Academic literature on the topic 'Westphalia Sovereignty'

Most people acquire citizenship at birth; and modern liberal states regulate the migration of non-citizens as a matter of their sovereignty. Do contemporary border and migration controls based on citizenship therefore enforce the continuation of feudal birth privilege? In this paper I interrogate this question by examining the role of migration controls in the Westphalian Treaties, which define a milestone in the development of territorial state sovereign. I find that the Treaties assumed that a sovereign’s subjects are not free to cross territorial borders, and that migration controls continue to enforce birth privilege. However, while feudal sovereigns ruled by bondage, modern liberal states rule by exclusion.

AbstractThis article participates in efforts by IR theorists to clarify aspects of modern sovereignty – an idea currently in rupture and being rethought – by returning to its founding ‘Westphalian moment’. While recent work has reconnected modern sovereignty to religion, considering Westphalia as a religious settlement and Christian concerns persisting in the groundwork of IR, our work looks beyond Christian concerns and asks how Westphalian sovereignty addressed non-Christians. We trace a yet-untapped discussion of the Jews – presented as a paradigmatic religious ‘other’ – among architects of Westphalian sovereignty from Bodin through Grotius, Hobbes, Harrington, and Spinoza. We demonstrate that foundational theorists of modern sovereignty considered religious diversity a political problem. Some cited essential sameness, minimising difference between Jews and Christians. Others considered the possibility of Jewish sovereignty long before this idea is usually considered to have entered modern consciousness. While the discussion of Jewish sovereignty among architects of modern sovereignty may seem to justify a Jewish state in a world of Westphalian states, it also emphasises Westphalia’s territorialising of religious difference. This aspect of the Westphalian framework is surely inadequate today, when territorialising religious difference is neither normative nor likely possible.

AbstractFor researchers and students of International Relations (IR), one date looms larger than all others: 1648. The end of the Thirty Years War, formalized by the signing of the Treaties of Osnabrück and Münster, led to a period known as the “Peace of Westphalia.” Westphalia represented a fundamental change in the power balance of European politics: instead of the Holy Roman Empire holding supreme authority, power would now rest with states themselves, manifested in terms of sovereignty, territory and equality. One of the chief ways in which these “Westphalian” states would cement this authority was through the use of maps. Before 1648, there was little on a European map to indicate where one country ended and another one began. But after 1648, this all changes: these new Westphalian states are represented with bright colors and clearly marked boundaries, defining borders and becoming an important part in creating the state and justifying its sovereignty. The role which maps have played in the spread of the Westphalian state is only just beginning to be researched. Yet the limited efforts to date have all focussed on Europe. This is unfortunate, as today, while Europe has, according to some observers, moved into a stage in which Westphalia is no longer a useful model with which to understand the state and the ways in which it relates to sovereignty, government, power and the individual, the old Westphalian model of the state has more recently been exported all around the world. This paper presents the first part of a project which aims to look at this expansion. The European angle will be presented in this paper; future research will be carried out in China, Japan and Taiwan.

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.

Is territory a trap? Does the concept of territory trap us into false assumptions of internally homogeneous, externally bounded political communities that exercise uniform sovereignty across their domain? Against the background of debates about territory and the territorial state in international relations, this symposium brings together five contributions in political theory that advance a nuanced and systemic understanding of what territory is. Taken together, they indicate that there is much to the territorial paradigm beyond the modern, sovereign, and territorial state model. There are diverse conceptions of territory, which may be relevant across different legal and political orders. The various conceptual analyses of territory in this symposium suggest that the sovereign state model is only one way in which a sovereign political authority can be territorial. These essays provide the conceptual tools to formulate (and subsequently test) the hypothesis that the transformations in statehood may not be best described in terms of the rise and decline of territorial sovereignty, but as moves from one model of territorially bounded political authority to another. In political theory, it is only in recent years that this foundational concept has received sustained attention from political theorists. This symposium aims to take forward this welcome theoretical development.

