IR501: Diplomacy Workshop with Professor Miguel Benedicto

Question and Answer Session

Balance and equality

How did Westphalia transform Europe’s power structure by recognizing sovereignty and mutual equality among states?

After many decades of bloodshed caused by religious and expansionist cravings of
political leaders of the era, Europe was devastated economically, and depleted of man power, so
political and religious leaders like Ferdinand III who ruled the Holy Roman Empire from 1637 to
1657; Louis XIII, king of France from 1610 to 1643; and Queen Christina of Sweden, who
ascended the throne at the age of six and wanted peace in Europe at all cost, came together to
broker the Peace of Westphalia. Essentially, the treaty acknowledged the sovereignty and respect
for the boundaries of existing European states. Also, it enshrined the principle of non-
interference in the domestic affairs of member states and accepted the equality of individual
states irrespective of size, population, economic or military strength. Through these measures the
Peace of Westphalia transformed Europe’s power structure and laid the foundation for present-
day European Union (Zreik, 2021).

Diplomacy first

How relevant is today the emphasis on diplomacy as the first resort to solve conflicts, as highlighted in the Westphalian model?

The emphasis on diplomacy as a first resort averted endless war which was common in Europe
before the Peace of Westphalia. When Europe was no longer able to bear the economic and
human cost of war, the leaders thought it wise to negotiate the Peace of Westphalia. Diplomacy
opened and deepened channels of communication among leaders, fostered unity, and promoted
religious tolerance. Also, the emphasis on diplomacy promoted other multilateral agreements
among European states like trade alliances after restrictions to navigation were lifted; defence
alliances were formed, as well as marriages among rulers. Furthermore, diplomacy promoted the
concept of “citizenship,” which connotes equality of every citizen before the law.

Birth of international law

In what sense can the Peace of Westphalia be considered the foundation of modern international law?

The Peace of Westphalia laid the foundation for international law because most of its decisions
became part of the constitutional laws of the Holy Roman Empire and formed the basis for the
rules of the United Nations about equality of states; non-interference in domestic affairs of
individual states; prohibition of states redrawing boundaries through war; and non-aggression

pact except in self-defense. These laws derived from the Peace of Westphalia form the bedrock
of the rule-based world order promoted by the UN. Notably, the Peace of Westphalia promoted
secularism as a system of government instead of religion and the principle of state sovereignty
instead of the rule of hegemons.

Balance as stability

Can the principle of “balance of power” still provide useful tools to manage today’s conflicts?

Lessons from the past show that the principle of balance of power can still help to manage
conflicts today. Security and stability achieved during Concert of Europe and the Cold War eras
demonstrate that balance of power can still help to manage today’s conflict. North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) versus Warsaw Pact depicting the balance of power between
Soviet Union and its satellite states against the United States and its allies created a bipolar world
order and maintained an uneasy peace from 1945 to 1991.

Are sovereignty, non-intervention, and balance of power still valid principles, or have they been distorted and reinterpreted over time?

The rule-based world order established by the US and its allies is increasingly under
threat from the very countries that swore to protect it. The unilateral invasion of
Venezuela by the US and Russia’s invasion and insistence on absorbing Ukraine through

warfare mirror eras gone by when countries preferred warfare to diplomacy. Increasingly,
the world is witnessing the rule of the strong over the weak. Also, sovereignty and non-
intervention appear to matter little to the big powers.

·

How can Westphalia’s legacy be applied to current global issues such as humanitarian intervention, disinformation, or territorial disputes?

Humanitarian intervention often has been used as an excuse by great powers to effect regime
change as was the case in Libya. However, there are instances when there is real need for
humanitarian intervention as was the case in Rwanda and Bosnia. Westphalia repudiated
humanitarian intervention as states were forbidden from intervening in the affairs of other states.
Today, it is important that powerful states learn from Westphalia and resist the urge to use
humanitarian intervention as pretense for infringing on the sovereignty of other states.
Disinformation in the era of Westphalia stemmed mainly from religious claims and these were
tackled with legal and secular facts. Today, tackling misinformation is more complex and
difficult to handle because of the reach and spontaneity of new media. However, it is important
to use the same method employed during Westphalia by dispelling disinformation with legal and
secular facts derived from investigation. Westphalia insisted on resolving territorial disputes
through diplomacy. This principle should be emphasized and promoted among the modern day
great powers to avert future wars.

