1. Week 5: A shift from Westphalian System?
States
Week 5: A shift from Westphalian System?

2. What is the state, Where does it begin, and Where does it end?
Have internal and external sovereignty (authority over population in territory)
A monopoly on the legitimate use of force in the territory
Theda Skocpol’s 1979 book set the stage for a new focus on political institutions and advocates “bringing the state back in” to a central place in explanations of politics and policy formation

3. Why to bring the state back in?
Skocpol advocates “bringing the state back in” to a central place in explanations of politics and policy formation, arguing that:
Society-based, class-based (Marxism) and economic (Keynesianism) explanations of political behaviour are incomplete.
Rather, comparative-historical research that focuses on state autonomy and capacity to affect policy change will help build a new theoretical understanding of states in relation to social structures and individual-level political activity.

4. Is there is a shift from Westphalian System?
Falk (1998) argues that the Westphalian type of sovereignty has been in transition since the end of World War 2:
The end of Western colonialism, coupled with the end of Cold-War, has facilitated both globalization and legalization processes of international system.

5. What is shifting and impending ?
This legalization has already proven to be an ‘uneven’ and ‘prolonged’ process since it began in the 1980s:
States become involved in legalizing institutions, such as International Criminal Court, International Court of Justice, World Trade Organization, and European Union Court of Justice on Human Rights;
And, delegating traditional state dispute settlement competences to these self-governed authorized actors.

6. Why states are delegating their sovereignty ?
Robert Keohane (2000):
They sought to tackle transatlantic threats stemming from the anarchic nature of IR system.
The unpredictable proliferation of legalization process, coupled with increased institutionalization, grants ordinary people and groups access to their procedures.

7. A Grotian Moment?
Falk (1998) claims that the ‘transnational nature’ of international legal institutions has challenged the prior status of states as solely global actors. Falk characterizes this process as:
“a deep transition from the statist framework of Westphalian to some differently constituted, emergent, and normatively enhanced world,” after the style of “the Grotian Moment” but “this time in reverse”.

8. What is meant by Grotian Moment?
Refers to transition from one type of world order to another just like the Westphalian model of transition from medieval society to sovereignty based state system in the mid-17th century.

9. Time for a comprehensive reorganization?
The European Union’s (EU) model of pooled sovereignty, which began with the establishment of supra-national EU institutions through the Treaty of Rome in 1957, promotes this process of moving away from the Westphalian statist framework.
This profound shift from the Westphalian framework calls for a comprehensive reorganization of the functions of global legal system which has not occurred yet.

10. Can the downfall of long-standing Westphalian system be characterized as a Grotian moment?
Falk uses Grotian moment in order to explain the “uncertain” and “protracted” tectonic shifts in values, beliefs, ideas and behavior experienced gradually as well as implicitly from widely held perceptions.

11. What are alternative concepts of the Grotian solution?
Falk investigated alternative interpretations of the transformation of the nature of international structure in search for a comprehensive explanation. These are:
Francis Fukuyama’s,
Samuel Huntington’s
Robert Kaplan’s

12. End of History?
Fukuyama's (1992) “End of History” identifies Western values and political structures as having certain universality due to the end of the struggles and shifts throughout the hierarchical power structure of the IR system. He also argues that the US will continue its hegemony as the sole power throughout the World. However, by placing a strong emphasis on superiority feeling, Fukuyama fails to explain the very rapid and uneven power struggles and shifts in the post-Cold War era. This change of power structure among state categories was prolonged during the Cold War.

13. Is 9/11 a ‘Clash of Civilizations’?
Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” doctrine proclaims that in the post-Cold War era nations and groups of different civilizations rather than national states would have been determinative in the formulation of national security strategies.
What has captured the interest of IR scholars is Huntington’s forecasting of a religious war between “the West versus the rest” that generated both Western concerns about Islamophobia and non Western concerns about a new way of Western imperialism.
Huntington fails to explain how civilizations would manage to expand their geographical territory in order to unite and live together in harmony under the circumstances of reemerged geopolitical struggles. This requires overcoming the challenges confronted by today’s cosmopolitan structure that consist of different ethnic groups or other interest groups which is not overridden but is managed to live together.
According to Falk, the point to be emphasized in Huntington’s interpretation was rather more “conceptual” as he claimed that “civilizations” rather than “states” were expected to act as determinative agents and that not only “inter-civilizational relations and norms” but also “intra-civilizational values and traditions” should be considered.

14. Has Anarchy Come?
Kaplan’s ‘The Coming Anarchy’ has placed the expansion of the anarchic situation in mid-1990s Africa and the Middle East into protracted and devastating patterns. Kaplan identifies these patterns as :
‘IR systems’ behavior indicators for the future because of the decline of states and the strengthening of ethno-religious identities.’
Kaplan claims that the US as the hegemonic power should tackle the rogue states as global problems that have implications throughout the blurring territories of an intertwined IR system.
However, it was a failure of Kaplan to define all states as “failed states” in the early 1990s