AbstractThe Peace of Westphalia released forces leading to the Industrial Revolution, ultimately freeing sovereign states to develop competing systems of economic development that had in common the uncontrolled exploitation of the environment. Over time, a law of humanity developed in response to the failings of a law of sovereign states in two main spheres: that of the dignity of the individual and that of matters of “common concern” that require a global, humanitarian response. Environmental issues have moved to the forefront of the latter, as can be demonstrated by an examination of terms used in international law to describe environmental matters, and have given rise to new forms of international and transnational cooperation. By being reminded that humanitarian issues of common concern were at the root of the Westphalian shift itself, we see that it is the radical form of sovereignty that developed in the 19th and 20th centuries that in fact proved inadequate. The key questions, therefore, are what the global environmental challenge teaches us about the potential for sovereignty to be “reclaimed” for humanity, and how and whence authoritative norms to modulate sovereignty will arise.

On 23rd June 2007, after three years of uncertainty, European Union leaders agreed on relaunching the old idea of a Magna Charta for Europe (now called “the Reform Treaty”), a normative structure based on the old ideas of deference to national identities, sovereignty and equality. To many authors, the first time that juridical equality between states was solemnly stated was in the aftermath of the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648), in the Westphalia Peace Treaties, representing the beginning of modern international society established in a system of states, and at the same time, “the plain affirmation of the statement of absolute independence of the different state orders.” In fact, under an Eurocentric conception of political ideas (which envisages England as an isolated island and Iberia as Maghreb, north of Africa), the modern state emerges with the Westphalia Peace Treaties. However, under a broader conception, the modern nation-state (under the form of absolute monarchy) emerged long before the Westphalia Peace Treaties, in Iberia and England. Nevertheless, it is in these documents which lies the “birth certificate” of the modern sovereignty nation-state, base of the present democratic state, and “founding moment” of the international political system. Far beyond this merely formal aspect, the importance of the Westphalia Peace Treaties is so great to the understanding of the notion of state that Roland Mousnier, in describing the 16th and 17th centuries in the General History of the Civilizations, organized by Maurice Crouzet, asserts that those treaties symbolized a real “constitution of the new Europe,” a multifarious Europe, plural and very distant from the religious unit of Christianity, from the political unit of the Holy Roman Empire, and from the economical unit of the feudal system. Constitutions are especially important because they establish the rules for the political authority, they determine who governs and how they govern: “[I]n codifying and legitimating the principle of sovereign statehood, the Westphalian constitution gave birth to the modern states-system.”

The work overviews the formation process of the European integration after the end of the Cold war and also the evolution of the notion of 'the Westphalian sovereignty' in the framework of the maintenance of the EU CFSP. It is assumed that under the conditions of a political transformation of the category 'the Westphalian sovereignty' in the framework of the EU CFSP it is intensified and requires again as a special political and practical attention, as scientific elaboration in order to figure out the perspectives of the development of the EU as the whole. As the object of this work the category of 'the Westphalia sovereignty' and its evolution in the framework of the European integration processes are taken. The subject of the work is connected with the analysis of the phenomenon of the Westphalian sovereignty in the frames of building of common European defense and security policy of the EU. The main purpose of the work is closely entwined with the identification of significant peculiarities of the ongoing transformation of the CFSP and their influence on the category of 'the Westphalian sovereignty'.