How did the Congress of Vienna create a system for peace after the Napoleonic Wars?

The Concert of Europe’s “Vienna System,” or the Congress of Vienna (1813 -1814)
created a system for peace in Europe and by extension the world through the creation of a
Pentarchy of the great powers of the era. After a long period of bloodshed ensuing from
the Napoleonic War, beginning in 1813, the victors of the war established an informal
association through a series of meetings (conferences) involving Great Britain, Austria,
Russia and Prussia (the Quadruple Alliance in 1815); later France was pardoned and
brought into the fold (the Quintuple Alliance in 1818).
One of the corner stones for the success of the Concert of Europe is the agreement
reached between the leaders of the great powers to hold regular consultations on matters
that affect them and to resist the urge to resort to warfare without exhausting diplomatic
options offered by the alliance. Specifically, the core principle of the Concert stated: “An
acknowledgement by the great powers that only together would they establish, defend
and redefine as necessary the political and territorial status quo on the continent,”
(Lascurettes, 2017, p 6).
After the Quadruple Alliance ended the occupation of France under the mandate of the
Second Treaty of Paris in November 1815, and France was admitted into the union;
thereafter a statement of intent and assurance was issued by the Quintuple Alliance thus:
“The intimate union established between the Monarchs, who are joint parties to this
System, by their own principles, no less than by the interest of their peoples, offers to
Europe the most sacred pledge of its tranquility,” (Lascurettes, 2017, p 7).

In order to accomplish their goal of tranquility in Europe, the leaders of the great powers,
namely: Great Britain’s foreign secretary, Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlerreagh, the tsar
of Russia, Alexander 1, the chief minister of Prussia, Karl August von Hardenburg, the
newly restored Bourbon Monarchy, Prince Charles Maurice de Talleyrand of France, and
the inimitable Prince Klemens von Metternich, the chancellor of Austria, together
established an unparalleled, elite-level communication and contact through great power
conferences which helped to foster understanding, promote concession and reduce
suspicion among the great powers.
Also, the leaders of the great powers recognized and agreed on the need to allow each
great power to exercise control in its sphere of influence. Great Britain exercised control
over the “low countries,” called the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, and the Iberian
Peninsula which includes Spain and Portugal; Russia exercised control over parts of
Eastern Europe, Persia and Ottoman domain; Austria held sway in northern Italy and
collectively managed the German confederation with Prussia; and France exercised
influence over southern and eastern Mediterranean. The doctrine of sphere of influence
for great powers helped to delegate responsibility for regional security and tranquility to
Concert members. Also, the doctrine recognized that each great power has reasonable
interest in their sphere of influence and therefore acted proactively to avert disputes or
war which may have resulted from contentions among the great powers.
Noteworthy is the fact that the Concert of Europe and its provisions, among which is the
rule that prohibited the disgrace of any of the great powers, caused the great powers to
restrain themselves from opportunistic annexation in order to preserve the cohesion of the
Concert, although contrary to the statement of Lascurettes (2017), Russia took advantage

of a fading Ottoman Empire for territorial expansion (Britannica Editors, 2026). These
measures created unparalleled territorial stability in Europe and ensured that there was
very little change in borders due to annexation between 1815 – 1853.

What mechanisms of the “Concert of Europe” resemble today’s international organizations?

The Pentarchy of 1815, comprising the five major powers of the era of the Concert of
Europe resembles the composition the United Nations Security Council whose foremost
objective is the maintenance of international peace and security. The institution of
regular, multilateral conferences and communication by leaders of government of
members of the Conference of Europe resembles those of the European Union today.
These conferences promoted channels for diplomacy and amicable resolution of disputes
among the great powers. For instance, at the conference that produced the Treaty of
Chaumont in March 1814, members of the Quadruple Alliance agreed to negotiate an end
to the war with France strictly as a collective unit instead of individually, they also bind
themselves to keep the alliance for at least two decades. Compare this with mechanisms
within the European Council, and the Council of European Union, such as the Common
Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the Integrated Political Crisis Response (IPCR).
These mechanisms facilitate regular meetings at the highest levels of representatives of
member states, similar to the conferences of the Concert of Europe. Many examples
abound of the activation of IPCR: In December 2019, the European Council under the

presidency of Finland, due to the outbreak of COVID-19, activated EU’s IPCR
mechanism for information sharing among members (European Council, 2026).

Do periodic congresses provide more flexibility than permanent institutions? Why or why not?

