In this second decade of the 21st century the Westphalian World Order continues to remain the dominant model of international state systems and state sovereignty around the world. Even today the concept of Sovereignty is projected as one originating and revolving around the idea of the Westphalian State, while simultaneously negating existing non-Western models of state and sovereignty. It is ironic that most States, including non-Western States, attribute their source of sovereignty from Westphalia.
Commonly referred to as the Treaty of Westphalia, the 1648 Peace of Westphalia was a series of peace treaties that ended the Thirty Years War in Central and Western Europe. According to Mohammad-Mahmoud Ould Mohamedou, Professor of International History, “the treaties produced a novel type of systemic interaction between self-selecting agents predicated on the notion of limited sovereignty (with the view to end the conflicts and to maintain some sort of resilient “rules of the game”).” This interaction was considered novel at that time since it “perceptibly departed from what empires round the world and theocratic systems (such as the Holy Roman Empire or the Ottoman Empire) had based their universal suzerainty [upper sovereign] on for centuries.” Through Westphalia, a notion of statehood was engineered in the form of “the nation-state.”
Understanding the Westphalian State requires examining the context within which its intellectual history and the Anglo-Saxon cultural world view of security, force, governance, territory and state-building emerged. This understanding is critical to questions of War and Peace because the Westphalian State not only remain unchallenged but enjoys foundational monopoly in determining what constitutes a state, and hence is dominant, assertive and often projected as the ultimate inevitable form of political organization. This hegemonic character was evident during the decolonization process which engineered emerging newly independent political entities to assume the form of the Westphalian State. Those that resisted and defied the Westphalian model were either not recognized, or continued to languish under colonial powers. In this manner, non-Western indigenous forms of sovereignty and statehood were negated and denied existence.
The Westphalian State and its concept of sovereignty has been used by both Colonial and State powers over indigenous peoples in denying their territorial rights and humanity while justifying the right of conquest by claims of national superiority. Considering that State sovereignty revolves around territory and legitimacy through force, Achille Mbembe says, “the ultimate expression of sovereignty resides, to a large degree, in the power and the capacity to dictate who may live and who must die.” He says, “to kill or to allow to live constitutes the limits of sovereignty,” and therefore, “to exercise sovereignty is to exercise control over mortality and to define life as the deployment and manifestation of power.”
Furthermore, Yash Ghai says that due to manipulation by the State system, the right to self-determination growing out of popular sovereignty often finds itself being obstructed in the name of State sovereignty. States that continue to deny the right to self-determination often justify such denials on grounds of State Sovereignty. Yet, by denying a peoples’ right to self-determination, the State is limiting its own ability to exercise its Sovereignty. For instance, the military government of Burma uses force to suppress the right of the Nagas, Karens, Kachins, Shan, Chins, etc., to decide their own destiny. These actions directly impede the peoples’ ability to function and develop as Sovereign entities in a manner that is democratic, healthy, peaceful and conducive for their own growth and well-being.
Today, Nagas find themselves living marginalized at the edge of the modern State – politically, economically, culturally, and often physically as well. In their aspiration to become fully human, Nagas need to explore and construct new paradigms of the rightful structure, function, and patterns of relationship. To imagine and to create is to go beyond Westphalia.
It is essential for Nagas not to forget that they are negotiating with a State that is essentially Westphalian in character and behavior. Therefore, while living in the critical moment there is a need to examine and understand together the insidious and undermining nature of the Westphalian State. Eventually, Nagas must define and articulate their own version of the Naga historical journey of self-determination and political future in a way that transcends the Westphalian World Order. Only then will the generations be united in purpose and live in harmony.
