1. What remnants of the Westphalian system can still be felt in this day and age ?

In what sense the

world gone beyond the Westphalian system?

The concept of sovereignty is the fundamental holdover of the Westphalian system even now. Its history
can be traced back to the accords that ended the war in 1864, but it wasn't until Bonaparte disputed
them and was assassinated at Waterloo that the system was revived but still collapsed. Despite
Napoleon Bonaparte's challenges in the present, the Westphalian system still has an impact on how
different states today view sovereignty. In the political sphere, Westphalian ideas continue to have a
major influence. The United Nations, for instance, is a result of this and makes decisions through
councils. Since the Westphalian system splits separate government among several sovereign entities,
attempts to transcend it have led to increased interaction between numerous sovereign nations and the
need for greater cooperation between individuals and states.

A new chain of survival in world history is revealed by the Westphalian system. As in the past, global
states lacked independence, had no defined borders, and had no real authority. The states' boundaries
were established by this treaty, and now each state has its own sovereign area. Every nation had
territorial sovereignty, which brought about a profound transformation in the globe by preventing any
superpower from interfering with its own internal affairs on its own territory and reducing the likelihood
of war.

In the history of the world, the Westphalian system indicates a new chain of survival. Before, there were
no independent world states, no established borders, and no real state power. With the help of this
treaty, the states' borders were established, and now each one has its own sovereign area. Because no
country interfered with any superpower's internal affairs on their own territory, there were fewer
conflicts and every country had sovereignty over their own territory.

This treaty also introduces the idea of secularism, according to which religion will be an individual
matter rather than a national one. Any political or economic decision made by the state will not be
influenced by religion, and no religion may bind the state. Additionally, the world was introduced to the
idea of diplomacy. This indicates that if there are disagreements between two or more nations, those
disagreements should be settled by negotiations rather than war. Because conflicts never end and no
one gains anything; instead, both countries will go up in flames. The treaty of Westphalia has so far been
applied to the global governance structure.

The concept of liberalism emerged in the twenty-first century and brought about a lot of changes in the
world. The nations developed a liberal notion of socioeconomic requirements and grew economically.
To sum up, the modern world system operates along the same lines as the Westphalian system since it
is seen as the most important system in terms of world politics and the maintenance of peace.
2. What are the differences liberal and socialist internationalism? What are their strengths and
weaknesses ?

The liberalism philosophy gave rise to liberal internationalism. Human rights, freedom, consent, and
equality in accordance with the rule of law are its main concerns. Individuals are theoretically able
to achieve their goals and pursue their hobbies thanks to the idea. This makes it clear that liberal
internationalism favors an economy based on individuality and the right to private property in
production. Liberal internationalism also prioritizes the globalization of the free market and
democracy. It encourages more open borders and freer trade to allow individuals to move freely
across states. Additionally, the progressive liberal internationalism movement aims to strengthen
peaceful cooperation between polities. Similarly, Kant's "Perceptual of Peace" argued that liberal
internationalism can be seen as a strategy for international relations that aims to spread liberal
democracy throughout the world in order to settle disputes.

Marxist theory would contend that social class is the most important actor, contrary to liberal
internationalism's identification of states as the crucial actor (Heywood, 2004). Marxists maintained
that class conflict is systematically predisposed to both internal and international society. Liberals, in
contrast, presuppose that there is a "essential harmony of interests" among the various social
groups (Baylis, Smith, & Owens, 2000). Because capitalism was compelled by its inherent dynamism
to expand across international borders and realize itself as a global system, the working class, as the
disobedient offspring of that system, adopted global policies (Schwarzmantel, 2013). Marx and
Engels saw socialist internationalism as the proletariat of the industrialized world uniting in
solidarity. They thought that the ties tying together the working classes of all nations would become
strong enough to overcome national allegiances and that class affinities were more binding than
national allegiances.

