The Problems with Westphalian Nation-State System
We all associate ourselves with various identities such as Indians, Chinese, Pakistani, Americans, Canadians, French, British and much more. Why do you think we all associate with all these more? Are there any other identities which people associate with?
The identities which I mentioned before are relatively new compared to other identities such as religion, language, caste, and various other identities. It is not to say that people never had such feelings towards nations or the state. But the idea of loyalty and love for the motherland was very important which offset various other identities. The question we are arriving at is what is the motherland, who made and how it formed.
What we refer to today as a Nation or Country refers to what we know in political science as a Nation-State. Today almost all the countries we know are categorised Nation-States and some even as State-Nations. International Relations and Political Science suggest that states are the most important actors in the system. State-centrism continues to dominate the field despite the deviation from several traditional state-centric ideas.
%5B1%5D.jpg) |
| Meeting at Westphalia |
But what is a state?
The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933), Article 1 describes the state as a
- Well Defined Territory with Fixed Borders
- Permanent Population
- A Government/Sovereignty
- International Recognition/Ability to enter in foreign relations
Only the entities that satisfy these four conditions are deemed as states per International law. As per the UN Charter of 1945, all states enjoy sovereign equality where all states irrespective of their political system, size, geography, population, economy etc. It also calls for states to self-defend and the right to use force against any threats challenging them.
Did the State Model start recently? Not really.
The History and Evolution of the Nation-State Model
The current political system saw its start in 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia. It basically brought an end to the Thirty Years' War in Europe. The peace talks ended in territorial settlements between various European empires. The talks were held in the towns of Munster and Osnabruck in the region of Westphalia giving the name- Treaty of Westphalia. The Treaty provided full sovereignty to all the member states of the Holy Roman Empire. This was the first time sovereignty was understood as in the current scenario.
In the 1815, Congress of Vienna, as per the Final Act only 39 states were considered Sovereign States in Europe. Additionally, this system wasn't properly followed. The massive movement of New Colonialism had ravaged Africa, Asia, America etc. It was only in the early 20th century that the US entered the picture and started to enforce rules for the current Global Order.
What is the Current Global Order?
Global Order refers to how the power in the international system is arranged to bring a sense of stability. The US started from the end of World War II supports what we know as the "Rules Based World Order" also nicknamed the "Liberal World Order". Who makes the rules? As per the theorists and proponents of the same, they believe that International Organisations will enforce International laws which will restrict the behaviour of "states". This largely benefited the states during the Cold War.
But ever since the end of the Cold War, the US and its allies unilaterally declared victory of the world order. This led to the US taking charge of being the enforcer of these laws not exactly the international organisations. In common man's terms, the US acted as the policeman of the world. The US never actually followed these laws, but it preached them around the world. The 1990s decade saw the US overpowering the world system. This angered several countries mainly those who aspired once to be great powers such as Russia and China. In 1996, both countries pledged to a multipolar power and decided to challenge the US-led World Order. International organisations have become toothless and tokens. International law is being disrespected everywhere and the countries hold no shame in violating them anymore.
Today there are more countries on the list than Russia and China. The anger against the US-led World Order is real. There are also clear-cut reports that show that US influence in the world may be dropping. The Axis of Resistance- An Axis of States that disrespect them is emerging. The policies of several 21st Century Presidents have also forced the US to start a new trajectory of isolationism. Russian invasion of Ukraine, the updates in the Middle East and lastly a prospective annexation of Taiwan shows how volatile the world order is. All this indicates a strong backlash against the Rules-based World Order.
How is the World Order and Westphalian System connected?- A Fractured Structure
The Axis of Resistance collectively called for Russia, North Korea and Iran backed by China has consistently disrespect sovereign equality. They have continuously brought chaos into their neighbourhood- South Korea, Japan, Ukraine, Georgia, Moldovia, Taiwan, India, Lebanon, Iraq etc. States are continuously being challenged on their borders, territory and sovereignty. Hence, what is the point of the system then?
