Presentation on theme: "Prof. Dr. Dr.hc.mult. Reinhard Meyers Dept. of Politics, WWU Münster"— Presentation transcript:
1Prof. Dr. Dr.hc.mult. Reinhard Meyers Dept. of Politics, WWU Münster From Westphalia to Westfailure ? International Actors and the Pitfalls of Humanitarian InterventionProf. Dr. Dr.hc.mult.Reinhard MeyersDept. of Politics, WWU Münster
2AcknowledgementThe title of this contribution is part-modelled on that of a very readable essay by Susan Strange: The Westfailure System, Review of International Studies 25 (1999), pp 345 – 354Susan, veteran battle-horse of British IR, widely learned, deeply human, died in 1998; thus, she could not fully witness what she predicted in two of her best books:Casino Capitalism (1997)Mad Money: when Markets Outgrow Governments (1998)
3This file can be downloaded from my website There you can also find further material to accompany our seminars on Inter-national Politics and War & PeaceLost in the maze ??? Send to
4Structure I) The Westphalian State System – a meta-phoric hyperbole ? II) Cracks in the Monolith – Forces of Changea) Globalisationb) Globalisation of Threatsc) Failing Statesd) New WarsIII) Some problems for Humanitarian Inter-ventionIV) Possible solutions
5I) The Westphalian State System – a metaphoric hyperbole ? The overwhelming majority of I.R. writers posit a truism – i.e. that the Peace of Westphaliamade the territorial state the cornerstone of the modern state system (H.J.Morgenthau)formally recognized the concept of state sovereignty (M.Sheehan)formally acknowledged a system of sovereign states (H.Spruyt)established a number of important principles, which were subsequently to form the legal and political framework of modern interstate relations (Evans & Newnham)
6Westphalian State System (II) In short, the system so mentally constructed can be briefly defined (remembering Max Weber‘s famous definition of the state) as one in which prime political authority is conceded to those actors called states, claiming the monopoly of legitimate use of violence within their respective territorial borders, resting on mutual restraint (i.e. non-intervention) and mutual recognition of each other‘s sovereignty.
7Westphalian State System (III) The perception of international order thus established rested on five pillars:1)National actors are the sole holders of sovereignty2) Sovereignty is exercised over physical territory3) National actors are the most powerful players of the world system4) The only enforceable international law is based on treaties between sovereign actors5) War is a legitimate instrument of international politics
8The Billiard-Ball-Model of international Politics Akteur AAkteur BAkteur CAttracting forcesRepellent forces
9Westphalian Realism: Characteristics The structure of the international system is anarchic. There is no authority above states capable of regulating their interactions; states must arrive at relations with other states on their own, rather than being dictated to by some higher controlling entity.Sovereign states are the principal actors in the international system. International institutions, non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, individuals and other sub-state or trans-state actors are viewed as having little independent international influence.States are rational unitary actors each moving towards their own national interest. They distrust long-term cooperation or alliance.
10The traditional concept of international politics: …in brief…The traditional concept ofinternational politics:States as international gatekeepersholding the monopoly of the legitimateuse of armed power in a given territoryplaying a zero-sum game for power, in-fluence, ressources, territory in the in-ternational system
11IGO INGO = government = society State C Society C State A State B Society AState AState BSociety BINGO= foreign or international societal interactions= foreign or international political interactions
12Westphalia: CritiqueMore recent historiography (e.g.A.Osiander) has identified the Westphalian system as a mental construct - „…a figment of nine-teenth-century imagination, stylized still further, and reified, by the discipline of IR itself in the twentieth century…“ (2001:284).The point is well worth debating, and would provide ample ground for a number of (de-) constructivist PhD theses.However, for my present purposes I would like to draw your attention to a different train of arguments:
13LOOKING AT THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM FROM A RECENT INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS PERSPECTIVE For some time already, the analysis of International Relations is characterised by a change in perspectiveaway from the state as a unitary actor acting as a gatekeeper between the domestic and international policy areasup, down, and sideways to supra-state, sub-state, and non-state actors.From the society of states, our focus of attention has consequently shifted to transnational and transgovernmental societies which take the form of boundary-crossing networks amongst individuals and non-governmental organisations (NGOs).
