The Rise of the Territorial State and

The Treaty Of Westphalia

Dr Daud Hassan*

I. INTRODUCTION

Territory is one of the most important ingredients of Statehood. It is a tangible

attribute of Statehood, defining and declaring the physical area within which
a state can enjoy and exercise its sovereignty. I According to Oppenheim:

State territory is that defined portion of the surface of the globe which is subject
to the sovereignty of the state. A State without a territory is not possible,
although the necessary territory may be very smalJ.2

Indispensably States are territorial bodies. In the second Annual message

to Congress, December 1. 1862, in defining a Nation, Abraham Lincoln
identified the main ingredients of a State: its territory. its people and its law.

* Dr Hassan is a lecturer at the Faculty of Law. University of Technology, Sydney. He has

special interests in international law. international and comparative environmental law and
the law of the sea.
The term sovereignty is a complex and poorly defined concept. as it has a long troubled
history. and a variety of meanings. See Crawford J, The Creation of States in International
Law ( 1979) 26. For example, Hossain identifies three meanings of sovereignty:
I. State sovereignty as a distinctive characteristic of states as constituent units of the
international legal system:
2. Sovereignty as freedom of action in respect of all matters with regard to which a state is
not under any legal obligation: and
3. Sovereignty as the minimum amount of autonomy II hich a state must possess before it
can he accorded the status of a sovereign state.
Hossain K. Slate Sovercigntv and the UN Charier (Oxford. MSD Phil D) ( 196-\.) 3227
as quoted in Crawford J. supra at 27. However. generally sovereignty can he defined as
'supreme authority - independent of any other earthly authority - it implies independence
all round. within and without the border of the country. Oppenheim L,lnremarional UI\I gil
ed, ( 1955) 118-119. The learned Max Huber. Arbitrator in the Island of Palmas Arbitration.
states: . Sovereignty, in the relation between states. signifies independence. Independence in
regard to a portion of the globe is the right to exercise therein. to the exclusion of any other
state. the function of a state.' (1928) 22 American Journal of International Law 875. It is to
he noted. although this idea about sovereignty is derived mainly from the writings of Bodin.
(a French jurist of the 16th century). these assertions are to be found before Bodin's time.
Examples of this are in Justinian's Institute and in the medieval conflicts over sovereign
power between Church and State. for details. see Huntington Jf, Sovereignty: An Inquiry
into the Political Good ( 1959) chs 10-12.
2 Oppenheim L, International Law Vol - 1. 8'11 cd. (1955) 451-52.
2006 The Rise of the Territorial State & The Treaty GfWestphalia 63

He then added "the territory is the only part which is of certain durability".' In
modern system, a successful State is a territorial Unit. As a territorial Unit. its
sovereignty extends over all the individuals and other things within its given
territory. According to Dunleavy and O'leary:

IA I State is sovereign or the supreme power, within its territory and that state
sovereignty extends to all the indi viduals in a gi yen territory.'

It is needless to say, in relation to supreme authority, State territory is very

important. Oppenheim further observed:

[Tlhe importance of State territory lies in the fact that it is the space within
which the State exercise its supreme authority.'

At present it is a recognised fact that States have sovereign power and exclusive
authority within their territory. This imparts an equality between States.

The territorial sovereignty and sovereign equality of States are recognised

by the international community. They are the most important phenomena in
international relations as well. Terrotorial sovereignty and sovereign equality
are also general principles of international law. But these understandings have
not come in a day. There is a long history behind this achievement.

The objective of this paper is to see how the territorial State system emerged
and the role of the Treaty of Westphalia in relation to the establishment of
the territorial State system. The paper commences with a discussion on the
significance of territoriality followed by examining the origin of and concept of
territory. Territory as anAnti-Hegimonic concept and the Westphalia settlement
are considered next. The paper then moves on to present Westphalia as a
pioneer of territorial State practice and its importance in relation to growth
of national consciousness. The changing trends of territoriality are also
discussed. The paper concludes that in terms of progressive development of
modern territorial State system the significance of the Treaty of Westphalia
is without parallel.

