshadowed by empires such as the Qing Empire
(China) and the Mughal Empire (India).
➢ Both had populations larger than all European great powers combined and
comparable economic development.
➢ Yet they are rarely treated as central actors in world politics.
• In East Asia, 1648 did not mark a move toward sovereignty. The China-centered tribute
system (hierarchical order) persisted for centuries afterwards.
• A possible reason why Westphalia remains emphasized is that, in 2025, international
order-making is still shaped by ‘European’ or ‘Western’ practices (e.g., ambassadors,
borders, international law, sovereignty), whereas arrangements like the tribute system
have disappeared.
2.3 Limit 3)Many important events of European history didnt take place in the European
continent
• A possible alternative to Westphalia: the Treaty of Tordesillas (1494)
o It represents an earlier significant moment in the development of the
international order, showing that important changes in political order happened
before Westphalia and often outside Europe.
o It divided the non-European world between Spain and Portugal through a clearly
defined line, challenging the idea that Westphalia was the unique “year zero” of
modern international order.
• Pre-Modern vs Modern conceptions of Territory…
- “The County of Hawenstein, the Black Forest, the Upper and Lower Brisgaw, and the
Towns situate therein, appertaining of Antient Right to the House of Austria, viz.
Neuburg, Friburg, Edingen, Kenzingen, Waldkirch, Willingen, Bruenlingen, with all
their Territorys; as also, the Monasterys, Abbys, Prelacys, Deaconrys, Knight-Fees,
Commanderships, with all their Bayliwicks, Baronys, Castles, Fortresses, Countys,
, Barons, Nobles, Vassals, Men, Subjects, Rivers, Brooks, Forests, Woods, and all the
Regales, Rights, Jurisdictions, Fiefs and Patronages, and all other things belonging to
the Sovereign Right of Territory, and to the Patrimony of the House of Austria, in all
that Country.” (Article LXXXVIII, Treaty of Münster 1648).
- “…they, their said representatives, acting in their name and by virtue of their powers
herein described, covenanted and agreed that a boundary or straight line be
determined and drawn north and south, from pole to pole, on the said ocean sea,
from the Arctic to the Antarctic pole. This boundary or line shall be drawn straight,
as aforesaid, at a distance of three hundred and seventy leagues west of the Cape
Verde Islands… And all lands, both islands and mainlands… on the eastern side of
the said bound… shall belong to… the said King of Portugal… And all other lands… on
the western side… shall belong to… the said King and Queen of Castile…” (Article I,
Treaty of Tordesillas 1494)
Pre-modern territory:
- Authority gradually spread from a center.
- Borders were often fluid, depending on influence, culture, or feudal rights.
- It was a continuum, not a strict separation: you went from "increased influence of
one power" to "increased influence of another" in an area.
- Think of how medieval kingdoms worked: no rigid lines like on a modern map
Modern territory:
- The idea of absolute separation of territories via clear boundaries (e.g., a line on a map).
- This is what we consider "national borders" today.
- The Treaty of Tordesillas (1494) is a key example: Spain and Portugal drew a clear
line on the world map to determine who could claim which territory.
• Many of the most important practices, or concepts that are considered to be European
have been invented by Europeans outside of Europe. They were imported to Europe later…
o As a particularly salient example: look at how modern territoriality was invented.
o Modern territoriality can be understood as the practice of considering that two
territorial units are placed in a state of absolute separation through an abstract
geometric principle (a border).
o Before this, authority was considered to be diffusing outwards from a centre in a
gradual manner. It is not a binary distinction where one steps from being 100% in
Belgium into being 100% in the Netherlands but an incremental shift as the
respective influences of Brussels and The Hague fade away.
o This way of drawing borders was not born in Westphalia (1648) but in Tordesillas (1494).
o It applied not to Europe but to the extra-European possessions of Spain and Portugal.
o In Europe, pre-modern practices of designating territory remained intact well
after Westphalia where territories were designated by features of human and
cultural geography rather than their latitude and longitude on a map.
Hoofdstuk 2: The Struggle for Power in Early Modern Europe (1500-1750)
1. The Protagonists
(1) The Habsburg Dynasty
In 1519, Charles 5th inherited territorial possessions from both his father’s (Austrian
Habsburgs) and mother’s (Spanish Habsburgs) sides. Vast dynastic possessions across
Europe and in the Americas. Moreover, he was Holy Roman Emperor.
With Charles Vth, Habsburgs ambitioned a universal monarchy that could dominate Europe.
