Westphalia and "humanitarian interventionism" - The individual versus the state in international politics

This article starts from the observation that international relations are c haracterised by an intensifying tension between an order of slates and a hu manitarian order where states collectively seek to secure basic human right s. But are these really conflicting orders in the sense that they cannot be merged within the current international order? Some have argued that this seems to be the case, pointing at a deep-rooted tension between an intersta te order based on the principle of sovereignty and a cosmopolitan intersubj ective order transgressing the sovereign borders of states. The article see ks to assess this position. It attempts to show how sovereignty is misconce ived if it is only conceived as legal principles without considering its po litical and normative content. The modem state system is not based on some timeless principle of sovereignty, but on competing normative conceptions t hat link authority, territory and population in different ways. Moreover, t here is no necessary contradiction between human rights and the logic of th e Westphalian order itself. The Westphalian slate system grew out of the sa me historical experiences as the modern liberal idea of individual rights, and has always contained a rudimentary political idea about the state's dut y to respect certain minimum human rights standards.