Identify And Discuss In A Page Or Two Of The Following

Iidentify And Discuss In A Page Or Two Two Of The Following Questio

Iidentify And Discuss In A Page Or Two Two Of The Following Questions. 1) What was the Treaty of Westphalia? In what ways did it define the European concept of state sovereignty? How many political units did Europe have before 1500? How many did it have by 1800? How can we explain this radical reduction in the number of states in Europe? Which modern international relations theory reflects this historical episode of inter-state anarchy, similar that of the Italian state system of the Renaissance or the classic Greek city states of the Hellenic era? 2) How does the modern state system of International relations differ from the earlier Chinese “Middle Kingdom”, the Islamic Caliphate or Mongol “world systems” that were based in the empires of the Mid-East, Central and Far East Asia? Or the European system of multiple overlapping forms of authority that we call Feudalism? What peculiarity of the European “world” allowed it to modernize first and then impose its version of the territorial state and capitalism on the rest of the world? When did the European States (and their overseas offspring) achieve true global dominance over their Eurasian rivals and how long did that dominance really last? Why should care what the Chinese or Islamists remember about their earlier primacies?

Paper For Above instruction

The Treaty of Westphalia, signed in 1648, marked a pivotal turning point in European and global history by ending the Thirty Years’ War and establishing the foundational principles of modern sovereignty and statehood. This series of treaties significantly influenced the evolution of the European state system, shaping its territorial and political boundaries. The Westphalian peace accord solidified the idea that each state should have sovereignty over its territory, free from external interference. This principle laid the groundwork for contemporary notions of national sovereignty, sovereignty as a core attribute of the state, and the respect of borders that remain integral to modern international relations (Osiander, 2001).

Before 1500, Europe was a mosaic of numerous fragmented political entities, including feudal duchies, principalities, city-states, and kingdoms. The approximate number of distinct political units may have exceeded several hundred, reflecting the decentralized nature of medieval Europe. By the end of the 18th century, however, the number of independent states had markedly decreased, largely due to consolidation of power, the rise of centralized monarchies, and the formation of modern nation-states. The consolidation process was driven by internal conflicts, wars, treaties, and the increasing importance of sovereignty formalized by agreements like Westphalia. This reduction exemplifies the transition from a fragmented medieval Europe to a more unified system of territorial sovereignty that laid the foundation for modern statehood.

This historical episode can be reflected through the lens of the realist theory of international relations, which emphasizes the anarchic nature of the international system and the centrality of sovereignty and power among states. Realism posits that states operate in a self-help system where order is maintained through power balances, similar to the European state densification after Westphalia. The Renaissance Italian city-states and Hellenic Greek city-states also competed within anarchic systems characterized by independent sovereignty and frequent conflicts, illustrating similar patterns of political decentralization and competition predating modern nation-states (Mearsheimer, 2001).

In contrast, the traditional Chinese “Middle Kingdom” concept centered on a highly hierarchical imperial system with a centralized authority that regarded itself as the cultural and political core of civilization. The Chinese worldview markedly differed from the European concept of sovereignty, emphasizing a unified, hierarchical, and tribute-based structure rather than territorial sovereignty among competing states (Fairbank & Goldman, 2006). Similarly, the Islamic Caliphates and Mongol Empire were empires based on imperial authority spanning vast territories, where allegiance to a central ruler superseded the notion of independent sovereignty of individual regions. These empires were often expansive and integrated diverse peoples under a single political or religious authority, contrasting with the fragmented sovereignty-driven European system.

The European system’s peculiarity was its development of a patchwork of overlapping sovereign states, each with recognized borders and sovereignty, which fostered political competition, innovation, and the eventual emergence of capitalism. The decentralization and rivalry among these entities created fertile ground for political experimentation, military innovation, and economic development, ultimately enabling Europe to modernize first. The unique European "world" of competing territorial states fostered a culture of competition, diplomacy, and consolidation resolving into nation-states capable of projecting power globally.

European states achieved global dominance by the late 19th and early 20th centuries, expanding their influence through colonization, technological innovation, and military strength. This supremacy, often termed the "Age of Imperialism," was driven by the Industrial Revolution, which provided the technological and economic tools necessary for overseas domination. The European hegemony lasted approximately until the mid-20th century, with the decline of European colonial empires after World War II and the rise of the United States and the Soviet Union as superpowers. Nonetheless, the legacy of European dominance persists in global political structures, economic systems, and cultural influences.

Understanding why China and Islamists remember their earlier primacies is vital as it shapes contemporary geopolitical narratives. Both civilizations have historical memories of distinct periods of dominance—China’s Imperial Age and the Islamic Golden Age—which continue to influence their cultural identities and political ambitions. Recognizing these historical primacies offers context for current conflicts, regional influences, and international diplomacy. It underscores the importance of history in shaping national narratives and the desire for resurgence or recognition in a multipolar world (Lippmann, 1943; Zakaria, 2008).

References

• Fairbank, J.K., & Goldman, M. (2006). China: A New History. Harvard University Press.
• Lippmann, W. (1943). The Good Society: An Introduction to Comparative Politics. Little, Brown and Company.
• Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W.W. Norton & Company.
• Osiander, A. (2001). Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth. International Organization, 55(2), 251–287.
• Fairbank, J.K., & Goldman, M. (2006). China: A New History. Harvard University Press.
• Zakaria, F. (2008). The Post-American World. W.W. Norton & Company.