Philosophiae Doctor - PhD
This study is an investigation of the informal trans-border Chewa ethnic movement of Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia and its relationship to the formal state boundaries defined by the Westphalian model. The Chewa refer themselves as belonging to a Kingdom (formerly the Maravi Kingdom) which currently cuts across the three modern African states of Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia and its paramount, King Gawa Undi, is based in Zambia. The secretariat of the kingdom is Chewa Heritage Foundation (CHEFO), which is headquartered in Malawi. The fundamental quest of this study is to investigate how the Chewa understand, experience, manage and interpret the overlap between formal states (as defined by the Westphalian model) and informal trans-border ethnic identity without raising cross-border conflicts in the process. Indeed, it is this paradoxical co-existence of contradictory features of Westphalian political boundaries and trans-border ethnic identity that initially inspired this study. The main research aim is to interrogate whether the Chewa Kingdom (of Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia) is challenging or confirming state boundaries, and to reflect on what this means for the contemporary Westphalian model. In International Relations (IR), the Westphalian model provides the assumption that states are independent actors with a political authority based on territory and autonomy. Despite a large number of criticisms of the model, it has not completely been dismissed in explaining some elements of the international system. This is evident by the underlying assumptions and perspectives that still persist in IR literature as well as the growing contemporary debates on the model, especially on its related elements of state sovereignty and citizenship. In Africa, the literature focuses on the formal structures and ignores the role of informal trans-border traditional entities - specifically, how trans-border traditional entities affect the re-definition of state and sovereignty in Africa. Such ignorance has led to a vacuum in African IR of the potentiality of the informal to complement the formal intra-regional state entities. Within a historical and socio-cultural framework, the study utilises [social] constructivism and cultural nationalism theories to critically investigate and understand the unfolding relationship between the Westphalian state and Chewa trans-border community. Another supporting debate explored is the relevance of traditional authorities under the ambit of politics of representation. In this case, the study fits in the emerging debate on the meaning, experience and relevance of state sovereignty and national identity (citizenship) in Africa. Drawing on a wide range of sources (informant interviews, focus group discussions, Afrobarometer survey data sets, newspaper articles and comparative literature surveys in Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia), the study finds that although the upsurge of Chewa transborder ethnic identity is theoretically contradictory to the Westphalian model, in practice it is actually complementary. Within the framework of [social] constructivism, the state has with some variations demonstrated flexibility and innovation to remain legitimate by co-opting the Chewa movement. In this case, the study finds that the co-existence of Westphalian model and trans-border Chewa ethnic identity is mainly due to the flexibility of the state to accommodate informal ethnic expressions in ways that ultimately reinforces the mutual dependence of the states and the ethnic group. For instance, during the Chewa Kulamba ceremony held in Zambia, the state borders are „relaxed‟ to allow unhindered crossing for the participants to the ceremony. This does not entail weakness of the state but its immediate relevance by allowing communal cultural expressions. Another finding is that the Chewa expression of ethnic identity could not be complete if it did not take a trans-border perspective. This set-up ensures that each nation-state plays a role in the expression of Chewa ethnic identity - missing one nation-state means that the historical and contemporary relevance of this identity would be lost. It is also this same set-up that limits the movement's possibility to challenge the formal state. This argument reinforces the social constructivist perspective that sovereignty is not static but dynamic because it fulfils different uses in a particular context. The overall argument of this study is that the revival of the informal Chewa trans-border traditional entity offers a new, exciting and unexplored debate on the Westphalian model that is possibly unique to the African set-up. One theoretical/methodological contribution of this study is that it buttresses some suggestions that when studying African IR, we have to move beyond the strict disciplinary boundaries that have defined the field and search for other related African state experiences. The study also strengthens one of the new approaches in understanding IR as social relations - in this approach, individuals and their activities or their social systems play a prominent role.

Baigiamajame magistro darbe nagrinėjama suverenumo istorija, apibrėžiama globalizacija, aptariama globalizacijos istorija, globalizacijos įtaka tradicinei valstybių politikai, globalizacijos procesų kritika, apžvelgiami antiglobalistiniai judėjimai. Įvardijami globalizacijos iššūkiai Vestfalijos modelio valstybių sistemai, tautinio valstybių suverenumo taikymo ribos, atskiriama tautiškumo ir Tautos sąvokos, apžvelgiamos viršnacionalinių idėjų teorijos. Įvardinus globalizacijos procesų metamus iššūkius tautinėms valstybėms, pabrėžiama švietimo sistemos atnaujinimo būtinybė, įvertinama minėtojo modelio žlugimo galimybė. Darbą sudaro 8 dalys: Angliškas ir lietuviškas apibendrinimai, Įvadas, Suverenumo idėjos istorija, Globalizacija ir jos procesų apžvalga, Suverenumo instituto taikymo ribos, Išvados, Literatūros sąrašas.
500 years ago both a doctrine and institution of sovereignty were created; both were changed frequently in order to meet contemporaneous political demands. After World War I a system of sovereign nation-states was formed, which has become extremely conservative and suspicious towards any change in the status quo. If history has taught us anything, it is to doubt any theory or ideology that claims to have knowledge of the end of sovereignty. Globalization processes have raised many challenges never before seen by nation states: the loss of control of both global and local economies; migration and technological advancement taking away the monopoly of information flows in and out the countries; global issues forcing states to introduce supranational organizations such as the EU and NATO. Anti-global movements arise within the frames of globalism, and therefore a paradox emerges: anti-global processes work in the global field. With this in mind we can say that they will not change the world’s tendencies towards globalism, but they can change the sources of global flows and disassociate Western capitalism and Westernism from globalization. While nation-states remain an important political structure, attention should be drawn to discussions about decreasing control and increasing the economic information and human flows that fall outside of the purview of states. The doctrine of state sovereignty has never been so ideologically – as well as legally – weak, and the limits of... [to full text]

