ENGAGE: states and IOs

For our next lesson, we will be sharing our insights on how States and International
Organizations (IO) evolved.

This is partly a throwback, a revisit on important historical events that paved the way for
significant institutions of our time to exists.

It is not a very comprehensive account, but at least it will give us a taste of what Charles Lyle
said on his “Law of uniformitarianism - that the past is the key to the present." We will start
our journey with "The Holy Roman Empire."

Holy Roman Empire Explained

The Holy Roman Empire was a large collection of thousands of political entities of many
different ethnicities that existed for more than a thousand years at the heart of Europe.
Stretching from modern-day Italy to Denmark, from France to Poland. The Holy Roman Empire
was an important part of European history, with several countries that exist today having
emerged from the empire.

Keeping in line with the Empire’s complex nature, there isn’t even a universally agreed upon
date as to when the Empire actually started. The two dates that are cited are: 800 AD
(coronation of Charlemagne) and 962 AD (coronation of Otto I). After the fall of the Western
Roman Empire in the 5th century, the Roman Empire was reduced to its eastern half. Of course,
their capital was no longer Rome, it was the ethnically Greek city of Constantinople.

Now, while the inhabitants of this empire continued to see themselves as, well, the Roman
Empire, modern historians tend to refer to them as the Byzantine Empire, based on the old
name for the capital city, Byzantium. Anyway, 3 centuries later the Frankish King Charlemagne
was crowned “Emperor of the Romans”, as the Pope transferred the imperial title from east
back to west. At the time, the title was considered “vacant” because it was held by a woman,
known simply as “Irene”, who killed her own son to take power from him.

Irene of Athens
- Had her own son (Constantine V) blinded in AD 797. He died of his wounds, and Irene
succeeded him and became Empress.
- Pope Leo III, did not recognize her authority because she was a woman, and the imperial
throne was considered “vacant”.
- Imperial authority was therefore transferred to Rome with the coronation of
Charlemagne.

The Frankish Kingdoms were split and reunited several times, with 3 kingdoms emerging that
would make up the core of the Holy Roman Empire: The German Kingdom, the Italian Kingdom
and the Burgundian Kingdom. There was also the Kingdom of Bohemia, but that didn’t become
a kingdom until 1198.

In 1961, Otto I, King of Germany, came to the assistance of Pope John XII, as the Papal States
were invaded by the Berengar II of Italy. Otto conquered northern Italy and deposed Berengar
as his own troops abandoned him. The pope crowned Otto emperor in 962, the first German to
be emperor. Almost all successors would also be German for the rest of the Empire’s existence.

The early years of the Empire’s history are dominated by its strained relations with the Papacy.
A seemingly never ending power struggle between various emperors and popes over the
course of several centuries. They could never agree who was superior: Pope or Emperor. In the
mid-13th century, the empire had an “Interregnum” – meaning discontinuity in government or
organization, in which no king was crowned Emperor for 67 years. This would actually be the
first of three interregnums, as another two times in the next century and a half would see long
stretches of time without a crowned emperor.

During the rule of Charles IV, the Golden Bull of 1356 saw some major changes to the empire.
Seven fixed electors were chosen who would decide the King of Germany, which had become a
symbolic title of the elected but yet-to-be coronated emperor.

The Seven (7) fixed electors:

a) Ecclesiastical electors
 Archbishop of Mainz
 Archbishop of Trier
 Archbishop of Cologne
b) Secular electors
 Kingdom of Bohemia
 County Palatine of the Rhine
 Duchy of Saxony
 Margraviate of Brandenburg

In 1440, with the election of Frederick III as emperor, this began three straight centuries of
emperors from the same royal family: the house of Habsburg, from Austria.