.3 Duchacek !D. "Components of International and National Systems". in Duchacek lD (ed.)

The Territorial Dimension o] Politics Within. Among and Across Nations (J 986) 20.
-J. Johnston, RJ. "Bounded Places" in Johnston RJ (cd.) A Question ofPlace: Exploring the
Practice 0/ Human Gcographv ( 1991) 191-92.
5 Supra note 2 at 452.
64 Yearbook of New Zealand Jurisprudence Vol 9

II. SIGNIFICANCE OF TERRITORIALITY

Territoriality is a primary geographical expression of social power which is

related to the definition and operation of States. Territoriality indicates within
what physical boundaries States can legitimately act. The defining of the area
provides a form of communication and of enforcement control.

Origins and Concept of Territory

Jim Gottmann has described the origin of the concept of territory.' It deri ves
from the Latin Terra for land and Torium. belonging to ruler. That is. Territory
is the land belonging to a ruler or State. This meaning has been tracked back
to 1494. approximately to the birth of the modern world economy."

Although this concept emerged approximately at the same time as the world
economy. it was finalised by the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, which is
recognised as the first treaty of modern international law. It confirmed that
within its own territory, each State is sovereign. That is, interference in the
internal affairs of another country was the first offence of international law,"
After this treaty, many sovereign States emerged in Europe. This was the
original territorial basis of the modern interstate system, the first world political
map.'? To ensure the internal order, the territorial State was deemed the most
durable and comparatively most efficient unit.

III. ANTI-HEGIMONIC CONCEPTS AND WESTPHALIA SETTLEMENT

In the medieval Europe, underfeudalism, there was a hierarchical system of

power and authority instead of territorial sovereignty and sovereign equality.
In the medieval period, sovereigns were divided into various categories. They
were as follows:

(i) Some sovereigns were universally recognised as independent, both de-

facto and de-jure;

(ii) Some were independent in practice but not altogether in juridical theory:
and

6 Sack R.D, Human Territoriality: Irs Theory and Histor v (1986) 5.

7 Gottman, J The Significance of Territorv (1973) 15.
8 Taylor PJ. "Territoriality, State and Nation" in Political Geography: World Economy: Nation
State and Locality (1985) 96.
9 Ibid,96.
10 Ibid. 96
2006 The Rise 0/ the Territorial State & The Treaty Of Westplwlia 65

(iii) Some states were separately constituted with their own laws and
institutions but dependent, such as Southern Netherlands and various states
ll
in Italy and around the Baltic

As can be seen, the territorial State system was not introduced during the
medieval period. In this respect. by the beginning of the seventeenth century
there was a demand for the establishment of norms and rules for peaceful
relations. According to Pugh:

IB Iy the beginning of the seventeenth century the growing complexity of

international customs and treaties had given rise to a need for compilation
and systemisation. At the same time the growing disorders and suffering of
war. especially of the thirty year war, which laid waste. hundreds of towns and
villages. and inflicted great suffering and privation of peasants and city dwellers
urgently called for some further rules governing the conduct of war, I:'

Settling the Hobbesian chaos. anarchy and destruction called for some rules for
peace and order. There was a need for an alternative design to the hierarchical
feudal concepts and other evils. which led to an anti-hegimonial alliance and
establishing the balance of power. In this respect, the Westphalia settlement
was a remarkable and significant development. It recognised the hornogenial
system and acknowledged all Princes or States as equally sovereign. It
removed temporal power from the church. It was therefore a fundamental
charter in nature. As a fundamental and comprehensive charter it established
many rules and principles of the new society of states. Some of the general
ideas clearly expressed by this charter have been echoed in the following
international settlements and in the permanent congress of the League of
Nations and United Nations.

The Westphalia settlement emphasised the separation and equality of states

rather than the unity of Christendom. It rejected any idea that the Pope or
Emperor had any uni versal authority. 13 The Westphalia settlement established
the anti-hegimonic concepts of territorital sovereignty and sovereign
equality.