Dissertação de mestrado em Ciência Política
The perplexity generated by Russia’s ambivalent role in using the principle of sovereignty and the principle of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in the contexts of the annexation of the Crimea in March 2014 and the civil war in Syria since March 2011, convened a question to which the present dissertation intended to give a solid hermeneutics that would not deprive or misrepresent this ambivalence. An interpretation has thus been advanced here which suggests, on the one hand, that all normative phenomenon is constitutively ambiguous and, on the other hand, that the very concept of sovereignty as a structuring element of the present international order is itself constitutively ambiguous inasmuch as its use obeys the diffusion of two conflicting normative traditions: one that had its origin with the signing of the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 and another one that had its origin with the approval of the Declaration of the Independence of the United States in 1776. In order to calibrate the relationship between these two factors that necessarily generate normative tensions, this dissertation inaugurated the term “norm manipreneur” to designate the type of international actor that makes use of systemic manipulation as a means of norm promotion and/or resistance. The methodological commitment assumed here, therefore, calls for the combination of the interpretative approach with the use of case-oriented comparison and plausibility probe, as well as the interpretation and, where necessary, systematization of official data and documents. The main result achieved by this dissertation is, we believe, the theoretical innovation that it proposes to the ongoing debate both with regard to the two notions of sovereignty and with regard to the normative roles that different actors, especially the Russian Federation, are able to assume through systemic manipulation, although not a formal violation, of the principles of the international order, in the pursuit of the promotion of their normative preferences.
A perplexidade gerada pelo papel ambivalente da Rússia em relação ao uso do princípio de soberania e do princípio da Responsabilidade de Proteger (R2P) nos contextos da anexação da Crimeia, em Março de 2014, e da guerra civil na Síria, desde Março de 2011, convocou uma questão à qual a presente dissertação pretendeu conferir uma hermenêutica sólida que não destituísse ou desvirtuasse de sentido essa ambivalência. Assim, foi aqui avançada uma interpretação que sugere, por um lado, que todo o fenómeno normativo é constitutivamente ambíguo e, por outro lado, que o próprio conceito de soberania enquanto elemento estruturante da actual ordem internacional é ele próprio constitutivamente ambíguo na medida em que o seu uso obedece à difusão de duas tradições normativas conflituantes: uma que teve a sua origem com a assinatura da Paz de Vestefália em 1648 e outra que vai buscar a sua origem à aprovação da Declaração da Independência dos Estados Unidos em 1776. No sentido de calibrar a relação entre estes dois factores necessariamente geradores de tensões normativas, esta tese inaugurou o termo “norm manipreneur” para designar o tipo de actor internacional que faz uso da manipulação sistémica como meio de promoção ou resistência normativa. O compromisso metodológico assumido recorre, portanto, à combinação da abordagem interpretativista com o recurso a case-oriented comparison e plausibility probe, bem como à interpretação e, sempre que necessário, sistematização de dados e documentos oficiais. O principal resultado alcançado pela presente dissertação é, julgamos nós, a inovação teórica que propõe ao debate quer no que diz respeito às duas noções de soberania, quer no que concerne aos papeis normativos que os diferentes actores, em especial a Federação Russa, são capazes de assumir por via da manipulação sistémica, embora não violação formal, dos princípios da ordem internacional, na procura da promoção das suas preferências normativas.

This research is concerned with the complex and contested relationship between the sovereign prerogatives of states and the international imperative of defusing world conflicts. Due to its historical setting following World War Two, the national vs. international staking of claims was framed within the escalating imperial-nationalist confrontation and the impending “end of empire”, both of which were significantly influenced by the role Israel played in this saga. The research looks at the issue of “decolonization” and the anti-colonial struggle waged under the leadership of Egypt’s President Nasser. The Suez War is analyzed as the historical event that signaled the beginning of the final chapter in the domination of the European empires in the Middle East (sub-Saharan decolonization followed beginning in the early 1960s), and the emergence of the United States as the new major Western power in the Middle East. The Suez experience highlighted a stubborn contest between the defenders of the concept of “sovereign consent” and the advocates of “International intervention”. Both the deployment of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) and its termination were surrounded by controversy and legal-political wrangling. The role of UNEF and UN peacekeeping operations in general framed the development of a new concept for an emerging international human rights law and crisis management. The UNEF experience, moreover, brought into sharp relief the need for a conflict resolution component for any peace operation. International conflict management, and human rights protection are both subject to an increasing interventionist international legal regime. Consequently, the traditional concept of “sovereignty” is facing increasing challenge. By its very nature, the subject matter of this multi-dimensional research involves historical, political and international legal aspects shaping the research’s content and conclusions. The research utilizes the experience and contributions of several key participants in this pioneering peacekeeping experience. In the last chapter, recommendations are made –based on all the elements covered in the research- to suggest contributions to the evolving UN ground rules for international crisis intervention and management.
Graduate
hilmyh@uvic.ca

