Reading a book about world politics, I found a lot of references to the Thirty Years War and the peace that ended it and how it influenced the idea of state sovereignty. Is the treaty so important? And if so, what were the underlying causes of the conflict it preceded that made it so significant?
On the treaty of Westphalia. It has quite a significant role in narrative of history and more importantly in continued international relations. Westphalia was the first real codification of what it is to be a sovereign state. And this definition has continued pretty much through to this day, constantly influencing the way in which states interact with one another.
I don't know enough about the treaty of Westphalia to say more than what has already been said, so I'll only comment about the main causes. There was an underlying cause for the general conflict and a direct cause that got the war started.
Underlying Cause: The Church's Property after the Reformation
Throughout Europe it wasn't unusual for catholic bishops and monasteries to own territory/land. Bishops often had political power just like secular princes (dukes, counts, etc.). This property amounted to a significant percentage of the entire Holy Roman Empire (I seem to remember it was around one third, but I am not certain). But during the Reformation, quite a few German princes switched to protestantism. They then often confiscated the church's land in their territory. The Emperor didn't manage to stop this when it happened, but form that point on he and his successors, together with the catholic church, looked for opportunities to get it back.
The Thirty Years War wasn't the first war caused by this situation. But earlier wars were more local and didn't resolve the overall situation. Many people saw that a big war was coming and warned against it years in advance.
Direct Cause: The Question of Bohemian Autonomy
Bohemia was a Kingdom that had belonged to the Habsburger territories for some time. De jure it was still a kingdom separate from Austria, though. In 1609, when two Habsburger's were trying to gain (or keep) Bohemia, both of them made more or less the same deal with the Bohemian leaders: They would gain certain privileges. Among those was the right to elect their king in the future, the freedom of confession, and the assurance that they could keep former church land. ("Majestätsbrief")
Now we jump a few years ahead (1618). One of those Habsburgers is now dead while the other has succeeded him as Emperor. There was a somewhat complicated quarrel about a protestant church on catholic land that ended with another protestant church being demolished. This made the Bohemian leaders angry because in their view it violated the Majestätsbrief. Emperor Mathias says that he isn't responsible, so the leaders conclude that his governors in Praha must be responsible. They put two governors on trial and sentence them to being thrown out of the window. They survive and manage to flee.
This was the pretense for a war. And Habsburg had already decided to fight this war before the incident.
(The second part about the direct cause is simplified here. The different Habsburgers Rudolf, Mathias and Ferdinand and their different goals and opinions deserve a more detailed description. And there was an Imperial election between these 1608 and 1618 that is somewhat important. However, I don't have the time to describe it in detail. I hope this still gives an overview.)
My source is unfortunately completely in German: Der 30jährige Krieg, a series of youtube videos from Peter Milger (as far as I can tell he is a journalist and author who studied history among other things)
Just yesterday I wrote a post on the Westphalian Peace in a similar thread.
Political scientist here.
The "Westphalian System" is incredibly important because it introduced a rule into international relations that didn't exist before: The concept of a sovereign nation state.
This overarching concept is commonly divided into three principles.
- The territorial principle.
- States have clear territorial borders
This followed the proposed ideal of the unity of territory, state, people, nation and religion (all very fuzzy concepts, let's not delve into this. Important is here above all the unity of territory and religion as in the ruler of a state being the one to decide the states religion. This principle, called "cuius regio, eius religio" (who's territory, his religion), was the foundation of the Religious Peace of Augsburg of 1555, that failed to stabilize the Holy Roman Empire before the 30 Year's War and was thus enforced after the "Great Religious War".)
- The principle of sovereignty (and this is really interesting for us political scientists)
- States are the only relevant actors in the international system
- The principle of legality
- Sovereign states are equals (a major point in modern theories of "anarchy in the international political system")
The general gist of it is: States are sovereign entities. They have certain rights and are autonomous, equal actors in the international political system.
It should be noted that this view is getting more and more criticized! Especially historians attack it, as it condenses a fairly long evolution in political systems and relations into a very short timeframe. Nonetheless, these basic principles are commonly called the Westphalian System.
Sources: Various handbooks on political sciences and my notes for my final masters exams.
Good reading on the topic, including one critique:
- Croxton, Derek , "The Peace of Westphalia of 1648 and the Origins of Sovereignty", in: International History Review, 21 (1999) (3): p. 569–91
- Strange, Susan: "The Westfailure System", in: The Review of International Studies, 1999, 25, p. 345-354