Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 20
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Banai, Ayelet 2016. Sovereignty over natural resources and its implications for climate justice. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, Vol. 7, Issue. 2, p. 238.


    Ming, Guanpei 2016. Power Politics in Asia’s Contested Waters.


    Müller, Ralf Zhai, Li Wang, Anyu and Shao, Jingting 2016. A framework for governance of projects: Governmentality, governance structure and projectification. International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 34, Issue. 6, p. 957.


    Ojo, Tokunbo 2016. Global agenda and ICT4D in Africa: Constraints of localizing ‘universal norm’. Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 40, Issue. 7, p. 704.


    Peterson, Mark F 2016. A culture theory commentary on Meyer and Peng’s theoretical probe into Central and Eastern Europe. Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 47, Issue. 1, p. 33.


    di Floristella, Angela Pennisi 2015. The ASEAN Regional Security Partnership.


    FEHL, CAROLINE 2014. Unequal power and the institutional design of global governance: the case of arms control. Review of International Studies, Vol. 40, Issue. 03, p. 505.


    Haselsberger, Beatrix 2014. Decoding borders. Appreciating border impacts on space and people. Planning Theory & Practice, Vol. 15, Issue. 4, p. 505.


    Peterson, Mark F. and Søndergaard, Mikael 2014. Countries, Within-Country Regions, and Multiple-Country Regions in International Management: A Functional, Institutional, and Critical Event (FICE) Perspective. Management International Review, Vol. 54, Issue. 6, p. 781.


    Lunstrum, Elizabeth 2013. Articulated sovereignty: Extending Mozambican state power through the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park1. Political Geography, Vol. 36, p. 1.


    Branch, Jordan 2011. Mapping the Sovereign State: Technology, Authority, and Systemic Change. International Organization, Vol. 65, Issue. 01, p. 1.


    Rondeau, Sophie 2011. Participation of armed groups in the development of the law applicable to armed conflicts. International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 93, Issue. 883, p. 649.


    Schmidt, Sebastian 2011. To Order the Minds of Scholars: The Discourse of the Peace of Westphalia in International Relations Literature1. International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 55, Issue. 3, p. 601.


    DESTRADI, SANDRA 2010. Regional powers and their strategies: empire, hegemony, and leadership. Review of International Studies, Vol. 36, Issue. 04, p. 903.


    Dunn, Kevin C. 2010. There is No Such Thing as the State: Discourse, Effect and Performativity. Forum for Development Studies, Vol. 37, Issue. 1, p. 79.


    Newman, Edward 2010. Peacebuilding as Security in ‘Failing’ and Conflict-Prone States. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, Vol. 4, Issue. 3, p. 305.


    Pan, Chengxin 2010. Westphalia and the Taiwan Conundrum: A Case against the Exclusionist Construction of Sovereignty and Identity. Journal of Chinese Political Science, Vol. 15, Issue. 4, p. 371.


    Moore, Tod 2009. Violations of Sovereignty and Regime Engineering: A Critique of the State Theory of Stephen Krasner. Australian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 44, Issue. 3, p. 497.


    Bailey, Ian 2007. Neoliberalism, climate governance and the scalar politics of EU emissions trading. Area, Vol. 39, Issue. 4, p. 431.


    Hinnebusch, Raymond 2006. The Iraq War and International Relations: Implications for Small States. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Vol. 19, Issue. 3, p. 451.


    ×

Rethinking the sovereign state model

Abstract

The Peace of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years' War in 1648, is generally understood as a critical moment in the development of the modern international system composed of sovereign states each with exclusive authority within its own geographic boundaries. The Westphalian sovereign state model, based on the principles of autonomy, territory, mutual recognition and control, offers a simple, arresting, and elegant image. It orders the minds of policymakers. It is an analytic assumption for neo-realism and neo-liberal institutionalism. It is an empirical regularity for various sociological and constructivist theories of international politics. It is a benchmark for observers who claim an erosion of sovereignty in the contemporary world.

Copyright
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Review of International Studies
  • ISSN: 0260-2105
  • EISSN: 1469-9044
  • URL: /core/journals/review-of-international-studies
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×