Even if all these can be ignored, let's come to states which satisfy three conditions except international Recognition, such as Taiwan. The entire system is unfair to it. Similar is the situation with Palestine, whose territory is not well defined and has consistently been taken away as settlements. Also, a handful of Western countries by not recognising its existence are undermining the system. Today are tons of Territorial Disputes and Border Issues among the countries. These are more prevalent in the countries of Asia and Africa which have Colonial borders. Guess who made these boundaries? The Colonial Powers who themselves made linguistic Nation-States in Europe. The cross-ethnic communities in Asia were divided between Colonial borders perpetuating these conflicts.
International Law- A Wierd Concept
There are various interpretations of International Law but the most important one is being is that is only a soft law. Despite that International Law works as a consent-based law where those countries who choose to follow it can do so. But the question should be, who will be enforcing these laws? This is where the execution becomes tough and very hard to hold states accountable. Even international human rights norms, regulations and laws become tough to implement. States especially the powerful ones can escape from those consequences.
Inequalities in the System
As already mentioned above, sovereign equality is an extremely crystalised principle in International Law but how is enforced? Powerful and superior countries always try to evade these. Also, any country today aspires to be powerful and wants a UNSC seat but for what? To also evade the same set of rules and do the same thing to powerless countries. See the countless examples of Syria, Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Serbia, Bosnia, etc. where rule enforcers took charge but they themselves violated them countless times. So, is the system benefiting those who made the rules unfairly? No wonder why there are countries who are trying to overturn the system. Those countries who established ICC themselves don't want to follow the orders of it. The US supports UNCLOS but hasn't ratified it.
Sub Nationalism
This is a historic cum colonial product in several countries today. The majority of the countries are heterogeneous and diverse. In some, it has been a pleasant experience and while in others it hasn't been. European countries who actively pursued are largely homogeneous and have a single ethnic identity. With few outlier exceptions such as Luxembourg, Belgium and Switzerland. The same idea when adopted by the other countries for their building gave rise to majority-minority issues. This is where the ideas of sub-nationalism, separatism, and regional autonomy come from. Kurdistan, Tibet, Xinjiang, Balochistan, Karagal-Paxtan, Chechnya, Kashmir etc. all show this symptom. Apart from that there are several communities across the world, such as Pashtuns, Balochis, Rohingyas, and Kurds, who have called for their own self-determination but this hasn't been possible.
Rise of New Actors
The contemporary political scenario has many more actors in the system other than individuals and nation-states. MNCs, NGOs, and Non-State Actors dominate the picture. MNCs both private and public have much more power than small states today. Non-state actors such as Rebels in Syria, and Libya control large parts of territory. Taliban controls Afghanistan now. The Gaza Strip is controlled by Hamas. Mohammad Younis claims to own an advisor post to the Government but as an advisor to whom? NGOs such as Amnesty International Human Rights Watch are extremely powerful and relevant to protect people's rights. Companies and Corporations such as Apple, Google, Amazon, Meta, Aramco, Sinopec, Huawei, etc. hold massive economic and political clout backed by State actors. Iran has its own non-state actor proxies. So are states as powerful as they used to be or do other actors are equally or more relevant part of politics?
Global Issues and Global Solutions
What is common here in COVID-19, Climate Change, Science and Technology, Trade etc.? It is that these are global issues, these issues aren't restricted to any country or restrict any national boundaries. These matters are considered as part of Global Goverance. There are only two ways to solve the issue: either leave it up to international organisations and NGOs or ask all the nation-states to collaborate. If the first group does something it will be deemed as an infringement on the state sovereignty. Although International Law is a consent-based concept, states selectively choose what they follow or not based on their political preference.
Globalisation has changed the way we live, we use Chinese phones, and Japanese cars, wear Indian dresses, use American Social Media, etc. There is nothing currently which is monopoly of only one country.
Rights Affecting Individuals- Liberty At Question?
As per the earliest thinkers of Liberalism, the State was formed through a Social Contract between the people and the in turn surrender of a few of their liberties. By nature, the state is expansive and that is why liberals and libertarians used to call for a minimal state. They believe that the state will restrict people's rights and liberties which is why the state shouldn't be allowed to expand its powers. Modern liberals instead believe that government can change people's lives and hence the state should be allowed to assist people to improve their lives.