II Watson. A "Westphalia: an Anti-Hcgimonial Commonwealth of States" in The Evolution

ofInternational Society.' A Comparative and Historical Analvsis (1992) 187.
12 Henkin L Pugh G. Schachter O. & Smit W. Cases and materials Oil lntemational Law
( 1<)80) 3.
13 Watson A. supra n II at 188.
66 Yearbook ofNew Zealand Jurisprudence Vol 9

As a separate State the sovereign were no longer bound by the Church norms
which regulated the conduct of lay rulers in medieval period. In order to
function, they needed new rules and institutions in place of old ones.'! To
regulate the dealings of the Princes or States with each other, there developed
a new concept of International law as a substitute for such norms.

So, in the strict sense the modern International law and sovereign territorial
States occurred at the same time. The history of modern International law
begins with the emergence of independent nation-States from the ruins of
the medieval Holy Roman empire and is commonly dated from the peace of
Westphalia (1648).15

There was no short way to the transition of territorial sovereign States from
the integrated medieval hierarchical system. It was very hard and difficult.
This system emerged through a triangular struggle, that is, struggle between
kings and Emperors, Emperors and Popes, Popes and kings. At that stage,
international relations were not based on equally distributed power, either
in fact or in theory. The weak were always threatened by the strong and the
survival of the weak was uncertain. The idea of territorial State was related
to collective security of nations and to establish rule of law for the equal
protection of sovereign States from indiscriminate use of force by the higher
or stronger authority.

The territorial State system originating in the swinging between war and
peace. developed as a system of political control. It evolved out of the struggle
between the forces supporting the then hegimonic order!" and those who were
pushing the Europe towards a sort of secular independence and who intended
to constitute a new Europe. Westphalia settled this. It ended thirty years of war.
In practice, the Wesphalia settlement added some new and significant matters
in relation to territorial practice. It was the first effective general congress of
Europe and this congress made a scope for individual representation of the
secular sovereigns.

It gave the formal sanction of territorial and equal sovereignty of secular States
and coordination between them. The Westphalia settlement legitimised a sort
of commonwealth of sovereign States. This legitimation of acommonwealth
of sovereign states was marked as a victory because in general this was the
ambition of the Princes, specially of the German Princes, both Protestant and

14 Ibid. 188.
15 Kennedy D, "A New Stream of International Law Scholarship" (1988) 7 Wise. International
Law Journal 19.
16 Watson A, supra n 11 at 182.
2006 The Rise o] the Territorial State & The Treaty Of Westplwlia 67

Catholic in relation to The Holy Roman Empire.'? At this stage, there emerged
the idea that the co-existence of territorially separate and equally sovereign
States afforded a better guarantee of peace than the Holy Roman Empire. J8

IV. W ESTPHALlA AS A PIONEER OF TERRITORIAL STATE PRACTICE

The territorial practice was legitimised and also standardised by the Westphalia
settlement. It emphased the separation of States. Therefore Christendom was
divided into sovereign secular States with a thick line between them and the
government were the absolute authority inside that line. This change brought a
new image in every sovereign territorial limit, that is, all Governments are the
exclusive authority and their decisions and arguments are exclusively carried
out within their territorial limit, as the concept of Westphalian sovereignty is
tied to State territory. According to territorial sovereignty, within a territory
there is only one absolute temporal power, the Government of that territorial
State.

This territorial division of sovereign authory, in the modern sense, was

not found in the Greek city states, nor in Roman Empire, nor in Medieval
Christendom. The Great Wall of China and Roman line may be an example
in this context but these were not like modern times. Littimore states:

IT [he concept of a man made great wall .. was more a product of the kind of
state created with in China than of the kind of pressure against China from
the steppe.'?

Similarly the lines conceived by the Roman Empire were not real territorial
divisions. They were used as a temporary stopping places where the potentially
unlimited expansion of the Pax Roman had come to a halt." Very often they
unilaterally expanded their empire and their territory was simply extended
over another territory. In the context of sovereign territorial division, the
Westphalia settlement is notable. As a first treaty of modern International
law, it opened the door to and legitimised the territorial practice of exclusive
authority and sovereign State equality.

