The Challenges To State Sovereignty In The Post Westphalian World

Bonisiwe Shabane

-Dec 28, 2025, 4:57 PM

the challenges to state sovereignty in the post westphalian world

World Geostrategic Insights interview with Thomas Wuchte on the necessity for the United States to… World Geostrategic Insights interview with Major General Dr. S. B. Asthana on the complexity of… World Geostrategic Insights interviews Stevie Hamilton on how to ensure investment stability in Africa’s critical…

World Geostrategic Insights interview with Michael J. Murphy on the internal and external threats to… World Geostrategic Insights interview with Kazuto Suzuki on how Japan is adapting its economic security… The Peace of Westphalia in 1648 is often celebrated as the cornerstone of the modern international system. By affirming state sovereignty and ending the Thirty Years’ War, it gave birth to the concept of the nation-state as the primary actor in world politics. For centuries, this system offered stability and structure.

Yet in today’s hyperconnected, digital, and globalized world, the Westphalian model is no longer sufficient. From climate change and pandemics to cyberwarfare and digital governance, contemporary challenges demand new approaches that transcend borders and redefine sovereignty. This article explores the historical legacy of Westphalia, its current limitations, the role of science and technology in reshaping governance, the unique position of the Global South, and the principles needed to construct a... The Peace of Westphalia marked a turning point in European and global history. Its central achievement was the principle of absolute sovereignty—granting states the right to govern without foreign interference. This framework transformed political communities into nation-states and became the backbone of international law and diplomacy.

However, nearly four centuries later, the same system has become a burden. The rigid nation-state model struggles to address transnational threats such as: What we see today—wars, identity conflicts, and economic instability—is not only the failure of political leadership but also the structural incapacity of the Westphalian system itself. The nation-state, once considered the unshakeable foundation of international politics, now finds itself at a crossroads. From the bustling streets of Mumbai to the tech hubs of Bangalore, we live in a world where our daily lives are increasingly shaped by forces that transcend national boundaries. Yet, when we vote in elections, pay taxes, or seek justice, we still turn to our nation-state.

This fundamental tension raises a crucial question: Is the nation-state still relevant in our interconnected world, or is it becoming an outdated concept struggling to adapt to 21st-century realities? The concept of the nation-state traces its roots back to the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, which established the principle of sovereignty and non-interference in domestic affairs. This system gave birth to the modern international order, where clearly defined territories governed by sovereign authorities became the norm. In the Indian context, this principle became particularly significant during our struggle for independence, when the demand for self-determination was fundamentally about establishing a sovereign nation-state. A nation-state ideally combines two elements: a nation (people sharing common culture, language, or ethnicity) and a state (political institution with sovereignty over a territory). However, this perfect alignment is rare in practice.

India itself exemplifies this complexity, being a multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic, and multi-religious state that has successfully functioned as a nation-state despite its diversity. Despite growing criticism, the nation-state continues to demonstrate remarkable resilience and adaptability. Several factors support its ongoing relevance in contemporary international relations. The dissolution of Yugoslavia in the 1990s and the creation of South Sudan in 2011 demonstrate that the nation-state remains a powerful organizing principle. Even in our neighborhood, the partition of India in 1947 and the creation of Bangladesh in 1971 show how the nation-state concept continues to shape political aspirations. These examples suggest that rather than becoming obsolete, the nation-state model adapts to new circumstances and continues to provide a framework for political organization.

What is the Westphalian Model of Sovereignty? For over three and a half centuries, the modern international order has followed the Westphalian model of state sovereignty. This model was established by the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, which introduced the concept of independent nation-states—each sovereign within its own borders. Under the Westphalian system, states are territorially autonomous, legally equal, and free from external interference. This principle of territorially bounded governance remains a cornerstone of international law and diplomacy, defining sovereignty as a singular, geographically bounded authority. However, globalization has created new tensions between traditional territorial governments and powerful non-state actors.

