To what extent did diplomacy effect the rise of the modern state from 1648-1815?
The modern state was sovereign; therefore, internally, it exerted itself its authority, within a territorial boundaries which was clearly defined and acknowledged internationally, there was no authorities higher than the state. Externally, state sovereignty indicated that other states recognized its authority within its borders, and agreed that it could represent its citizens in international affairs. (Graeme Gill) The modern state was centralized, and bureaucratically organized. Its legal administration as well as its administrative staffs were controlled by regulations. Its offices were structured with a definite line of direction. Through their organization, the modern state projected its power into the society, exerted direct control upon their populace, and controlled their territory. Even though, its structure while comparing it with our states structures today, was not well equilibrated; however, it was ready during this period to operate changes that diplomacy brought into their structure which would affect their upward within 1648 to 1815.
Diplomacy is the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations, or skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility (Merriam-Webster.) Diplomacy had effectively affected the rise of the modern state during 1648-1715. The first change that it brought was through the treaty of Westphalia, which allowed state to operate important transformations in their structure. Westphalia treaty had allowed “Signatories of treaties to be freed perpetually, to make alliances with strangers for their preservation or safety, and each of the contracting parties of this treaty shall be held to defend a...
... middle of paper ...
...end the thirty years of war by the treaty of Westphalia that had brought peace for many years and had transformed states structures. It was also used by French diplomats in order to cover the deficit of French economy, diplomatic efforts were made to raise capital overseas through trade to rebuild its economy. This important function will continue to develop in Europe. Furthermore, diplomatic effort was used upon Russia in order to obtain the authorization for American ships to sail in their Black sea, and also to maintain tied relationship with them in order to promote the trade. It also was the ideal element used by Adams to free ships seized by Danish as well as by French and British.
Finally, Diplomacy by protecting the state, its trade, facilitated its expansion, and also had played an important role in the development of capitalism in the Modern State.
The European monarchs and rulers of the 17th and 18th centuries wanted to increase their power both domestically and globally by adding to their territories and populations. Both in merging their power internally and expanding their power externally, they employed three features of state-building: control, extraction, and integration. In the late 1700s, both the Industrial revolution and French revolution of 1789 strengthened the idea that Europeans were different from the rest of the world. It also strengthened that Europeans were “succeeding” promptly while the rest of the world seemed to be declining, that Europeans were somehow extraordinary and better than the rest.” (Robert Marks page 10).
While taking the class of Early Modern European History there was two states that really stuck out and peaked my interest the most. They were the Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe. If you compare and contrast both the Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe during the 16th Century through the 18th Century, you will see that there are a number of similarities as well as differences when you look at the expansion of the states. You will also see many of these contrasts as well when you look in terms of each states military and commerce. Although the Ottoman Empire existed before the 16th century and continued to exist past the 18th century and in great decline until the early 20th century, when looking at the state as a whole the time period of 1500’s through the 1700’s is a period of growth and strength. It is perhaps even known as a golden era for the state, when taking in to comparison the Early Modern Europeans where the same time period marks a change in how society thought and how people were treated.
...eaknesses to win their loyalty. Finally, the written agreement of Versailles was purported to represent the peaceful ending to warfare I, however, it became the prelude to a different war. it had been originally an attempt to revive order and supply a peaceful conclusion to warfare I. The sick feelings and economic upheaval that resulted provided the proper climate for Hitler's dominance, in post-war FRG. The contributor’s participants of Versailles had alternative motives behind the peace agreement apart from a peace settlement. Their stingy actions resulted in not solely the economic hardship of FRG, however inflation and state altogether of Europe. The severity of the reparations contained during this document set the stage for history to repeat itself. Therefore the terribly method within which the written agreement of Versailles was forced on the German people.
It led to twenty years of peace in Europe, but the conflict between the two parties still wasn’t resolved. On one hand, it was hard to solve the problem which involved the fiscal relationship between European countries (mainly Great Britain, Germany, and France) during the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century. The Treaty of Versailles and its related treaty system affected Europe in culture, politics and economy. The Treaty of Versailles facilitates the dissemination of nationalism and liberalism. It definitely changed the political pattern in Europe and the Middle East. It also paid an indemnity and the money of the Allied Powers was split unevenly, a direct result of the economy change in Europe and mostly led to World War II in long-term
...work with other nations to keep the peace. It is still in effect today. The UN was not based on or limited to a peace treaty but instead was separate. That helped Roosevelt get support for U.S. membership.
WWII has a ripple effect across the globe causing changes both internationally and domestically. Internationally, The sun finally began to set over the British Empire with the majority of her majesties colonial possessions gaining independence in the years following the war. Britain’s stage left exit from its hegemonic role resulted in the start of a new “Great Game” between two burgeoning superpowers. A new world order began to take shape with the United States and USSR vying to establish their own hegemony.
