Was formalizing the concept of nation-states really a good idea or just a clever solution that has become our demise?
European diplomats signed the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, ending the 30 years war and ushering in a new era of peace. The idea was simple: every ruler would govern his own territory free from external interference, and every state would be recognized as sovereign and equal.
It worked… at least in Europe. The treaty gave us the modern map, the passport, the anthem, the national flag. It created the vocabulary of sovereignty, citizenship, and non-interference that still defines diplomacy today. Though like many “modern inventions,” the nation-state was born from one specific context and then expanded beyond it. It solved one problem (chaotic medieval wars) only to create others: borders that divide, identities that exclude, and a framework that struggles to handle global interdependence.
Before the Nation-State: A World of Many Orders
To ask if the nation-state was a good idea, we have to go back and remember that it wasn’t the first idea. Before 1648, humanity organized itself in an incredible variety of ways; flexible, relational, and often more integrated with nature and cooperation than with hard borders.
Stateless and Acephalous Societies
Across much of pre-colonial Africa, the Pacific, and Indigenous territories in the Americas, governance was horizontal instead of the modern vertical. Authority was given to councils of elders, groups, or custodians, not monarchs. Among nomadic African communities, families moved cyclically between cities and grazing lands, knowing that their homes would be respected in their absence, a social contract based on trust without law.
Chiefdoms and Early Polities
Some societies adopted chiefdoms, small-scale political units where leaders mediated disputes and coordinated trade but rarely imposed rigid control. Leadership was negotiated through consensus. Stability came from balance and reputation.
Mandala and Tributary Systems
In Asia, kingdoms often followed the mandala model, where power radiated outward. Core regions owed tribute to a center but retained autonomy, and borders were fluid zones of overlapping influence. The Chinese tributary system worked similarly: hierarchies existed, but sovereignty was shared, not absolute.
Nomadic Confederations and Matrilineal Systems
Across the Eurasian steppe and parts of Africa, nomadic confederations such as khanates based governance on mobility and loyalty, not territorial fixation. In matrilineal societies, inheritance and social continuity flowed through women, reinforcing balance and care networks that came before the logic of “ownership.”
Before the state, there was relation: kin, trade, ritual, ecology. The world was already ordered, just differently.
The Birth of the Nation-State (1648–1800s)
The Peace of Westphalia marked the end of Europe’s devastating Thirty Years’ War and became the founding myth of modern international relations. It introduced two legal concepts that reshaped global politics: territorial sovereignty and non-interference.
Under this new order, every ruler was free to govern within their borders without outsiders meddling. States became the legitimate containers of power, law, and identity. This system worked beautifully for Europe and especially for those who designed it.
The 17th to 19th centuries saw the nation-state evolve through bureaucracies, standing armies, and centralized taxation. The French Revolution radicalized the idea, fusing statehood with national belonging. Citizens became “the people,” and “the people” became the state. Flags, anthems, and borders were rituals of identity, binding millions of strangers with a shared myth.
But this so-called universal model was never meant to be universal. It was a European invention exported by empire. Colonization carried gunpowder, Christianity, along with the Westphalian imagination: that order equals defined territory, belonging equals citizenship, and peace means control.
The Case For the Nation-State
To be fair, the nation-state did also produce benefits, such as:
- Stability After Chaos
Europe before 1648 was defined by feudal fragmentation and religious bloodshed. The nation-state imposed a framework that turned endless crusades into negotiated coexistence. Borders became lines of restraint, not just conquest. - Predictability and Diplomacy
For the first time, rulers could communicate as equals through treaties and ambassadors. The very existence of modern diplomacy (foreign ministries, embassies, and international law) depends on the assumption of sovereign states. - Infrastructure and Governance
Nation-states built roads, schools, railways, and postal systems. By centralizing resources, they could create public goods, coordinate taxation, and expand education and healthcare. - Belonging and Citizenship
For many, the state provided a sense of identity and protection. It gave people passports, voting rights, and representation… however imperfect. The idea that citizens could hold their governments accountable was revolutionary in its time. - The Framework for International Law
Organizations like the League of Nations and the United Nations rest on the Westphalian principle of sovereign equality. Without it, there might be no formal way to negotiate peace, trade, or climate agreements at all.
However, even as it stabilized Europe, this system created new hierarchies abroad. It is from here that we begin to see why the nation-state might not have been such a universally good idea.