The thesis applies the neomedieval theoretical framework on the contemporary political map of the world. The thesis argues, that the contemporary international politics cannot be understood by an application of the unified geopolitical setting and that the key divergencies in the geopolitical environment play a crucial role for the actors operating in different regions. As an outcome of the theoretical works dealing with the selected theory, a three-world model is being presented dividing the political map among these settings - Durable Disorder (defined by networking and privatization), Westphalian System (defined by a dominant position of strong centralized state), and Chaotic Anarchy (lacking stable political power and control over means of violence). This model is consequently applied on the global political map with the consequent analysis of the strategies of different actors located inside specific environments and mutual interactions of these three worlds.

The history of international law, understood as an object of intersubjective reality, reflected various territorial structures of human society. States, as bearers of international law, were made in course of history by wars that they led with each other. On the basis of thought of Carl Schmitt we can distinguish two historical structures of territory: the universal medieval empire and the modern sovereign states. Both of these structures were connected with distinct systems of international law and with distinct concepts of war. Since the turn of 19th and 20th century we can observe signs of decline of the Westphalian system of sovereign states. This process, accompanied by changes in concept of war, began to be fully expressed at the beginning of the 21st century in connection with so called war on terror. On the juridical concepts of war on terror and humanitarian intervention I show decline of the Westphalian system of sovereign states and possible return to the international structure of the medieval empire.