Frederick III – Holy Roman Emperor (14040-1493): crowned in 1452

- First emperor from the Austrian House of Habsburg.
- Began 3 straight centuries of Habsburg rule.
- Longest reigning Holy Roman Emperor (53 years)

Maximilian I 1493-1519 House of Habsburg

Charles V 1519-1556 House of Habsburg
Ferdinand I 1556-1564 House of Habsburg
Maximilian II 1564-1576 House of Habsburg
Rudolph II 1576-1612 House of Habsburg
Matthias 1612-1619 House of Habsburg
Ferdinand II 1619-1637 House of Habsburg
Ferdinand III 1637-1657 House of Habsburg
Leopold I 1658-1705 House of Habsburg

During the reign of Maximilian, I, the Habsburgs greatly expanded their influence through
political marriages, acquiring Burgundy, Spain, Bohemia and Hungary.

Maximilian I – Holy Roman Emperor (1508-1519)

- Never crowned by the Pope, but took the title “Elected Roman Emperor”
- His marriage to Mary of Burgundy greatly expanded the Habsburgs possessions.
- Helped establish Habsburg rule in Spain. His grandson Charles would become the first
king of both Castile and Aragon.

In 1494, war broke out on the Italian Peninsula, primarily between the Habsburgs and France,
over disagreements about various territories and their respective inheritance, most notably:
Milan, Naples and Sicily. The war would continue on and off for more than 60 years, and
effectively ended imperial rule in Italy.
In 1517, Martin Luther from Saxony published his 95 theses, criticizing the Roman Catholic
Church and many of its practices, in what became known as the Protestant Reformation,
profoundly changing the course of European history.

The Holy Roman Empire became divided, as many of the Emperor’s subjects adopted
Lutheranism, creating religious tensions that would last for more than a century, and to an
extent, even to this day. It was around this difficult time that probably the most well-known
Holy Roman Emperor began his rule: Charles V. Charles was already king of Spain, so the
Habsburgs’ power reached its peak with a vast array of territories both in and out of the
Empire. His rule was dominated by religious conflict.

First starting with a war against various Lutheran princely estates knowns as the Schmalkaldic
League, who were defeated by Charles and several Catholic princes.

Schmalkaldic League
- Philip I, Landgrave of Hesse
- John Frederick I of Saxony

The peace of Augsburg in 1555 gave rulers the right to choose the religion of their estate:
Catholicism or Lutheranism, based on the principle of “Cuius regio, eius religio”. Shortly
afterwards, Charles V abdicated, splitting his inheritance between Spain and Austria. His son
Philip II succeeded him in Spain while his youngest brother Ferdinand took over as Emperor and
Archduke of Austria, starting the cadet branch of the House of Habsburg.

Religious tensions continued as a rebellion started in the Spanish Netherlands, eventually

leading to the establishment of the Dutch Republic, with seven of the seventeen provinces
seceding from Spain and the Empire. In 1618, the Thirty Years War started in Bohemia with the
Defenestration of Prague, which is just a fancy way of saying “throwing someone out of a
window”. In this case, four Catholic lords.

Thirty Years’ War

a) Bohemian Phase (1618-1625) > local and religious
b) Danish Phase (1625-1630) > local and religious
c) Swedish Phase (1630-1635) > continental and political
d) French Phase (1635-1648) > continental and political

This began the Bohemian Revolt, which spiraled into a continent-wide power struggle with all
major European powers involved.

Protestants X – anti Habsburgs Catholics X – Habsburgs & allies

Sweden Holy Roman Empire
Denmark- Norway Habsburg Monarchy
France Spanish Empire
Dutch Republic Supported by Poland
England Catholic princes of the Empire
Scotland
Bohemia
Protestant princes of the Empire

The war ended with the Peace of Westphalia, a massive turning point in the empires’ history.
Many views this as the beginning of the end of the Holy Roman Empire. Dutch independence
was finally officially recognized, as well as the independence of Switzerland and the territories
in Northern Italy.
Peace of Westphalia
 Switzerland recognized as independent from the Empire.
 Dutch Republic recognized as independent (declared in 1581)
 France retains the Three Bishoprics (Metz, Toul and Verdun), plus some cities of the
Decapole and Pignerol.
 Sweden receives Western Pomerania, Wismar, and also Bremen and Verden as
hereditary fiefs.
 Brandenburg- Prussia receives Farther Pomerania, Magdeburg, Halberstadt, Kammin,
and Minden.