Transnational forces increasingly penetrate and transcend state borders, testing the limits of state-centric sovereignty. The Westphalian view envisions the world as composed of discrete territorial units, each governed by its own sovereign authority. As the scholar Leo Gross described it, the Peace of Westphalia was the “majestic portal” to a new world order where “a multitude of states, each sovereign within its territory, equal to one another,... These principles create a normative order in which each state’s domestic authority is supreme and external influence is legally restricted. Over time, the Westphalian model became foundational for modern international relations theory and law. It offers, in Stephen Krasner’s words, a “simple, arresting, and elegant image” of a world divided into mutually recognizing nation-states.

The model has shaped the thinking of policymakers and scholars—across schools from realists to institutionalists—and it serves as a baseline for evaluating developments in world politics.[3] Even today, ideas like the inviolability of borders... FYI: This content was generated with AI assistance. Confirm accuracy with trustworthy resources. The concept of state sovereignty, while foundational in international relations, is increasingly challenged by multifaceted global dynamics. Understanding the limits of state sovereignty is essential in navigating the complex interplay between national jurisdiction and international obligations. As states engage in economic globalization, human rights advocacy, and evolving diplomatic relationships, the traditional notion of inviolable sovereignty comes under scrutiny.

This article examines the theoretical frameworks and contemporary challenges that shape the limits of state sovereignty in today’s interconnected world. State sovereignty refers to the authority of a state to govern itself without external interference. This concept embodies the legal and political independence that allows states to make decisions regarding their internal and external affairs. Historically, the notion of state sovereignty has evolved alongside international relations. It is grounded in the principle that each state has the ultimate power over its territory, people, and resources, which is a foundational aspect of international law. After centuries of feudal wars between empires, a period of relative and enduring peace was established in Europe through the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.

The treaty brought an end to the destructive Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648), created political stability and diminished regional insecurity, allowing European nations to focus on industrial and economic advancements. The legacy of treaty makes it a pivotal moment as it laid the framework for modern international relations (Steven 2019, 91). Its principles, values, and notions continue to have several far-reaching implications (Ikenberry 2011, 59). Many of the modern geopolitical and power struggles continue to be shaped by the consequences of selective application of its principles of territorial sovereignty, mutual recognition, and non-interference that categorized states into a hierarchical... First, the Treaty of Westphalia established the modern system of sovereign states in Europe, a system that Western scholars argue originated in the West and later spread globally on the back of Scientific and... As the model globalized, it supplanted various indigenous political, cultural, and economic institutions (Ferguson and Mansbach 1996, 268).

In the centuries that followed, it became the foundation of global political order (Ikenberry 2011, 60). Second, the treaty played a crucial role in shaping global hierarchies. By recognizing European states as sovereign entities, it created a dichotomy between “civilized” sovereign states, those adhering to the European model, and “uncivilized” societies that operated under different political, cultural, and social systems (Seth... The non-European societies were excluded from the international order, their sovereignty denied, and their territories subjected to colonial domination by European powers. Third, the treaty marked the beginning of an era dominated by transatlantic powers—initially European colonizers, and later, the United States’ rise to supremacy and global hegemony. Many of the modern international institutions of the Liberal International Order (LIO), such as the United Nations and European Union, that have helped elongate Western global dominance reflect the principles and framework that was...

For centuries, the Western-dominated order and political landscape created by the treaty persisted but is now increasingly challenged by emerging global powers in the East. International relations scholars, the discipline bulwarked by the Westphalian world order, are now debating the decay of its pillars and the global political theatre now moving to a “post-Westphalian” and “post-liberal order” (Osiander 2001,... One of the key challenges to this order is posed by the rise of civilizational states. While the idea of civilizational state is often associated with populist and autocratic regimes desiring to consolidate domestic electorate by channeling the historic pride and hyper-nationalism, the scope of this paper is to analyze... This paper offers an understanding of the conceptual framework of ‘civilizational states,’ its meaning, evolution, and current state of knowledge, followed by an analysis of how the concept is being maneuvered into a geopolitical...

The Challenges To State Sovereignty In The Post Westphalian World

People Also Search

World Geostrategic Insights Interview With Thomas Wuchte On The Necessity

World Geostrategic Insights Interview With Michael J. Murphy On The

Yet In Today’s Hyperconnected, Digital, And Globalized World, The Westphalian

However, Nearly Four Centuries Later, The Same System Has Become

This Fundamental Tension Raises A Crucial Question: Is The Nation-state