Periodic congresses provide more flexibility than permanent institutions because these
congresses can easily adapt and respond quickly to imminent dangers than permanent
institutions which have rigid rules that often render such institutions ineffectual in times of
crisis. A good example is the veto power by permanent members of the UNSC which often
has paralyzed the council and rendered it ineffective to perform its crucial function of
guaranteeing security and safety around the world.

How does Ferguson compare the “Pentarchy” of 1815 with the permanent members of the UN Security Council today?

Professor Niall Ferguson, at the launch of Policy Exchange’s new Anglo-American
project, compared the Pentarchy of five great powers that dominated European affairs for
a century after the Congress of Vienna of 1814-15 with the modern Pentarchy established
in the form of the permanent members of the UN Security Council where the victors of
the Napoleonic War and World War 2 dictated the terms of the organization that directed
the world order. Also, Professor Ferguson in the article in The American Interest,
encouraged the Trump administration to emulate Franklin Roosevelt’s decision of

forming a grand alliance with the five permanent members of the UNSC. He argues that
although the idea of the US cooperating with Russia may not be popular with the
domestic public in Washington but it could help to create a safer world order of great
powers and the enthronement of conservative government in France. Professor Ferguson
further argues that: “Whether or not these five great powers can make common cause
once again is the great geopolitical question of our time,” (Ferguson, 2017, para. 23). The
import of this statement is based on the different and incompatible ideologies and
national interests of the permanent members of the UNSC and it recalls one of the
reasons for the demise of the Concert of Europe, that is the promotion of liberalism by
Great Britain and France.

What advantages and weaknesses exist in both systems of great-power dominance?

The advantages that accrue from great power dominance in both systems are relative peace and
stability as the great powers exercise control in their spheres of influence, bringing satellite states
under their wings and ensuring regional stability. This results in a state of equilibrium, what
historians referred to as the Long Peace during the era of the Cold War from 1945 – 1991.
The weakness for the systems are the use of veto by the permanent members of UNSC which
often paralyzes the most important organ of the UN and the ambiguity associated with the
position of the Concert over liberal revolutions. Also, both systems suffered from leaders who
allowed domestic tenors and yearnings to dictate their support or opposition to the system. The
eastern powers invoked the Holy Alliance to suppress liberal revolutions and caused a rift with
liberal France and Great Britain, especially after the demise of Castlereagh and appointment of

George Canning who was skeptical about the Concert. Under the present system, permanent
members from the West have found it difficult to work with and trust Russia and leaders like
Trump who may nurse the idea of closer ties with Russia have been rebuffed by both Congress
and the American public.

Are smaller states marginalized in both Vienna (1815) and the UN (today)?

Certainly, smaller states are marginalized in both systems. In the Vienna system, smaller states
were essentially under the wings of the big powers in their region and were independent only as
far as the big power allowed. For instance, during the First Treaty of Paris in May 1814, the great
powers, then referred to as Quadruple Alliance allocated to themselves “great powers” to control
and implement the conditions for peace on the continent. The powers suppressed rebellion in
Italy in 1820 and Spain in 1822. However, they allowed rebellion and declaration of
independence in Belgium. This selective interpretation means that the great power could declare
the same action “rebellion” in one instance and “self-determination” in another instance
(Britannica Editors, 2026). Under the current UN system, the vote of every state carries the same
weight in the UN General Assembly, however, the veto power of the P5 means one vote of a P5
member could render ineffective the votes of 10 non-permanent and four permanent members.
This is one of reasons that different measures are often applied for the same action depending on
whether the aggressor is a big power as the case of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, or the smaller
state is backed by a big power as the example of Syria under Assad. Accusations of selective
justice against African and Asian states by the International Court of Justice is another example
of discrimination against smaller states (Ojumu, 2023).

     A = Defend Vienna system (1815 balance of power).
I believe that the Vienna system of balance of power has more merits than the UN system of
collective security because the system to a large extent realistically provided for the power
dynamics of the era and for that reason it provided nearly a century of relative stability in Europe
until the outbreak of WW1 in 1914. The flexibility of the rules of the Vienna system stands in
sharp contrast to the rigidity of the UN system which is further held down by bureaucracy,
paralysis of veto power and contending and conflicting interests among the permanent members
of the UN. Therefore, the doctrine of collective security under the current UN system is a mirage
that exists only on paper. The unilateral invasion of Ukraine by Russia, the invasion of
Venezuela by the US and declaration of war by the US and Israel on Iran, under international law
constitute unprovoked acts of aggression. Under the UN system, the gatekeepers of the collective
security doctrine have become the gate crashers, upturning the system. Like Trump, the Vienna
system correctly interprets the global order through “a clear-eyed outlook that the world is not a
‘global community’ but an arena where nations, nongovernmental actors and businesses engage
and compete for advantage.”
    B = Defend UN system (modern collective security).

