For generations, political scientists have invoked the 1648 Peace of Westphalia as the definitive bedrock of modern international relations, traditionally arguing that the treaties birthed the modern system of inviolable state sovereignty. In this orthodox view, Westphalia established a categorical prohibition against external interference in a state's domestic affairs, effectively granting monarchs absolute authority within their territorial borders. Consequently, contemporary legal scholars often frame the late-twentieth-century rise of international human rights law—which permits intervention in cases of severe domestic abuse—as a radical rupture with a rigid Westphalian tradition.
However, recent historical analysis reveals that this conventional narrative relies on a fundamental misreading of the actual treaties. The Westphalian agreements contained numerous provisions that explicitly guaranteed the religious rights of minorities within sovereign territories, authorizing signatory states to intervene if a sovereign violated these protections. These mechanisms were not mere diplomatic window-dressing but were actively invoked in the decades following the settlement. Therefore, the prevailing consensus requires revision: rather than inaugurating an era of absolute non-intervention, the Westphalian settlement established a legal framework in which sovereign legitimacy was intrinsically conditioned upon adherence to specific cross-border obligations, prefiguring rather than precluding modern interventionist doctrines. While it is true that Westphalia formalized territorial boundaries in ways previously unseen, equating this with absolute internal autonomy ignores the intricate system of mutual accountability the treaties actually codified.
Which of the following most accurately expresses the main point of the passage?
- AThe late-twentieth-century rise of international human rights law represents a radical rupture with the traditional Westphalian system, which established a categorical prohibition against external interference in a state's domestic affairs.
- BThe Westphalian treaties authorized signatory states to intervene in the domestic affairs of other nations to protect the religious rights of minorities, demonstrating that the treaties were actively enforced.
- CWhile the Westphalian settlement formalized territorial boundaries in ways previously unseen, political scientists and contemporary legal scholars agree that it also codified an intricate system of mutual accountability.
- Contrary to the orthodox historical narrative, the Peace of Westphalia did not establish absolute state sovereignty, but rather created a system in which sovereign legitimacy depended on international obligations, laying a precedent for modern interventionist doctrines.Answer
- EModern international human rights law, far from being a late-twentieth-century innovation, is a direct continuation of seventeenth-century legal frameworks that universally prioritized human rights over territorial boundaries.