NATO Secretary-General Javier Solana stated that “humanity and democracy [were] two principles that [were] essentially irrelevant to the original Westphalian order.” He also levelled the criticism that the original Westphalian order did not adequately account for human rights and democracy.
This can be seen in how, in various countries across the world, there are restrictions on rights and liberties. Most states today are well-reputed for bad human rights records whether it be persecution, lack of facilities, poor living standards, genocide and much more. Who holds them accountable? None. There is no freedom of speech, dissent, free press and much more. Everything can be turned down in the name of "National Security and Sovereignty". Even if they are unhappy they can leave but there will be consequences, restrictions and barriers at both exit and entrance. Citizenship forces you call be too loyal to the country you are a citizen of. In turn, the state can also hold you accountable for anything and everything. From there your identity is closely linked with your citizenship for life.
For example, if you are an Indian who went to the USA to settle there for the rest of your life, you will be called an Indian-American. All upcoming generations will also known as Indian Americans despite the fact that the only thing which differentiates them from other Americans is their skin colour. Automatically the way the state and others view you also changes. Take the case of Blacks in the USA who didn't even have basic rights until 1964, due to their skin colour. As always it is usually the minorities that face all the brunt.
Now, the state can decide what you eat, how you live, what to buy, what you watch, what you read and much more. Your liberties may be restricted for genuine or ingenuine reasons just because you were unluckily in this part of the world. As Jean Jacques Rousseau said- “Man was born free, and everywhere he is in chains”.
If all the states across the world are the same, then why do people live differently in different parts of the world.
Issue of Statelessness
We are all thankful that we have a nationality and citizenship, but that doesn't mean everyone has the luxury of the same. Usually, you have the Nationality of your Parents or you have the Nationality of the country you are born into. While there are other sets of people who have no privilege of possessing a nationality, it also takes away their natural rights as well. Rohingyas are the biggest example of Stateless people in the world currently.
Freedom of Movement and Immigration
The most important characteristic of a human being is to walk freely and move anywhere. That is exactly how the human civilisation evolved. Evidence? Silk Route, Maritime Trade Routes, Cross-cultural ties and much more. This was also one of the main methods to protect from climate and weather changes. Most of the communities today were actually nomads. There were no boundaries, borders, VISA, passports etc. Magellan, Colombus, Thomas Cook, and Vasco-Da-Gama didn't carry any VISA or a passport or Citizenship.
Ever since the Westphalian System became the norm, countries found it convenient to take control of a given population by restricting them to borders. This was a method used for nationalist and political reasons. Additionally, the idea of sovereignty for a state cannot be realised without a permanent or fixed population.
If you want to travel outside today, you need documents- VISA, Passport, NOC, other ID cards, Bank account details and much more. VISA also requires hefty fees. Countries can impose restrictions on immigration/emmigration citing national security issues, demography issues, economic issues and much more. Whatever you want to carry with you, whom you want to travel with etc. can also be controlled. When you land, you are subject to restrictions. It will take you years and money to get a PR and several more years to get citizenship. If you violate your VISA rules, you can be deported or even barred from entering the country.
Additionally, if you cross illegally, you will continue to be treated as a second-class alien without any protection according to domestic and international law. Those who flee their countries due to war, politics, social issues and climate change are known as refugees. What else do we expect them to do?
Are human beings born to be restricted to one place? That too without any explicit choice?
Conclusion
This is a simple article to question your basic understanding of the world we live in. This is not an article intended to rebel against the current system but to shake the things which we have internalised without a second thought. The focus should be on how we can live in a better way and how we solve our problems. Without understanding our problems properly, we cannot address them. What stops us from thinking as one community. Has humanity been reduced to imaginary lines drawn on a map?
‘Doctrine of the international community.'” Blair contended that globalisation had rendered the Westphalian method obsolete in this modern day.
Do you still think the current Nation-State System or the Westphalian System is relevant?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resources
The Yearly Current Affairs 2023 for Competitive Exams Arihant Current Affairs Yearly 2024
Comments
Post a Comment