 Which system provides a more effective model for peace?

The Vienna system provides a more effective model for peace because its policies correctly
predicted the power dynamics of the era through a realist prism and adequately provided for the
interest of the great powers that took care of the smaller states in their sphere of influence. Like
Trump, the Vienna system correctly interprets the global order through “a clear-eyed outlook that

the world is not a ‘global community’ but an arena where nations, nongovernmental actors and
businesses engage and compete for advantage.”

–     Should today rely more on balance of power or institutions?

I argue that a balance of power is more effective in creating a stable world order than institutions.
Institutions are only effective when they are backed by great powers and laws without force of
arms to enforce compliance is futile. The reemergence of conservative governments around the
world points to a repositioning and prominence of realist governments that believe in the use of
hard power to promote national interests.
–     

What lessons from Vienna apply to today’s crises?

One major lesson from Vienna that is relevant in today’s crisis is that a world order framed
around collective security that is founded on liberalism and lacking a sizeable dose of realism is
bound to fail. It is for this reason that realists like John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs blame the
West for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Great powers want to exercise control in their region and
are prepared to resort to war if their interests are threatened. Also, hostility among great powers
makes for an unsafe world, so leaders of great power states must insist on working together even
in the face of discount from their citizens.

Guiding Questions

Why should the UN expand beyond traditional diplomatic actors?

It is necessary that the UN expand beyond its traditional diplomatic actors because of the
evolving, concerted and cross national border nature of the threats confronting humanity in
the present age which is different from those in the age when the UN was established.
Terrorist networks, environmental disasters and cyber warfare are just a few of the challenges
that the UN in its traditional structure is not equipped to confront and surmount adequately
without incorporating diplomatic actors like NGOs and MNCs.

How could inclusion of scientific/technological stakeholders reshape diplomacy?

The example of IAP and its cutting edge people-centered diplomacy provides a good example of
the reason it is necessary to include scientific/technological stakeholders in order to reshape
diplomacy to adequately deal with the threats of the 21 st century.

What opportunities and challenges might arise from integrating non-state actors?

The collaboration between non-state actors like IAP and traditional institutions like the
UN provides for complementary and cross fertilization of ideas as well as information
sharing to deal with current global threats that are beyond the effective grasp of
traditional institutions.

Mini Debate – Choose one role:
Roles:
 A: Defend traditional, state-centric UN diplomacy.
 B: Advocate for inclusive diplomacy (scientific & non-state actors).

I believe that inclusive diplomacy is better than state-centric, UN diplomacy for the following
reasons:
The concerted, coordinated, and global nature of the threats confronting humanity today require
urgent, specialized, and international collaboration which the UN with its rigid and bureaucratic
structure is ill prepared to effectively overcome. According to Juma (2001) the UN was
established and rose to prominence in the time of the Cold War, when the focus of
intergovernmental relations was on dealing with threats arising from foreign aggression. In the
past, threats like cybercrimes, environmental deterioration, nuclear proliferation, and the
influence of digitalization were dealt with by individual states. However, these threats have
spread across national borders in recent decades as our world became more integrated, thereby
compelling even formerly hostile states to collaborate. Notably, International Governmental
Organizations (IGOs) like the EU, Non-Governmental Organizations like Médecins Sans
Frontières (MSF), and Multinational National Corporations (MNCs) because of their expertise,
financial and global reach, have become key stakeholders in the new post-Cold War global order.
For example, during the pandemic, about 1.7 million people, nearly 20% of the population in
Switzerland received support in the form of financial aid, and counseling from NGOs like
Caritas, the Salvation Army and Red Cross. According to Professor Matthias Drilling of the
ZHAW School of Social Work: “These organizations are often the first to see which people have

fallen through the cracks of support structures and where supply gaps are emerging,” (Ritter,
2026, para 7). Williams (2023) collaborates the point about the effectiveness, ingenuity and
speed of non-state actors like the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), a coalition
of NGOs established in the 1990s and used the internet creatively to break the monopoly of
governments on anti-landmines.

