After centuries of feudal wars between empires, a period of relative and enduring peace was established in Europe through the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. The treaty brought an end to the destructive Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648), created political stability and diminished regional insecurity, allowing European nations to focus on industrial and economic advancements. The legacy of treaty makes it a pivotal moment as it laid the framework for modern international relations (Steven 2019, 91). Its principles, values, and notions continue to have several far-reaching implications (Ikenberry 2011, 59). Many of the modern geopolitical and power struggles continue to be shaped by the consequences of selective application of its principles of territorial sovereignty, mutual recognition, and non-interference that categorized states into a hierarchical order of superior colonizers, subordinate states, and colonies; and created lasting inequalities and conflicts between countries (Philpott 1999, 583).

First, the Treaty of Westphalia established the modern system of sovereign states in Europe, a system that Western scholars argue originated in the West and later spread globally on the back of Scientific and Industrial Revolutions. As the model globalized, it supplanted various indigenous political, cultural, and economic institutions (Ferguson and Mansbach 1996, 268). In the centuries that followed, it became the foundation of global political order (Ikenberry 2011, 60).

Second, the treaty played a crucial role in shaping global hierarchies. By recognizing European states as sovereign entities, it created a dichotomy between “civilized” sovereign states, those adhering to the European model, and “uncivilized” societies that operated under different political, cultural, and social systems (Seth 2013, 44). The non-European societies were excluded from the international order, their sovereignty denied, and their territories subjected to colonial domination by European powers.

Third, the treaty marked the beginning of an era dominated by transatlantic powers—initially European colonizers, and later, the United States’ rise to supremacy and global hegemony. Many of the modern international institutions of the Liberal International Order (LIO), such as the United Nations and European Union, that have helped elongate Western global dominance reflect the principles and framework that was laid out in the Treaty of Westphalia (Paton 2019, 97). For centuries, the Western-dominated order and political landscape created by the treaty persisted but is now increasingly challenged by emerging global powers in the East. International relations scholars, the discipline bulwarked by the Westphalian world order, are now debating the decay of its pillars and the global political theatre now moving to a “post-Westphalian” and “post-liberal order” (Osiander 2001, 252). One of the key challenges to this order is posed by the rise of civilizational states.

While the idea of civilizational state is often associated with populist and autocratic regimes desiring to consolidate domestic electorate by channeling the historic pride and hyper-nationalism, the scope of this paper is to analyze the use of civilizational statism in the international political realm. This paper offers an understanding of the conceptual framework of ‘civilizational states,’ its meaning, evolution, and current state of knowledge, followed by an analysis of how the concept is being maneuvered into a geopolitical strategy aimed to challenge liberal hegemony and Western dominance.

There is no single coherent widely accepted definition of the term civilizational states and is subject to varying interpretations depending on cultural, historical, and political contexts. In simple terms, civilizational states are those states that seek to channel their ancient cultural and political history to gain power and preeminence in the modern international order. They derive their identity, power, and influence from a deep connection to their historical legacies. In contrast to the more common state-centric approaches to global politics, civilizational states view themselves as embodiments of broader civilizational narratives. These narratives can be traced back to ancient empires or long-standing cultural traditions, which they believe provide them with unique wisdom, values, and a distinctive worldview that sets them apart from other states. They are not limited by geographical boundaries but are defined by their cultural history.

In exploring the distinctions between civilizational states, nation-states, and hegemons, Iranian scholars Mousavinia and Dareini provide valuable insights into the unique characteristics that define a civilizational state (2021, 148). They note that very few states possess the potential to evolve into civilizational states According to them, the primary requirement for a state to become a civilizational state is the presence of a “cultural and civilizational capacity” alongside a strong history of influencing peripheral societies and a rich cultural heritage. Distinguishing them from nation-states, they attribute nation-state’s legitimacy being hinged on “territorial integrity, language, and citizenry.” Nation-states derive their authority from their ability to maintain control over a specific geographic area and the people within it, typically focusing on political unity and national identity. In contrast, civilizational states draw their legitimacy........

© E-International