The Treaty of Westphalia embodied some normative conceptions which were

very significant in interstate relation. As these conception are significant in
the international arena, they have been embodied in subsequent instruments.

17 Ibid. 186.
18 Herz J H. "The Rise and Demise of the Territorial States" (957) 9 World Politics 476.
19 Kratochwil E "Of System, Boundaries and Territoriality: An Enquiry in to the formation
of the State system" (1986) 39 World Politics 35.
20 Ibid. 35-36.
68 Yearbook of New Zealand Jurisprudence Vol 9

Two dominant conceptions of the Treaty of Westphalia have been embedded

in Article (2) of the United Nations Charter. Article 2(1) and Article 2(7) are
appropriate from the perspecti ve of their interrelation.

Article 2( 1) of the Chatter states:

The organisation is based on the principle of sovereign equality of all its

members

and Article 2(7) states:

[Nlothing contained in the present charter shall authorise the United Nations
to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction
of any state or shall require the members to submit such matters to settlement
under the present charter."

The ideas originating from Westphalia, that sovereign equality and exclusive
domestic jurisdiction are the best guantors of peace between peoples are
formally perpetuated in the United Nations Charter."

V. WESTPHALIA IN RELATION To
GROWTH OF NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS

In relation to the growth of national consciousness, Westphalia settlement is

remarkable. It paved the way to look at, or even to conceive of, the national
interest. This conception was reflected in the function of the European States
and even now, in the changing world context, it greatly influences the modern
welfare States.

At present, the number of States has grown enormously and there have emerged
many changes in inter-State relations and in the State system. We know that
most of the Asian, African, and Latin American Countries were once under
the control of European powers. After the Second World War there came
a significant change in the world politics. Through decolonisation a large
number of Asian, African, and Latin American countries became independent,
equal sovereign States and became member of the United Nations, once
again echoing the Westphalian understanding that recognizing a community
of territorial sovereign and equal States was the best method either to attain

21 United Nations. Charter 0/ the United Nations and the Statute 0/ the International Court
ofJustice ( 19..lj) 4,
22 Falk R A. "The Interplay of Westphalia and Charier Conceptions of International Legal
Order" in Falk R A & Black C l:: (eds.) The Future oitnternational Legal Order (1969)
Vol. I. "+9.
2006 The Rise (d the Territorial State & The Treaty Of Westplwlia 69

or to keep peace between peoples. At present the position of these States in

the United Nations is significant. They are organised in their national and
economic interest.

VI. THE CHANGING TREND

At present the idea of Globalization is active in the international arena. It

emphasizes the interdependence of States. Similarly to the International
Human Rights movement, it views solving socio-economic and political
problems requires collective efforts and restrictions on State sovereignty.
These movements argue that the problems of a country are not only territorial
but global. Therefore, there is an argument of the need to increase the mutual
cooperation among the States. Without totally abolishing the equal territorial
sovereign power of States, they want to see the world, geopolitically, as
a single place." Ironically, this thinking has been running mainly by the
developing countries and gradually they have gained some benefit in this
respect. Whether a return to more centralized and hierarchical power can
or will better serve promoting peace and order than the Westphalian model
is an interesting question. Which model would best serve the factually less
powerful, on which theorizes an equal independent sovereign status or one
which centralizes power will likely not be the decided by the less powerful
themselves. That is always a cause for concern.

VIl.CONCLUSION

Today human race is divided into more than 200 States. The State system
and International law have progressively developed. Interstate relations
have rapidly grown in the various fields and these relations are governed
by International law. The territorial sovereignty and sovereign equality of
States is recognised in the interstate system. These are basic principles of
International law.