What are the risks of including non-state actors in UN diplomacy?

One major risk of including non-state actors in UN diplomacy is the elevation of profit and
commercial interests over social welfare and inclusiveness in policy formulations and execution.
Also, MNCs sometimes lobby to dilute UN regulations and avoid accountability in instances
where their business interest is at stake. The current legal ruling mandating Meta to include
safety measures for children using its social media platforms is one example of an infraction by a
powerful multinational corporation that was allowed to fester for too long. Reacting to the court
ruling, the UN’s high commissioner for human rights Volker Türk said: “Children should not
have to wait for a lawsuit to be safe online,” (Rahman-Jones, 2026).

Could their participation make outcomes more effective (climate, pandemics, biosecurity)?

The participation of scientific and knowledge-based organizations like the Inter-Academic
Partnership (IAP) will definitely result in more effective outcomes when handling threats from
climate change, infectious diseases and biosecurity. The IAP, made up of 153 academy members spread across more than 100 countries, who are experts in engineering, medicine and academies
of science advises governments and the UN on matters concerning global health, poverty,
sustainable development, biotechnology and climate change (IAP, 2026). Noteworthy is IAP’s
use of new media in building scientific capacity, broadcasting international consensus report and
to refute misinformation on subjects like the use of vaccine. For this purpose, the IAP has
organized media training workshops, laboratory visits, public information offices and has
produced documentaries such “Rising Together: Justice Across Borders;” “Oscar’s Cuba;”
“Our Last Stand;” and “Christians in the Mirror,” to improve science literacy, and increase
awareness about issues concerning poverty and inequalities around the world (IAP, 2003; The
Skoll Foundation, 2026).
Also, scientific organizations like IAP complement UN agency like the World Meteorological
Organization (WMO), and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO). While the WMO can issue legally binding mandates, and provide immediate
operational supports in times of emergency, IAP creates a bridge between science and
government policies (Stallard et al, 2026).

References:
Britannica Editors. (2026). Concert of Europe. Britannica. Concert of Europe | Congress of Vienna,
Balance of Power & Peace of 1815 | Britannica
Britannica Editors. (2026). Russo-Turkish wars. Britannica. Russo-Turkish wars | Causes,
Consequences & Impact | Britannica
European Council. (2026). The integrated political crisis response. (IPCR). Council of European
Union. The integrated political crisis response (IPCR) – Consilium

Ferguson, N. (2017). Niall Ferguson compares balance of power to Congress of Vienna at Policy
Exchange’s Anglo-American conference. Policy Exchange, para 23. Policy Exchange – Niall
Ferguson compares balance of power to Congress of Vienna at Policy Exchange’s Anglo-American
conference
Inter Academy Partnership. (2003). IAP Statement on Science and the Media. The Inter Academy
Partnership. IAP Statement on Science and the Media
Inter Academy Partnership. (2026). History. The Inter Academy Partnership. History
Lascurettes, K. (2017). The Concert of Europe and Great Power Governance Today: What Can
the Order of 19 th -Century Europe Teach Policymakers About International Order in the 21 st
Century? Rand Corporation, pp 1-22.
Ojumu, F.D. (2023). The International Criminal Court and alleged selective justice. The
Guardian. The International Criminal Court and alleged selective justice
Rahman-Jones, I. (2026). Reform of all social media should come with Meta changes, UN says.
BBC. More social media safety should come with Meta changes, UN says
Ritter, A. (2026). NGOs helped 1.7 million people during the pandemic. Defacto Expert para 7.
NGOs helped 1.7 million people during the pandemic – DeFacto
Stallard, E., Poynting, M., Dale, B., Tan, Y., Turnbull, T., & Yadav, N. (2026). UN warns of
‘supersized’ El Niño as countries prepare for impact. BBC. El Niño ‘supersized’ as countries race to
prepare for extreme weather, UN warns
The Skoll Foundation. (2026). Rising Together: Justice Across Borders. The Skoll Foundation.
(20+) Join us for the virtual premiere of “Rising… – The Skoll Foundation | Facebook
Williams, J. (2023). International Campaign to Ban Landmines. Britannica. International
Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) | Britannica

Zreik, M. (2021). The Westphalia Peace and its Impact on the Modern European State. Quantum
Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities 2(1): 1-16. http://www.qjssh.com