Westphalianism And Post-westphalianism

[gaia.plateau]

I thought I'd start a "serious" discourse on a favourite topic of mine that I don't have enough opportunity to discuss in non-virtual forums, given the recent concentration on the site toward discourse more serious still concerning a certain supplier.

We live in a Post-Westphalian era, wherein sovereign states are the most important political units and officially are the only legitimate users of force. (See Weber). The topic of discussion is, should this, and will this status quo continue through the first half, or perhaps even the first quarter of the twenty-first century?

The two camps in this discussion, are Westphalian optimists and Westphalian pessimists. Optimists believe that states should and will continue to command the legitimate use of force, and thusly to determine the shape of the international order. Pessimists believe that this era is drawing to a close, and that other international actors like NGOs, the UN, IMIs, and IVOs are rapidly increasing in relevance and legitimacy, and that through regional integration they and other actors will take the place of states to the benefit of the world.

In this discussion I will take whichever side becomes underbalanced, which in this predominantly conservative forum I anticipate will be the more radical ideology of Westphalian pessimism.

Some questions that need to be answered...

- Is the international order currently one of collective security, or selective security?
- Is the international system one of co-operation, or is it still the Great Powers System that has existed since 1648? Does this need to change, and why or why not?
- Should Informal Violence Organizations like Al Qaeda be considered to have the legitimate use of force, given the growing popularity of this trend in the global South, and the growing scale of governmental corruption?
- Are there viable alternatives to the state system, and to states? What else could work?
- Which sort of system would be best for the environment?
- It is commonly argued that states often become the clients of International Monetary Institutions, and this is a major argument for a shift to another system. Is there a way, alternatively, to free states in both the North and the South, from this transnational serfdom?

That's all I can think of for now. If anyone has any "questions" to contribute I'll add them to the list.

Ready... set... aaand Discuss.

[HarryTheHookaMaster]

If you are asking is the States in the US are relevant in the 21st century I would have to say that YES they are. States, as a whole, will not go away or be absorbed into some internationalist run country...the Constitution stands in the way of that. The Constitution (sp?) stops the Government from screwing us over (yea right!) and gives the States power. It was written to stop an out of control Government from gaining too much power. In order to allow an Internationalist body, such as the UN, to control us then we will have to turn our backs on the Constitution.....and give up ALL the rights that we have left!

IMHO....I think the USA needs to stop screwing with the international community and start leaning to a more isolationist stance...

Just a thought or two...

[gaia.plateau]

A state is an internationally recognized territory containing a population and a formal government. The United States is a state, as are Germany, Pakistan, and New Zealand. I wasn't referring to the territories of the United States which are, in an example of misnomenclature, called states.

[ubernerd83]

A state is an internationally recognized territory containing a population and a formal government. The United States is a state, as are Germany, Pakistan, and New Zealand. I wasn't referring to the territories of the United States which are, in an example of misnomenclature, called states.

Usually the term States is used to refer to the different "provinces" in the United States to differentiate between the two.

(This random factoid brought to you by me still needing time to think about my reply to your original post.)

[TheScotsman]

With the movements toward globalization, and the follow-on of continental economic agreements I would say the individualism of each state is waining. I find the inevitable to be less than desirable.

Borders are becoming nothing more than an arbitrary line, whereupon you find yourself regulated by, or maybe oppressed by, definitely hassled by, a separate government.

The security gained is obviously selective, although there are many examples, let's just consider Darfur, Somalia, and Myanmar. We hear nothing, much less an outcry to stop the insanity there. (Although I am sure we have more than a few politicians here that would dearly love to see more boots stomping around another country.) The history of the UN's great handling of Bosnia was a great, shining example of "security". (And, why the UN is another dinosaur that needs to sink in the tar pit of it's own corruption, never to be seen again)

Any organization that has any first-tier ties to a terrorist related activity, or group can not be given legitimacy. Doing so does nothing but create another entity to deal with. Look at the Palistinians, and Hamas. Credence was given to a terroristic organization, and now we have 2 organizations claiming to be the legitimate authority. Where does it end? Terrorist organizations, by their very nature, seldom represent the majority of the populace. Granted, there are exceptions to the rule, but how would recognizing them as a part of a government be helpful?

Trade agreements seldom help all but the most, and least powerful of the group, the middle just gets shafted. Example, NAFTA Mexico will get low-wage jobs, but it's better than when they have now, USA will get Canada's resources, and Mexico's cheap labour, and Canada (IMHO the most beautiful wilderness in the world) will get torn up so some dullard in NYC can have a new ________ (fill in the blank with whatever). Now that is a real winning plan.

