# A critical view of The Treaty of Westphalia



## Bitbybit (Aug 14, 2021)

_..Here, is usually where the early modern historians begin their finger-wagging, demonstrating with considerable historical evidence that the pillar on which Westphalia stands is at the very least undeserved, if not entirely ahistorical. Thorough dissections of the “Westphalian myth” abound. Andreas Osiander provides a blow-by-blow debunking of this “cherished interpretive tradition” in his article “Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth.”6 He points out a number of historical fallacies, perhaps most glaringly, that the treaty itself does not even exist. Instead, the “The Peace of Westphalia” acts as a shorthand for two separate treaties signed between different warring parties in two separate locations on October 24, 1648: Instrumentum Pacis Monasteriense or the Treaty of Münster, signed between the Holy Roman Empire and the King of France, and Instrumentum Pacis Osnabrugense or the Treaty of Osnabrück, signed between the Holy Roman Empire and Queen of Sweden.7 It should also be noted that Dutch Autonomy from Spanish Hapsburg Rule was not part of the Münster-Osnabrück settlements, having been established in January of 1648 in a separate Treaty of Münster.8 To add to the confusion, scholars frequently invoke the “Treaty of Westphalia,” but fail to distinguish exactly which settlement they are referencing. Yet perhaps the most egregious error, is the notion that Westphalia bestowed lasting peace on Europe. The settlement in fact did not end the war between France and Spain, which would continue until 1659, nor did it address continued fighting amongst the Baltic powers. In the entire 17th century, there were only seven years of continental wide peace: 1610, 1669–71, and 1680–2.9 With such evidence in mind, it seems difficult to convincingly argue that Westphalia ushered in any sort of new international system


The origins of the Westphalian Myth can be traced to the vast diaspora of primarily Protestant thinkers writing, teaching, and traveling across Europe throughout the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. These men of letters found refuge in Protestant states such as Switzerland, the Dutch Republic, Sweden, or Protestant German City States like Brandenburg. In the wake of the Thirty Years’ War, the idea that constituent European states might be held together by a common commitment to Christendom was left in tatters. Seizing upon newfound territorial and political independence from the great Catholic powers of Europe, these writers and thinkers worked to refashion a new political narrative capable of filling the void left by a failed Christendom. From this angle of analysis, the Westphalian Myth not only finds greater context, but appears almost comically self-serving. Taking advantage of Europe’s crisis, these emboldened Protestant thinkers sought to redefine Europe’s international system on their own terms: imagining a system freed from the ancient power of the Catholic Church as the great continental intermediary, where newly independent cities in Switzerland and the Dutch Republic could stand toe with their former sovereigns, the Most Catholic King and the Holy Roman Emperor._



https://escholarship.org/content/qt...20605626522a9518b26def67189f333e.pdf?t=qdxemp
Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth on JSTOR


----------