The Empire became even more decentralized, and the Habsburgs’ power began to decline.
After the Peace of Westphalia, it becomes less relevant to talk about the history of the Holy
Roman Empire as a whole, because what happened in the last 150 years of the Empires’
existence related more to the princely estates as individual entities in their own right.

There were several very important and impactful wars through the late 17 th and early 18th
century, such as the Franco-Dutch War, the Nine Years War, and the War of the Spanish
Succession, there were always imperial princes on both sides of these conflicts. There was also
the Long Turkish War, but that was more related to the Habsburgs and their possessions, given
that much of the fighting was over Hungary, which was never part of the Empire.

The final years of the Empire were dominated but the rivalry between Austria and Prussia, by
far the two most dominant German powers. Austria had a succession crisis and the Habsburgs’
three centuries of ruling the Empire came to a temporary end as Charles VII of Bavaria took
over until 1745.

The two powers clashed in the global conflict the Seven Years War over Silesia, as France and
Austria, unsuccessfully tried to curb the rising Prussian power.

Seven Years’ War

Great Britain (including Ireland and British France
America)
Prussia (Portugal, Hanover, Brunswick- Holy Roman Empire
Wolfenbuttel, Hesse-Kassel, Schaumburg-  Austria
Lippe, the Iroquois)  Bavaria
 Saxony

Spain
Russia (Sweden, the Mughal Empire, Bengal
Sultanate, the Abenaki, New France and New
Spain.)

The Holy Roman Empire came to end at the hands of Napoleon and revolutionary France.
Austria was invaded in 1792, and renewed tensions in 1806 caused the last Emperor Francis II
to officially dissolved the Empire, ending just over one thousand years of existence.

The Voltaire quote that was neither Holy, Roman nor an Empire. It is important to look at the
context through, Voltaire lived throughout the 1700s, when the Empire was very much in
decline. He was also French, and part of the Enlightenment movement, so he understandably
took a somewhat negative view of the Empire, viewing it as something of a ‘relic’ of the past,
that had no place in modern society.
So just how true is his statement?

Although the term “Holy” wasn’t used until some 350 years after its creation, the holy element
was absolutely essential for the empire to function. Its primary purpose was to provide a stable
political order for all Christians. The emperor was supposed to be the guardian of the Pope,
and defend his subjects against infidels.

At the time, the thought of a secular power was inconceivable without any reference to a
divine authority. In practice, the various emperors and popes throughout the years had
somewhat strained relations, and the papacy became less and less involved in the empire’s
politics as the years went on.

The term “Holy empire” was first used in 1157 by the ruling Staufer family, who tried to shift
the emphasis from a monarch to a transpersonal holy empire that had already sanctified by its
divine mission, and therefore did not need approval from the pope.

“the Staufer family, ruling from 1138, changed the emphasis from the monarch to a
transpersonal holy Empire, first using the title Sacrum Imperium in March 1157. Already
sanctified by its divine mission, the Empire did not need the pope’s approbation.

So in effect, the addition of the word “holy” was actually an attempt to distance the empire
from the papacy.

Now roman. It may seem obvious to some that it was clearly not Roman, it was German. It is
pretty clear that it was not direct continuation of the Roman Empire and even if it was, it
wouldn’t have revived the Western Roman Empire that actually had Rome as its capital, but
rather, it would have inherited its “Roman-ness” from the now.

Greek Eastern Roman Empire when the title of Emperor was transferred from Constantinople
back to Rome. The divide between the Latin West and the Greek East had been growing
stronger over the preceding couple of centuries. Charlemagne was crowned by the year 800
with a somewhat tenuous link to the ancient Roman Empire.

The prestige and authority commanded by the title Roman Emperor still held a lot of weight in
the West and Charlemagne was recognized as Emperor, giving him immense power and status.
People at the time really did view the Empire as a direct continuation from Ancient Rome.