...was not to preserve peace, but to preserve the sovereignty and independence of the states of Europe against potential aggressors. The basic rule was to ally against any state threatening domination. The weaker countries would seek alliance with the other weaker states. They would thus create a balance or counterweight against the state whose ascendancy they feared.
In his 1959 study, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, the well-known historian William Appleton Williams wrote, that in spite of its best intentions, American foreign policy was based on a one-dimensional American belief that Americans and the American government had all the answers to their problems. I strongly agree, for the most part, with that statement. The only aspect of American foreign policy that I disagreement is the firmness in which our government stands true to their decisions and re often inflexible enough to change them. The administrators in charge of our government dating back to the 19th century have always been too inflexible to tweak their application on foreign policy in the least bit. It has made way to a century of failure in foreign relations. America began building up its outdated navy ships in the early 1880's in preparation for what would be an American attempt at expansion. They wanted to become the premiere naval world power. They were already being acknowledged as whole of the great world strengths by other powerful countries. It didn't take long, by 1900; the U.S. began flexing its muscles. The Caribbean and Pacific Islands became a national interest. A classic example of which started the poor American foreign policy was in 1891 in Chile. Secretary of State James G. Blaine became involved in a border dispute between Mexico and Guatemala, tried settling a war between Peru, Bolivia and Chile. Chile held a riot against American troops. Blaine threatened Chile with war, and they were forced to apologize to America and pay an indemnity of $75,000. This established America as a world power, but also tarnished their role in foreign policy before it even got off the ground. Many more incidents like this occurred after the event with Chile, the biggest being the pursuit of the Panama Canal. America continued moving into to foreign land, and when problems arose, America began implementing an American model of government in these areas, believing that was the only way to solve the problems.
According to the Federalists in the early stages of the American republic, a strong central government was necessary to provide uniform supervision to the states thus aiding in the preservation of the Union. This necessity for a more organized central government was a result of the ineffectiveness of the Article of Confederation’s government that was without a unifying government body. One component of this philosophy was the creation of an executive and other federal branche...
During the central Middle Ages, territories were expanding greatly. In previous centuries, smaller territorial united had been much more prevalent, thus making control easier. However, with the advent of larger territorial units as time went on, challenges to rulers began to emerge. This were mainly centred around the conflict between the central power and the regions, as was seen in both France and England, which posed a substantial threat to the stability of government. Therefore, rulers saw that they needed to take steps in order to combat this situation. Most importantly, they saw that they needed to created a shared national identity in order unite the mass of people who were now in their territory. As argued by Bernard Guenée, the stability of the state was enhanced during the medieval period when its people were aware of a common identity that they wanted to sustain; control relied upon the population’s love for the country. The main ways in which this was achieved included created a shared national history, a shared religious identity, and shared enemies, as well as through the use of language. But inciting patriotism was not the only way in which rulers coped with the challenges of larger territorial units; they also took active steps towards the centralisation of power. The methods used to achieve this included the creation of representative bodies such as parliament, capital cities, and law. It was these steps taken by rulers that allowed the challenges of the larger territorial units to be met.
The central government has accountability for merely a small sum of the occupations that mark the behavior of everyday affairs. This ringed true during the first century of nationhood when the states made most of the governmental decisions involving the lives of the citizens. The states defined all the crimes and their punishments, they established the laws of contract, structured public health and safety, and established the legal standards for schooling, welfare and principles.
By effectively ending the rule of the Holy Roman Empire, The Treaty of Westphalia emerges as an anti-imperial force.
Due to constant rivalry and friction between the religious leaders and the ruling families, these individual provinces were almost always at war with each other for the conflicts along their borders and the struggle for supremacy. Surrounded by the political chaos, the city-states which prided in their republic form of government could no longer preserve the traditional political order. Soon, “strong men with dictatorial power took over” (Sherman 298). As these new leaders took an innovative approach in governing the city-states, they prompted the new spirit of the renaissance that invalidated the medieval values of religious hierarchy and dependency on authority and replaced them with the humanistic values introduced by the renaissance scholars. Driven by the sentiments of the period, political leaders now relied on their individual efforts and self-will to rule the
In The First Resort of King, Richard Arndt argues cultural diplomacy has been a norm “for humans intent upon civilization” since the Bronze Age, when diplomacy has evolved in parallel with language to facilitate cooperation between large groups defined by customs, therefore, in its earliest form, diplomacy meant relations not between nation-state, but between cultures (1). However, over the course of history, the concept of cultural diplomacy changed. Today, cultural diplomacy is typically viewed as a foreign policy tool, utilized by governments in order to advance specific kinds of interests. This is true according to Yang and Liu, who define public diplomacy as a diplomatic activity organised and conducted by a state government and directed
The Treaty of Ghent supports the notion that the essential long-term national interests of both parties are the most important factor in peace treaty success. Both the United States and Great Britain clearly perceived that they had real grievances and cause for war in 1812. However, within a short time, both nations realized they had a greater interest in peace without regard to most of the issues that provoked the conflict.