These conceptions are rooted in the Treaty of Westphalia. Therefore in relation

to modern State system the Treaty of Westphalia is a landmark. This treaty
attempt to systemise the spheres of social and political life. By ending the thirty
year war. it situates International law as a rational philosophy, a handmaiden
of statehood and the cultural heir of religious and moral principle.>'

23 Brown R. "Globalisation and the End of the National Project", in 1. MacMillan and A.
Linklater (eds.) Boundaries in Question: New Directions in International Relations ( J 995)
55.
2-1- Supra note 14 at 1-1-.
70 Yearbook ofNew Zealand Jurisprudence Vol 9

With time. and according to the demands of the world society. new thoughts
about the interstate system have been and are still being introduced. New
Institutions have been established to maintain the peaceful relations among the
States. New International treaties have been concluded for the development
of world system. Nevertheless. as a first treaty of modern international law
the significance of this treaty is immortal because it introduced modern State
system and enabled peaceful co-existence between equals. We should not
forget its basic wisdom as we move forward to new models.
Yearbook of New Zealand Jurisprudence

Editor
Gay Morgan
 Yearbook of New Zealand Jurisprudence

Volume 9 2006

Contents

ONE LAW FOR ALL(ExCEPT FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)

Wade Mansell

THE NEW AUTONOMOUS CORPORATE WARRIORSAND THEIR IMPLICATIONS

FOR HUMANITY
Pauline Collins 15

HUMAN RIGHTS, THE HRA, ANDASYLUM SEEKER REGIMES IN THE UK:

THE NEW HUMANITARIANSIM?
Emma Henderson 46

THE RISE OF THE TERRITORIAL STATE ANDTHE TREATY OF WESTPHALIA

Dr Daud Hassan 62

WAR AND PEACE AND THE COMMONWEALTH CONSTITUTION: A CRITICAL

REVIEW OF THE PREROGATIVES DOCTRINE
Dr Imtia: Omar 71

THE THIN END OF THE WEDGE: EXECUTIVE DETENTION OF NON-

CITIZENS & THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION
Jessie M. Hohmann 91

CONFLICT OF LAWS IN INTERNATIONAL TORT CASES:THE NEED FOR

REFORM ON Born SIDES OF THE TASMAN
Anthony Gray 113

BROADENING HORIZONS OF QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE: DESIRABILITY OF ONE

LAW FOR ALL
Prof Dr. Mohd Alta! Hussain Ahangar 141

THE RELATION BETWEEN PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW AND PRIVATE

INTERNATIONAL LAW IN THE INTERNET CONTEXT
Dr Dan Jerker B. Svantesson 154

STYLIZED MODELS OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Dr. Andrew Clarke 161
THE RESPONSE OF BUSINESS TOPARADIGMATIC CHANGES IN LEGAL
SYSTEMS
Noel Cox 176

NATCRE OF NATIVE LAND TITLE &COMPENSATION FOR

COMPULSORY ACQUSITION
Prof U. Iack-Osimiri, G.A. Okpara, Z. Adango,
Chima Jack-Osimiri 191

ONE LAW FOR ALL No MORE: THE DEMISE OF COMMON LAW

CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS IN STOCK EXCHANGE REGULATION IN
AUSTRALIA, NEW ZEALAND, THE UNITED KINGDOM AND IRELAND
Josephine Coffey 211

THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR THEPROVISION OF "QUOTES": A

PREUTvllNARY EXPLORATIONOF LAW AND PRACTICE IN NEW ZEALAND
Dr. Philippa K. Wells 228

FORBIDDING DWARF TOSSING: DEFENDING DIGNITY OR DISCRIMINATION

BASED ON SIZE?
Dr Julia Da\'is 239

SHOliLD PATERNITY BE LINKED To SEXUAL INTERCOURSE?

Michael Ehurn 259

THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF GEO-IDENTIFICATION

Dr Dan Jerker B. Svantesson 279

THE ROLE OF COMPUTERS INJUDICIAL REASONING AND ANALYSIS

Ian Iredale 288

ADVOCATES' IMMUNITY: WHAT MAKES AUSTRALIAN LAWYERS So

SPECIAL?
Julia Werren and Amanda Williamson 302

MEDIATING IN THE SHADOW OF AUSTRALIAN LAW: STRUCTURAL

INFLUENCES ON ADR
Dr Nadja Alexander 322

FOR",IAL LEGAL EDUCATION: A FEW LESSONSFROM THE PAST, USEFUL

FOR THE FUTURE
Professor John H. Wade 338