14Transnational Society (of Actors) National ActorSocietyAGovernmentSocietyBGovernmentSocietyCGovernmentTransnational Society
18II Cracks in the Monolith – Forces of Change No doubt, this change of perspective just mentioned resulted from the very real changes of the international system which on the one hand caused, and on the other were driven by Globalization – the globalization of chances as well as the globalization of threats,
19IIa Globalisation“…in its simplest sense globalization refers to the widening, deepening and speeding up of global interconnectedness…”Held, McGrew, Goldblatt, and Perraton, Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture19
20Victory of time over space ”A sense of the shrinking of distances through the dramatic reduction in the time taken, either physically (for instance via air travel) or representationally (via the transmission of electronically mediated information and images), to cross them.”(Tomlinson, J.: Globalization and Culture,1999, p.3)2020
21…two of the consequences… Dematerialization of economic and particularly financial processesDenationalisation of firms/international business actors
22Globalisation: Driving Forces & Challenges Territorial AsymmetryTechnologicalChangeTemporal AsymmetryLegitimacy DeficitEconomic Liberali-sation/DeregulationGlobalisationComplexityAsymmetry of NormsOperational DeficitPolitical LiberalisationAsymmetry of Actors2222
24IIb Globalisation of Threats – or Westfailure It is Susan Strange‘s argument that the Westphalia system grew up in a close relationship with the capitalist market economy prevailing in Europe, from the early modern period onward. Each was a necessary condition for the evolution of the other. To prosper, production and trade required the security provided by the state. To survive, the state required the economic growth, and the credit-creating system of finance provided by the capitalist system.
25Westfailure (2)The development of the economic system, by now, has created three major problems that the political system is incapable of solving:1) The major failure to control and manage the international fnancial system2) The failure to act for the protection of the environment3) The failure to preserve a socio-economic balance between the rich and the powerful and the poor and the weak both nationally and internationally
26Westfailure (3)„ In short, the system is failing Nature – the planet Earth – which is being increasingly pillaged, per-verted, and polluted by economic enterprises which the state-system is unable to control or restrain. It is failing Capitalism in that the national and inter-national institutions that are supposed to manage financial markets are progressively unable … to keep up with the accelerating pace of technological change in the private sector, with potentially dire consequences for the whole market economy. And it is failing world society by allowing a dangerously wide gap to develop between the rich and powerful and the weak and powerless.“ (p.346)
27IIc Asymmetric Warfare New Wars Reference to Mary Kaldor: New and Old Wars: Organized violence in a global era, ²2006Questioning of the state as the war and violence monopolistAsymmetric structure: regulars fighting irregularsSpatial & temporal de-limitationPrivatisation/commercialization of violence
28New Wars (2)Goals: identity-political rather than geo-political or ideologicalAutonomization/independency of traditional military actors & traditional military formsGlocalization of warfareConcurrence of the non-concurrent: decentralization and informalization of the (local) war economy (suffering from de-investment spiral) with simultaneous inter-locking and interweaving with a global shadow economy
29IId Failing StatesA state that is failing has several attributes. One of the most common is the loss of physical control of its territory or a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.Other attributes of state failure include the erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions, an inability to provide reasonable public services, and the inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community.
30Failing States (2)Further indicators cover a wide range of state failure risk elements such as extensive corruption and criminal behavior, inability to collect taxes or otherwise draw on citizen support, large-scale involuntary dislocation of the population, sharp economic decline, group-based inequality, institutionalized persecution or discrimination, severe demographic pressures, brain drain, and environmental decay.States can fail at varying rates through explosion, implosion, erosion, or invasion over different time periods.
31for the Failed States Index – yearly tables & maps
32III Some Problems and Pitfalls for Humanitarian Intervention The Westphalian system, as we have seen, does no longer provide a clear frame of reference regarding- the proper motives to act- the proper agenda to act on- the proper point in time to start action- the criteria to assess success or failure- and, most importantly, the other actors and/or third parties to address legitimately.
33…Problems & Pitfalls (2)… What weighs perhaps most is the fact that the con-cepts of peace I.R. and/or Int. Law can offer are in essence those of the Westphalian system –peace as a systemic condition of the system of states,a pattern governing inter-state behaviour,or quite simply as the absence of the application of organized military force between large social groups.All these concepts do not fit the fuzzyness, de-struc-turization, glocalization, anti-state-monopolistic privatisation of violence which seems to be the main characteristic of post-Westphalian politics.
34…Problems & pitfalls (3)… We need, in other words, a new, adequate, sustainable concept of peace which reflects the changes from Westphalia to post-Westphalia.A start has been made – nearly 20 years ago – with the Agenda for Peace.Preventive diplomacy, peacemaking, and peacekeeping could furnish the new pillars of the post-Westphalian system.The task, as the next graph shows, is however extensive and daunting.
35Wiederaufbau Versöhnung Nachhaltiger FriedeGewaltfreiheitSelbsterhaltungInnere/Äussere LegitimationKonstruktive Konfliktransformationpolitische DemokratisierungWirtschaftl. WiederaufbauWiederherstellung desRechtsstaatsErziehung und Ausbildung, Gesundheitswesen/-vorsorge Ökologisches GleichgewichtÄnderung des moralisch-politischen KlimasVerheilung der Wunden der VergangenheitEngagement für die ZukunftVersöhnung der WerteEntwicklung eines Wir-Gefühls und multipler LoyalitätenMediation,Verhandlung,Schlichtung,StreitbegleitungVersöhnungSicherheitRüstungskontrolleAbrüstungPRÄVENTIONWiederaufbau Versöhnung(Reconstruction) (Reconciliation)Friedensschaffung (Peace Building)Friedenswahrung (robustes) Peace Keeping