The Case Against the Nation-State
As the Westphalian model spread out from Europe, its contradictions are impossible to ignore. What had come about as a mechanism for balance and stability turned into an instrument for domination and exclusion.
a. A Eurocentric Invention
The nation-state was a product of European traumas: religious wars and dynastic fragmentation. When exported, it became a colonial template imposed on societies that had thrived under more fluid and relational systems.
European empires mapped the world with rulers and compasses, drawing lines across lands that were never meant to be divided. Communities once bound by trade, kinship, or shared ecology were split by invisible borders that only outsiders believed in.
b. The Ottoman Example
The 1838 Anglo-Ottoman Treaty of Balta Liman illustrates this hypocrisy. While Europe celebrated the sovereignty of states, it quietly undermined others through “free trade” treaties that stripped local control.
The Ottoman Empire that was still operating on a multiethnic, semi-feudal logic, was pressured into agreements that violated the very sovereignty Westphalia was supposed to guarantee. By the time the empire realized what had happened, its economic autonomy was gone. This pattern of demanding open markets while enforcing political hierarchy became the blueprint for imperial globalization.
c. Exported Sovereignty
As European colonial powers redrew maps in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, they imposed borders without consent. Kingdoms, ethnic groups, and tribes were split apart or forced together under artificial national identities. When these territories gained independence in the 20th century, they inherited states without coherence and structures built for control.
The result: fragile governments, contested boundaries, and conflicts that persist today, from the Sahel to the South China Sea.
d. Structural Problems of the Modern State
The very structure of the nation-state defined by inclusion and exclusion creates systemic tension.
- Nationalism mutates into chauvinism.
- Citizenship implies non-citizenship; belonging also brings exile.
- Borders that once protected peace now prevent cooperation, especially on planetary issues like climate change, migration, and digital governance.
The Westphalian model was designed for an analog world of maps and muskets. In an age of quantum communication and global interdependence, it feels increasingly obsolete.
Alternatives to the Nation-State and Transformations
Around the world, new forms of belonging and governance are emerging, many echoing the pre-state systems the modern world tried to erase.
Supranational Frameworks such as the European Union, African Union, and ASEAN represent experiments in layered sovereignty. They blur the line between domestic and international, showing that peace can come from cooperation rather than isolation.
Transnational Networks: NGOs, activist coalitions, diasporas, and even digital communities function like 21st-century chiefdoms, organized by affinity and purpose rather than borders. Movements like climate strikes, open-source science, and humanitarian coordination demonstrate how shared goals can replace shared territory.
Digital and Planetary Citizenship. As our interactions move online, the meaning of citizenship evolves. Projects experimenting with digital identity, blockchain governance, and global commons frameworks point toward post-national organization.
Cultural Memory and Reconnection— Ironically, the “future” of governance may depend on remembering the past. The relational ethics of Indigenous diplomacy, African matrilineal stewardship, and nomadic coexistence all offer clues for post-state peacebuilding.
The key is coherence over control; building systems that strengthen existing interdependence rather than walls.
Reframing the Question: Beyond the Border
Maybe the nation-state wasn’t a mistake, it’s just a phase we’re going through. A four-century-long experiment that came from fear and necessity, the human longing for order after chaos. It worked for its time: it stabilized Europe, fostered the Enlightenment, and enabled industrial progress… while also building invisible walls between people themselves, and between our species and the planet.
The question, then, isn’t simply “Was the nation-state a good idea?” but “Has it outlived its usefulness?”
The Westphalian ideal of clear borders, fixed sovereignty, one identity per person no longer fits a world defined by fluidity and information. The same technologies that made statehood powerful have now made it porous. The global economy, the internet, and the climate do not recognize borders. Pandemics and AI ethics cannot be governed by isolation.
In this moment of transformation, we may be circling back to ancient ways of living. The future might look less like the bureaucratic state and more like the networked village we talked about: horizontal, fluid, relational, and grounded in shared responsibility.
Before states, humanity governed through reciprocity and recognition. After states, we might rediscover those same principles on a planetary scale.
Then peace was never modern, it was the baseline. The silence before the drum of war, the rhythm we forgot how to hear. The nation-state gave us structure to survive but also noise. What comes next might be quieter, wiser, and more effectively interconnected.
If the last 400 years were about sovereignty, perhaps the next 400 will be about coherence. Then maybe someday we can focus on peace.
No responses yet