Turbulences et changements institutionnels au sein de la Société internationale : une perspective historique Cette recherche puise ses origines du constat que la présente société internationale apparaît plus que jamais mal outillée et en perte de légitimité pour gérer les nouveaux déséquilibres qui ébranlent sa sécurité. Nous voulons vérifier si les présentes difficultés à gérer l’ordre interétatique sont des signes précurseurs d’une période de turbulences systémiques qui ébranleraient ses fondations. Nous avançons comme principale hypothèse de recherche qu’une perte de légitimité dans les mécanismes d’ordre d’une société westphalienne engendre une période plus ou moins longue de turbulences systémiques, provoquant un retour à l’antihégémonie caractérisée par l’établissement d’un nouvel ordre sociétal. Pour vérifier cette hypothèse, nous nous associons au cadre théorique de l’École anglaise qui analyse les relations interétatiques en qualifiant le caractère de l’ordre qui les gouverne. Ses adeptes y parviennent en étudiant les forces qui engendrent le maintien d’un environnement international antihégémonique, ainsi que la nature des réciprocités interétatiques qui s’en dégage. Ainsi, en observant les diverses institutions créées pour gérer l’ordre, ils sont en mesure de mieux comprendre l’évolution, la diffusion et la pérennisation de l’établissement d’une société des États. Cette approche nous a permis de construire un modèle explicatif pour notre dynamique sociétale. Par la suite, afin de répondre à notre questionnement initial, nous proposons d’analyser le statut de diverses sociétés internationales lors d’époques caractérisées par une période systémique de grands chaos, suivie du retour d’un régime sociétal. Nous cherchons à établir si des analogies peuvent être faites sur leur processus de transformation pour, par la suite, vérifier si elles peuvent s’appliquer à la nature du changement qui s’opère dans la présente société internationale. L’analyse historique comparative s’avère un instrument tout désigné pour ce type de recherche. Les époques sélectionnées pour notre recherche couvrent la Guerre de Trente Ans, les Guerres napoléoniennes et la Première Guerre mondiale. La nature antihégémonique d’une société des États, en plus de maintenir un environnement anarchique, crée un climat de rivalités qui entraîne un processus de transformations dans la dynamique de l’ordre. Ce facteur de changement fut introduit sous le concept de progrès sociétal, lequel engendre une désuétude institutionnelle dans les mécanismes de l’ordre sociétal, pouvant entraîner une période de turbulences systémiques. Ainsi, pour mieux observer ce phénomène, nous avons adopté les institutions comme outils d’analyse. Elles nous permettent d’être plus critiques des phénomènes observés, tout en nous autorisant à les comparer entre elles, en raison de leur longévité. Nos recherches révèlent la pérennité d’une dynamique de transformation au sein des sociétés westphaliennes, dont la nature entraîne des déséquilibres sociétaux qui varient selon son intensité. Nous observons aussi que, malgré l’égalité légale que confère la souveraineté aux États, les Grandes puissances sont les principaux artisans d’un système international. Leur aptitude à l’unilatéralisme fut souvent associée à l’émergence de turbulences systémiques. Nos recherches montrent que l’interdépendance et la coopération interétatique sont aussi alimentées par la diffusion et le partage d’une économie libérale. C’est aussi cette même interdépendance qui, progressivement, rend la guerre entre Grandes puissances désuète. Plus l’interdépendance et le multilatéralisme s’intensifient dans un environnement sociétal, plus le progrès sociétal a tendance à se manifester sous les aspects d’une transformation systémique progressive (non violente) plutôt que révolutionnaire (période de turbulences systémiques). La présente société internationale est sous l’influence du progrès sociétal depuis son avènement. Sa stabilité est directement liée à la capacité de ses mécanismes d’ordre à contrer les déséquilibres que le progrès engendre, ainsi qu’à l’aptitude de ses Grandes puissances à limiter leur propension à l’unilatéralisme. Donc, ces mécanismes doivent pouvoir intégrer le progrès pour maintenir leur légitimité et éviter d’engendrer une période de turbulences systémiques.
Turbulence and institutional changes within the international Society: an historical perspective Our inquiry has its origins in the acknowledgement that the current international society appears, more than ever, deficient and lacking legitimacy in its management of emerging threats which affect its security. This dissertation aims to verify whether the present difficulties to manage the interstate order are precursors of a period of systemic turbulences. We propose as our principal research hypothesis that a loss of legitimacy within the law and order mechanisms of a Westphalian society will generate a rather long period of systemic turbulences, creating a return to an antihegemonic system characterized by the establishment of a new a new system of societal law and order. To test this hypothesis, we have joined the theoretical framework of the English School which observes the interstate relations by assessing the character of the order that governs them. Its followers succeed in studying the forces that create the maintenance of an antihegemonic international environment, and the nature of the interstate reciprocities that emerge from it. Then, by observing the institutions created to manage the law and order, they are in a position to better understand the evolution, the diffusion and the perpetuation of a society of States. This approach allows us to construct an explanatory model of our societal dynamic. In order to answer our initial query, we propose to analyse the status of various international societies from different epochs, each one containing a period of systemic turbulences followed by the return of societal regime. We intend to establish if any analogies can be drawn between their transformative processes, and thus determine whether these processes can be applied to the transformations taking place within the current international society. An historical comparative analysis proves to be an appropriate tool for our type of research. The periods selected for this research are the Thirty Years' War, the Napoleonic Wars, and the First World War including the ‘inter-war’ period. The antihegemonic nature of a society of States, in addition to maintaining an anarchic environment, creates a climate of rivalries which generate transformation within the law and order dynamic. This transformative factor was introduced under the concept of societal progress, which generates, within the societal law and order mechanisms, institutional obsolescence that can create a period of systemic turbulences. To observe this phenomenon, we have adopted institutions as analytical tools. Institutions will allow us to be more critical, and will facilitate comparisons between them, considering their longevity. Our findings indicate the existence of a lasting dynamic of transformation within Westphalian societies, generating levels of societal turbulences, which vary according to their intensity. We also observed that despite the legal equality that sovereignty provides in a society of States, the Great powers remain the principal architects of their society. Their innate aptitude toward unilateralism was often associated with the emergence of systemic turbulence. Our research shows that interstate interdependence and cooperation were also fuelled by the expansion of a liberal economy. In a societal environment, as interdependence and multilateralism intensify, the propensity for societal progress is more inclined to take the aspect of a progressive type of systemic transformation than of a period of violent revolutionary systemic turbulence. Our international society of States has always been under the influence of societal progress since its inception. Stability of its future is tied to its ability to counter external threats and that of the Great powers’ capacity to limit their propensity to unilateralism. Law and order mechanisms must then be able to integrate societal progress to allow the maintenance of legitimacy and the avoidance of a revolutionary systemic transformation period.