It is prioritized that the means of production be owned by the public in order to ensure that such an
organization is not only for profit but also to meet fundamental human needs. Additionally, it is
acknowledged that capitalism is what gave rise to socialist internationalism. Socialists anticipated
that socialism would spread on an international scale, just as capitalism had done. The capitalist
supply chain would finally be rejected by the proletariat's revolutionary opposition, and social
stratification would be eliminated, ending worker exploitation and oppression. This implies that
socialist internationalism was defined as the expression of solidarity that transcended national
boundaries and the fulfilment of common interests and aspirations to a supranational society. Since
the state acted as the ruling class's weapon, its breakup would bring about the collapse of such a
state. Since the war is regarded as a violent confrontation between states, deconstructing such
states would signify the end of wars. While the state served as the weapon of the ruling class, the
aristocracy's collapse would result in such a state's destructionaround the world. Abolishing social
stratification and outcasting the capitalist supply chain, the proletariat's revolutionary opposition
would eventually put an end to worker exploitation and oppression. This implies that socialist
internationalism was defined as the realization of shared interests and ambitions for a supranational
society, demonstrating solidarity that went beyond national boundaries. Since the state served as
the ruling class's weapon, the aristocracy's dissolution would result in the collapse of such a state.
Additionally, since the war is regarded as a violent battle between states, the destruction of such
states would signal the end of warfare.
 Enlightenment philosophy, the rise of industrialism, and the improvement of society were the
catalysts for both multinational organizations. Socialist internationalism is committed to promoting
equality and welfare, while liberal internationalism is focused on national development. As a result
of facilitating the dramatic shift from a world of empires to one of nation-states, liberal
internationalism has shaped the current global order. In a similar vein, it enacts laws that establish
institutions and safeguard liberal democracy. Additionally, it results in global partnerships and
initiatives to handle grave challenges to humanity and the global order. Conversely, socialist
internationalism is opposed to liberal internationalism. In contrast, socialist internationalism had
elevatedtriumphant political crusades that positively improved the lives of the working class. It
contradicts liberals' claims that free trade and the growth of exploitative firms are advantageous
since they widen the socioeconomic divide between social classes.

Overall, socialist internationalism may seek to serve as an example of the revolutionary socialism
known as communism, in contrast to liberal internationalism's focus on displaying democracy. In
order to protect common liberal principles and address concerns of global interconnectedness,
liberal internationalism envisions a cooperative international order that is run by the United States
of America and other liberal democracies, allies, and partners. Socialist internationalism, on the
other hand, is anti-imperialist. It supports the freedom of the constituents from all forms of
colonization and foreign supremacy, as well as the right of nations to decide for themselves. In
addition to adopting genuine democratic regimes and diminishing or eliminating the power of
capitalists, monarchs, and other authoritarians, socialist internationalism emphasizes the solidarity
of the working class.
liberal internationalism include multilateral development, the promotion of world peace, and the
diversification of cultures.

SUNNARIZE:

Liberal internationalism prioritizes the globalization of the free market and democracy. It
encourages more open borders and freer trade to allow individuals to move freely across states.
Marx and Engels saw socialist internationalism as the proletariat of the industrialized world uniting
in solidarity. Socialists anticipated that socialism would spread on an international scale, just as
capitalism had done. Since the state acted as the ruling class's weapon, its breakup would bring
about the collapse of such a state.

Since the war is regarded as a violent confrontation between states, deconstructing such states
would signify the end of wars. This implies that socialist internationalism was defined as the
realization of shared interests and ambitions for a supranational society. Socialist internationalism
may seek to serve as an example of the revolutionary socialism known as communism, in contrast to
liberal internationalism's focus on displaying democracy. In addition to adopting genuine democratic
regimes and diminishing or eliminating the power of capitalists, monarchs, and other authoritarians,
it emphasizes the solidarity of the working class.
Liberal internationalism's weakness is its deception; people are merely compelled into choosing a
way of life they violently disagree with, rather than having their political convictions imposed
universally. Under liberal internationalism, middle powers have more opportunity to pursue their
economic, security, and political interests, which is their strength in the actual execution of their
governmental policies. On the other hand, socialist internationalism helps to reduce poverty levels
in society, but also gives the government more authority over necessities. Unions, civilian oversight
committees, and other comparable institutions' sway would be restricted by it.

3. Do you think internationalization erodes the sovereighty of states?