I think we need a 3rd camp. the camp of people believing the pessimists are hoping for too much... I belong there.

[ubernerd83]

Some questions that need to be answered...

- Is the international order currently one of collective security, or selective security?
- Is the international system one of co-operation, or is it still the Great Powers System that has existed since 1648? Does this need to change, and why or why not?
- Should Informal Violence Organizations like Al Qaeda be considered to have the legitimate use of force, given the growing popularity of this trend in the global South, and the growing scale of governmental corruption?
- Are there viable alternatives to the state system, and to states? What else could work?
- Which sort of system would be best for the environment?
- It is commonly argued that states often become the clients of International Monetary Institutions, and this is a major argument for a shift to another system. Is there a way, alternatively, to free states in both the North and the South, from this transnational serfdom?

That's all I can think of for now. If anyone has any "questions" to contribute I'll add them to the list.

Ready... set... aaand Discuss.

Alright...here goes:

First, what do you mean by the terms "collective security" and "selective security"? I may just be slightly dense here (although most of my college training focused on comparative and American politics rather than international politics and foreign policy). Pending an answer, I guess I'll answer this question later.

As far as the current state of the international system goes, I would say that it is neither the Great Powers system (or anything like it), nor is it one of true cooperation. Keeping in mind that no model can completely account for all the details (political science is so messy), I would say that the international system is dominated by a single power. And now to bring in a fancy word: hegemony. Who is the hegemon? The US, of course! The best evidence that this is the case is the lack of support in the international community for the most recent invasion of Iraq, which was accompanied by no consequences for the United States from the international community. It remains to be seen how long this hegemonic system will last, or even how long the US will remain the hegemon (hellllOOOOOOOO China).

When it is replaced, however, it will likely be replaced by something consisting mainly of of supernational, regional organizations like the EU. It's possible that the seeds or large regional government have been laid by free trade agreements like NAFTA (just think about the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas) and AFTA (ASEAN Free Trade Area). It's possible that this trend will eventually go even further, and we'll end up with one world government in order to facilitate the free flow of trade. Whether or not this would be a good thing is up for debate, although my inclination is that it is a bad thing the more power becomes disconnected and distanced from the people.

Those are some preliminary thoughts; your others require more thought and remembering of information from classes I took five years ago.

[gaia.plateau]

The security gained is obviously selective, although there are many examples, let's just consider Darfur, Somalia, and Myanmar. We hear nothing, much less an outcry to stop the insanity there. (Although I am sure we have more than a few politicians here that would dearly love to see more boots stomping around another country.) The history of the UN's great handling of Bosnia was a great, shining example of "security". (And, why the UN is another dinosaur that needs to sink in the tar pit of it's own corruption, never to be seen again)

The major trouble with Darfur and Burma is in the colonial roots of conflict, and the regimes left in charge when the Brits left.

I don't know if we can call the UN as an institution corrupt... but it's been broken since day one, and while the P5SC system may provide some assurance against aggressors from outside their little circle, it only reinforces the ability of the current Great Powers to stomp across the Global South at their leisure.

Look at the Palistinians, and Hamas. Credence was given to a terroristic organization, and now we have 2 organizations claiming to be the legitimate authority. Where does it end? Terrorist organizations, by their very nature, seldom represent the majority of the populace. Granted, there are exceptions to the rule, but how would recognizing them as a part of a government be helpful?

Don't forget Hezbollah. Or The Taliban. Or Al Qaeda for that matter, as many civilians in the Muslim world are giving a lot of legitimacy to them since the beginning of the Iraq War.

I'll try to find an article for this later... but here is a good example of IVO legitimation. In Jamaica, the official government has become so intensely and intrinsically corrupt that the people have turned to gangs for protection, and even tasks like water and electrical services. They pax tax to the gangs and they give them security. I wouldn't be surprised at all if we see the exact same thing happen all over the Middle East with Al Qaeda after US forces pull out, to curb the massive bloodbath that is most definitely going to occur.

I think we need a 3rd camp. the camp of people believing the pessimists are hoping for too much... I belong there.

I'm basically in the same boat as you. There is a constant war between my cynicism and my idealism in my mind, but I try to give more ammunition to the idealists for two reasons... I think it's more constructive and useful to the world... and the cynics have much more ammo coming in from the outside. Edited January 20, 2008 by gaia.plateau