Frankish rule over Italy didn’t begin until 774, and although the Franks had been Christianized,
and even somewhat Romanized, they didn’t want to completely lose their own identity. As the
years went on, it became much less Roman, and much more German. A few more centuries,
most emperors didn’t even travel south of the Alps in their entire reign, expect to be crowned
by the pope. And even that was discontinued after Charles V.

The word Empire doesn’t really have a universally agreed upon definition so it’s not really
possible to definitively say that it was or it wasn’t an empire. The idea of an emperor was that
he was a monarch above that of a king, a sort of “king of kings”. According to the divine
mandate, the Roman Empire was to be the last and greatest empire, and there could be only
one.

 Babylon
 Persia
 Macedonia
 Rome
The idea of an empire was singular and universal. This idea of singularity was deeply rooted in
Christian though at the time, empires could not co-exist. This was based on the theory of
“translatio emperii”, the pretext used by the pope to transfer authority from Constantinople.
For most of its history, the Holy Roman Empire was referred to as simply “the Empire”, without
any qualifiers, even in official documents.

There were no other empires that were recognized in the West for most of its history. The Holy
Roman Empire wasn’t just “an” empire it was “THE” empire.

How the Holy Roman Empire is referred to in official documents count:

1. Peace of Westphalia
a. The empire – 77
b. Sacred Roman Empire – 8
c. Roman Empire – 7
d. Holy Roman Empire – 0
2. Golden Bull 1356
a. Holy Empire – 39
b. The Empire – 16
c. Holy Roman Empire – 6
d. Roman Empire – 0

Empire – an extensive group of states or countries ruled over by a single monarch, an

oligarchy, or a sovereign state.

Whether or not it could be classed as an empire by todays’ standard is debatable, the Empire
was quite decentralized, and many of the regional princes commanded much more power in
their territory than the emperor did. The Holy Roman Empire is quite a unique political entity,
there is not really much else that is comparable.

The Holy Roman Empire used a complex system of feudalism to rule over its many territories.
Local authority was delegated to vassals, who would normally in turn have their own vassals,
creating a hierarchy of lord and vassals who swore allegiance to each other. Lords would
protect their vassals, and vassals would help and advice their Lords and often, pay them in
cash, work or military assistance.

Now vassals could either be immediate or mediate vassals. Immediate vassals were those that
were immediately subordinate to the emperor, while mediate vassals had at least one overlord
between themselves and the emperor. Immediate vassals of the emperor were referred to as
imperial princes, and their territories were imperial estate.

Imperial estates could pay a general tax to the empire to take part in the Imperial Diet, or the
Reichstag. Those who did not pay the tax, were not involved in decisions and had no vote. After
1489, the imperial estates were divided into their separate “chambers” or “colleges”: prince
electors, imperial princes, and imperial cities. There were also the imperial knights that were
immediate vassals to the emperor but not represented.

Counts and other nobles did not have vote despite their immediacy status, although they were
grouped into “benches” that had a collective vote. The prince electors were considered of a
higher status than that of the other princes. The prince electors had the important task of
electing the Emperor.
For most of the empire’s history there were 7 prince electors:

1. Ecclesiastical Electors
a. Archbishop of Mainz
b. Archbishop of Trier
c. Archbishop of Cologne
2. Secular Electors
a. Kingdom of Bohemia
b. County Palatine of the Rhine
c. Duchy of Saxony
d. Margraviate of Brandenburg

Dutchy of Bavaria – replaced Palatine in 1623

Brunswick – Luneburg: granted elector status in 1692

Several more changes were made in the years of the Empire’s collapse.

The elective process quickly became corrupt and the imperial title was pretty much just gained
via bribery. In the year 1500, the empire was divided into six “imperial circles”. The circles were
created to better organize the Empire’s defensive structure’s as well as to facilitate tax
collection. In 1512, a further 3 were added, and Saxony was divided into two. There were areas
that were not part of any imperial circle, most notably Bohemia, plus the Swiss and Italian
parts of the empire.

Now, unfortunately, due to its complexity it’s impossible to represent the hierarchy of the Holy
Roman Empire with a neat little pyramid with the Emperor at the top. There was no single
chain of command, and many of the internal hierarchies were interconnected. Imperial princes
could have the same political status as each other but with different prestige based on their
noble title, such as king, duke, count and so on.

The most powerful imperial estate for centuries, Austria, actually created their own title:
Archduke. Brandenburg-Prussia became a kingdom in 1701 but for the first 71 years their kings
were titled “King in Prussia” as opposed to King of Prussia, because Prussia fell outside the
territory of the Empire and therefore did not require imperial authorization. Prussia was well
on its way to become a great power in its own right, so really there was nothing the Empire
could do to stop them anyway.

At the start of the video, it was mentioned that the Holy Roman Empire was comprised of the
three core kingdoms: Germany, Italy, and Burgundy. Plus, Bohemia, but that’s a little different.

So who was the King of Germany and how did this title play into the hierarchy of the
Empire?

The king of Germany, Italy and Burgundy were 3 separate titles, but in practice, for most of the
Empire’s history all 3 of these titles were held by the same person, who was usually the
emperor as well.

In the early years, there were separate coronations for each title, with kings often waiting
several years to be crowned emperor (or sometimes not at all)

By the early 11th century, it became understood that whoever was King of Germany was also
King of Italy and Burgundy, even without separate coronations.
As the years went on, the specific titles had largely fallen out of use as they had largely fallen
out of use as they had basically become synonymous with the emperor.
This wasn’t always the case, and in the earlier years it was more complicated, but generally
speaking it was one person who held all titles. In practice, the specific titles largely fell out of
use as they had basically become synonymous with the emperor. Bohemia was its own
autonomous kingdom, being elevated from a Dutchy in 1198.

The Bohemian Crown Lands came under Habsburg rule from the 15 th century onwards, with
some gaps, so many of the Bohemia Kings were in fact Emperor simultaneously. The Bohemian
crown lands came under Habsburg rule though political marriage.

Therefore, many of the Bohemian kings were also emperors. Charles II was more commonly
known as Charles VI, as Holy Roman Emperor. Today, Bohemia makes up the western part of
the modern-day country of the Czech Republic.

The Holy Roman Empire lasted for just over a thousand years and oversaw Central Europe’s
transformation from a feudal, agrarian and religiously uniform region to an increasingly,
centralized, urban and religiously divergent one. While the Holy Roman Empire was a
significant power for a large part of its history, it didn’t seem able to survive the changes in
European society that eventually rendered it obsolete.

The Holy Roman Empire was dissolved just over two centuries ago, but here’s an interesting
thought: what would the world look like if the Empire existed today.

EXPLORE: The treaty of Westphalia

The Treaty of Westphalia is a significant turning point for nations in history, because for the first time after a very long
time, they have finally been freed from the enslavement of one leader.

Finally, they could practice their religion and their culture freely without fear of being harassed. This is the first time in
history that they had have their own identities without being associated to larger group. This gave sound to the muffled
voices of nations who had been underdog's and disenfranchised. For these nations, this experience is like taking back
what the Lannister's have deprived them. The Treaty of Westphalia, for these nations is like a phoenix rising from the
ashes.  

TREATY OF WESTPHALIA
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bzv5711CMA8

Treaty of Westphalia stated:

“sovereign ruler of a state has power over nation and state, including religion.”

 Resultantly, England, France, Germany, and Spain shook pope and became nation
states.

Treaty of Westphalia (1648)

 Treaty was meant to settle conflicts, especially conflicts over religion.
 It was signed at the end of Thirty Year Sectarian War (1618-1648).
 Pope regarded this treaty as “sin”.
 Over the course of time, NSS evolved, brought democracy, int. diplomacy, and mutual
trade etc.

Principles of Westphalian Peace

 Sovereignty: the idea that every state has the right of self-rule over is people and
territory. Only sovereign states could enter into relations.
  Legal Equality: all states are equal as sovereign member of the International
community.
o (Nepal = USA)
 Non-intervention: no interference was permitted in the affairs of other state.

The UN Charter

Chapter 1: Purposes and Principles

 Article: 2 (1) – the organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all
its member states.
 Article: 2 (4) – al members shall refrain in their relations from the threat or use of force
against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.

Outcomes of Treaty

1. Religion: treaty favored secularism and ensured religious freedom.

2. Nationalism: in the absence of religion Nationalism became the new religion for Europe.

Significance of Nation State System

 Each state can decide the best for its people without external pressures.
 Other states, no matter how powerful, do not have the right to intervene into other
sovereign countries.

Challenges faced by NSS in contemporary world.

Today, it faces the challenges from:

 Drone strikes,
 None-state-actors like ISIS, Boko Haram, TTP, Al-Qaeda.
 Globalization/ interdependence WTO, IMF, World Bank, MNC’s
 Regional Integration (EU, ASEAN)
 Humanitarian Intervention: in Libya.

WHAT IS WESTPHALIAN SOVEREIGNTY? WHAT DOES WESTPHALIAN SOVEREIGNTY MEAN?

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxqeG-QEe84

Westphalian Sovereignty

Is the principle of international law that each nation state as sovereignty over its territory and
domestic affairs to the exclusion of all external powers on the principle of non-interference in
another country’s domestic affairs and that each state no matter how large or small is equal in
international law.

The doctrine is named after the Peace of Westphalia signs in 1648 which ended the 30 Years
War in which the major continental European states the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, France,
Sweden and the Dutch Republic agreed to respect one another’s territorial integrity as
European spread across the globe.

The Westphalia principles especially the concept of sovereign states became central to
international law and to the prevailing word order. Scholars of international relations have
identified the modern Western originated international system of states, multinational
corporations and organizations as having begun at the Peach of Westphalia. Both the basis
and the conclusion of this view have been attacked by some revisionist academic and
politicians with revisionist questioning the significance of the peace and some commentators
and politicians attacking the Westphalian system of sovereign nation-state.

The traditional view of the Westphalian system is that the Peace of Westphalia was an
agreement to respect the principle of territorial integrity. In the Westphalian system the
national interest and goals of states and later nation states were widely assumed to go beyond
those of any citizen or any ruler. States became the primary institutional agents in an
interstate system of relations.

The Peace of Westphalia is said to have ended attempt to impose supranational Authority on
European States. The Westphalia doctrine of states as independent agents was bolstered by
the rise in 19th century thought of nationalism under which legitimate states were assumed to
correspond to nations groups of people united by language and culture.

The Westphalia system reached its peak in the late 19 th century, although practical
considerations still led powerful states to seek to influence the affairs of others forcible
intervention by one country and the domestic affairs of another was less frequent between
1850 and 1900 and in most previous and subsequent periods. The Peace of Westphalia is
important in modern international relations theory and is often defined as the beginning of the
international system with which the discipline deals international relation theorists have
identified key principles of the Peace of Westphalia which explained the piece’s significance
and its effect on the world today.

1. The principle of the sovereignty of states and the fundamental right of political self-
determination.
2. The principle of legal equality between states.
3. The principle of non-intervention of one state in the internal affairs of another state.

These principles are shared by the realist international relations paradigm today which
explains why the system of states is referred to as the Westphalian system. Both the idea of
Westphalian sovereignty and its applicability and practice have been questioned from the mid-
20th century onward from a variety of viewpoints. Much of the debate has turned on the ideas
of internationalism and globalization which in various interpretations appear to conflict with
Westphalian.

The Westphalian system is used as a shorthand by academics to describe the system of states
which make up the world today. In 1998 at a symposium on the continuing political relevance
of the Peace of Westphalia, NATO secretary- general Javier Solana said that humanity and
democracy principles essentially irrelevant to the original West Balian order and La Vida
critism that the Westphalian system had its limits.

For one the principle of sovereignty had relied on also produced the basis for rivalry not
community of states exclusion, not integration. In 1999, British Prime Minister Tony Blair gave
a speech in Chicago where he set out a new post Westphalian doctrine of the international
community. Blair argued that globalization had made the Westphalian approach
anachronistic. Blair was later referred to by the Daily Telegraph as the man who ushered in the
post Westphalian era. Others have also asserted that globalization has superseded the
Westphalian system.

In 2000 gemonese foreign minister Joschka Fischer referred to the Peace of Westphalia in his
Humboldt which argued that the system of European politics set up by Westphalia was
obsolete. The core of the concept of Europe after 1945 was and still is a rejection of the
European balance of power principle and the hegemonic ambitions of individual states that
had emerged in following the Peace of Westphalia.

In 1648 a rejection which took the form of close meshing of vital interests and the transfer of
nation state sovereign rights to supranational European institutions. In the aftermath of the
11th of March 2004 Madrid attacks Luis a de Nicola who claims to represent the terrorist
network. Al-Qaeda declared that the international system builds up by the West since the
Treaty of Westphalia will collapse and a new international system will rise under the
leadership of a mighty Islamic state. Others speak favorably of the Westphalian state notably
European nationalists and American paleo conservative pat Buchanan. Some such supporters
of the Westphalian state oppose socialism and some forms of capitalism for undermining the
nation state a major theme of Buchanan’s political career for example has been attacking
globalization, critical theory, neo-conservatism and other philosophies he considers
detrimental to day’s western nations.

Activity: After watching and have understood the topic, let us list five (5) impacts on the Treaty
of Westphalia.

Answer:
1. Recognized the existence of sovereign states.
2. Defined the rights that sovereign states have to make their own laws. Each state had
complete control over its own land.
3. Monarchs have more power than other nobles.
4. Rulers had the power to decide the religion of the area they were in.
5. Recognized that there is a lot of diversity.

One of the equally significant consequences of the Treaty of Westphalia is the creation of the
Nation - State. Earlier as was mentioned, the Westphalian Treaty paved the way for nations to
exercise the multiplicity of their identities. This segment of the lesson will excite our sense of
appreciation on the evolution, and discriminate the colorful features of a Nation - State.

ANO ANG STATE AT NATION, MEANING AT PAGKAKAIBA NG MGA ITO:

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtt2ew7YMWw

ELEMENTS OF THE STATE, DEFINITION AND ANALYSIS:

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJvj5XKBcqk

ELABORATE: History of Global Politics

This is the part of the lesson where everything we have covered since we started with Lesson -
4 will be condensed into a discussion, and hopefully all the knowledge that we have gathered
so far will become sensible on our end as learners.

We are going to piece together all this random information’s into one interesting tapestry.
Unless we see the bigger picture, we won't be able to appreciate the journey we had earlier.
So now, let us watch the video discussion on the History of Global Politics by of Mr. Chelzedeck
Olais, a Political Science instructor of this university.

HISTORY OF GLOBAL POLITICS

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDWdvFoKkEw

EVALUATE: Global Inter-State

Finally, we have come to the last leg of our lesson, but definitely not yet the end, we have just
started.

The effects of the Westphalian system continue to influenced our daily lives both here and
there. Globalization and Institutions  are just one of them, they impact our lives in both small
and big ways.

As history would always tell, that kingdoms rise and fall, new ones come to dominate the
picture.

Nothing is constant, only change is.

As we are approaching another chapter in history, new key players fill the political
landscape, slowly making themselves felt by the world. 
 
And oh! by the way we are pretty sure everyone has his own take - away's on our lesson.
The #Best way for take-away's to be well kept is for us to have #Enrichments. At the end of
this lesson, please drop by and check the activities we prepared for you. 

Reflect on the story of the Two China. Taiwan and China explained:
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2a4yR4P_Vk