Talk:Westphalian system

Westphalian sovereignty v. Peace of Westphalia

Taking to talk as requested by @Iskandar323:. As I see it, the page is burdened by a proportionality issue of excess quotation relative to the body size of the page overall. Block quotes in particular have always been a grey zone of MOS:QUOTE, as lifting a paragraph from a copyrighted source is never preferable unless absolutely critical for understanding. They should not and, due to plagiarism and copyright concerns, cannot be used gratuitously.

Although the Kissinger quote may be argued to be helpful in explaining the concept here from the perspective of the individual's practice in international diplomacy, the Gardner quote on the historical Peace of Westphalia is tangentially relevant to this page only in terms of establishing that some scholars contest the accuracy of equivocating the political concept with the historical conditions of the titular peace.

However, the principal arguments of this trend have already been highlighted, rather throughly, already by the second paragraph in the same subsection. The maintenance of the Gardner quotation therefore does not seem relevant, it does not add any further context which is not already expressed by the preceding paragraph. As there is a separate page on the Peace of Westphalia itself, the utility of a block quote on this page here, which only serves to repeat the perceived deficiency of equivocating the titular historical treaty with the concept, does not appear to be necessary. Sleath56 (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I shortened the quote and put it as efn, it does appear as somewhat undue but since it is relevant and mentions the subject, I don't think we should be doing away with it altogether. Selfstudier (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I was more or less thinking along these lines and I agree the blockquote was bad. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I've incorporated the succinctly shortened quotation work into the body, but otherwise, @Selfstudier:'s abridgement clears up the issue in my view. Sleath56 (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 13 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Thank you for your feedback and comments, especially Iskandar323! I have another proposal, I will make it below. This one is withdrawn. Onlk (talk) 08:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

---

Westphalian sovereignty → State sovereignty – I think National sovereignty or State sovereignty would be a better title for this topic. Not only the title, also the structure of the article should be slightly changed. But I would like to hear other opinions on this proposal first before changing anything. Onlk (talk) 09:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose National sovereignty AND oppose State sovereignty (the latter for now): National sovereignty is, rather critically, not the same concept. Westphalian sovereignty and state sovereignty are often used interchangeably, as both refer to the idea that states have supreme authority within their own territories. National sovereignty refers to the idea that a nation, as a political entity, has the right to govern itself independently. This concept is closely related to Westphalian sovereignty, as the nation-state is the primary unit of governance in the international system established by the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, but it remains a subset of Westphalian sovereignty, as it encompasses the idea of self-determination and independence at the national level within the broader framework. For the other move, better reasons are needed. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Iskandar323 what you write about nation has the right to govern itself independently, thus forming nation-state is different concept, it is called popular sovereignty. Popular sovereignty is not the same as National sovereignty. But I see a possible confusion indeed. Changed my prosal to State sovereignty. Onlk (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  "Popular" refers to a people/populous, but a populous is not necessarily a nation. So yes, as you note, national sovereignty is a confusing term that has different meanings in different contexts based on the definition of 'nation'. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, agree with you about National sovereignty. Retargeted it to nation state. --Onlk (talk) 10:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: If one assumes the terms to be identical, then the proposed move is not unreasonable based on prevalence, but I'm not sure this is correct. Under some definitions, Westphalian sovereignty and state sovereignty are closely related and often used interchangeably, but they are not considered identical, with the former being a broader concept that refers to the historical and philosophical foundations of the modern nation-state system, and the latter focusing on the powers and functions of the state as a political entity. From this angle, Westphalian sovereignty refers to the principle established in the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, which recognized the modern nation-state system. State sovereignty, on the other hand, refers to the idea that a state has supreme authority within its own territory and is the highest legal authority within its borders. This includes the power to make and enforce laws, to regulate the economy, and to conduct foreign relations. Ever so subtlety different. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The two terms are certainly not identical.--Lubiesque (talk) 13:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Westphalian sovereignty is a particular type of sovereignty—blindlynx 20:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  Soverignty is a broad concept that has multiple applications, and state (Westphalian) sovereignty is the particular application of that principle to a state (whereby they become sovereign states). Onlk (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  It might be more appropriate for State sovereignty to redirect to Sovereign state. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 14 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. With due consideration that the proposer was involved in sockpuppetry. (non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 09:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

---

Westphalian sovereignty → Westphalian system – I see now that this article is more about Westphalian systemm of international relations and not only about the state sovereignty. In almost all wikis (exept eswiki and ptwiki which have just translated from enwiki) have the article about the Westphalian system. Not only the title, also the structure of the article should be changed. All types of soverignties are much better covered in a broad concept article soverignty. Onlk (talk) 08:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment: This I could potentially get behind for two reasons: A) there is Ngrams and Google scholar (13,000 hits to 6,000 hits) support for 'Westphalian system' over the current title (and the phrase already directs to this page, so it is the presumed WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), and B) this would help curb confusion between the Westphalian concept and sovereignty in general. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support per the Oxford Companion to International Relations, among other reference works. Srnec (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removed from lead

Efforts to curtail absolute sovereignty have met with substantial resistance by sovereigntist movements in multiple countries who seek to "take back control" from such transnational governance groups and agreements, restoring the world to pre-World War II norms of sovereignty.

While this may be valid, up to a point, it is undue in the lead, and needs balance, for example the US has never been subject to any international criminal oversight (E.G. war crimes tribunals) and very few states that were nominally subject to international treaties have honoured them in cases of egregious widespread systemic violation of human rights. (Simply, I would argue, those states that don't follow their own laws, or make laws contrary to natural law, are not going to follow moral precepts from outside without compulsion, or a change of government.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC).