Suchergebnisse

Interventions in other states on behalf of their populations is often portrayed as a novel phenomenon in state practice, one which breaches the old principle of sovereignty. But is this really a new practice? Patrick Milton argues that such interventions occurred frequently as far back as the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries.

Although the crisis surrounding the execution of Protestants by Catholic authorities in the Polish town of Thorn in 1724 is relatively well known among historians of early modern Europe – as indeed is the susceptibility of the eighteenth-century Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to external interference and intervention – there has been no detailed, multi-angle analysis of the European reactions to this instance of alleged religious persecution. By analysing the diplomatic and publicity responses of various European powers, as well as the comments in the contemporary print media, a number of insights will be gained. By focusing on the arguments and language used, the article seeks to discern the normative attitudes of contemporary statesmen towards sovereignty, standards of good governance, 'enlightened' state practices, international treaty law, and the grounds and scope for the external protection of foreign subjects' rights. More broadly, this will enable a deeper understanding of the normative underpinning of the post-Westphalian states system by highlighting the previously underestimated role and capacity of intervention in states' internal affairs, stemming, at least in part, from a 'proto-humanitarian' impulse. By keeping a close watch on the broader context of European international relations, the relative importance of political and geo-strategic interests in such undertakings, and how these interacted with more ideological factors, will also be explored, as will the interrelationships between the public sphere and foreign policy.

AbstractThe success of the treaties of Westphalia in preserving the religious peace in the Holy Roman Empire after 1648 has been a popular scholarly theme. Many historians also realize, however, that confessional tensions and confrontations persisted well into the eighteenth century. Exploring an early eighteenth-century German confessional crisis centered in the Palatinate, this article focuses on the degree to which judicial, political, and diplomatic mechanisms successfully regulated and deescalated confessional strife. In short, it looks at the "juridification" of confessional conflict in the Empire. In so doing, it addresses a number of underresearched themes, such as the reactions of the Catholic princes and the Emperor, the internal dynamics within theCorpus Evangelicorum, as well as the international dimension of European great power politics. This not only provides a multiangle analysis of a crisis that saw the emergence of a new regime in the politics of religion, but also offers greater insight into the relationship between the powerful, militarized Protestant territorial-states of northern Germany and the Habsburg emperorship, specifically with regard to the judicial authority of the latter.

So wie der Dreißigjährige Krieg vor 400 Jahren Deutschland verwüstete, zerstören die Nahost-Kriege heute Syrien und den Irak. Der Westfälische Frieden, von Zeitgenossen als Weltwunder gepriesen, war ein komplexes und innovatives Vertragswerk. Wer heute in Nahost Frieden stiften will, kann sich davon inspirieren lassen. (IP)

Drawing lessons from the Treaty of Westphalia, the authors offer fresh thinking on how to treat the legacies of the post-Ottoman state system.