Beyond Westphalia: Reimagining Siyar in Contemporary Global Politics
I was brought up to believe that in 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia, the modern international system was born, and that it is the neatest place to start the story of a modern international system, where sovereign states were born, borders became sacred, and politics became secular. I have long believed this tale without a doubt. However the more I kept on reading about international relations the more I started to realize that there is something lacking.
Only when I came across the idea of Siyar, the Islamic international law did I realize just how incomplete that story is.
The first thing that attracted my attention was that Siyar was not a religious doctrine. It was an advanced legal code of war, peace, diplomacy and relations among political communities. Even before modern international law was codified, Muslim jurists such as Imam Muhammad al-Shaybani were already formulating rules regarding treaties, behavior during war and protection of civilians.[1] That understanding altered my understanding of the world politics today. Since, had there been a Siyar, then, it appears, the concept that the contemporary international relations are essentially Westphalian starts to be seen not so much as a fact, but as some sort of selective history.
The Westphalian Story is contentious.
In the modern IR discussions, the trend is an increasing tendency to challenge the superiority of Western-centric paradigms. Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) scholars say that international law is not universal, rather, it is a product of power, history, and exclusion.[2] When I consider this, Siyar is like a missing segment in the dialogue.
It is an independent non-European approach to international law, which evolved concurrently, but has surprisingly close parallels with contemporary norms. Indicatively, both the Siyar and the modern international humanitarian law stress the safety of non-combatants, as well as the restriction of unjustifiable harm in war.[3]The similarity is interesting to me, but it is the implication. In case the various civilizations also came up with the same set of ethics, then maybe the origins of international law are more pluralistic than we have been trained to believe.
Theory to the Conflicts of today.
This question takes even more acute when I consider the world around us today. The global system is seemingly getting more and more disintegrated, be it the war in Gaza or the tension involving Iran, the United States and Israel. The order of rules is frequently used, though not in all cases. Instead of legal consistency, it appears to be determined by power politics.
In this kind of a world, I am wondering: What happens when the Westphalian system fails to be legitimized?
Here, Siyar presents a good point of view. In contrast to the strict territorial sovereignty permeated by the Westphalian thinking, the concept of Siyar in the past was historically concerned with ethical duties, how to treat enemies, how to honor treaties, and how to balance justice with power.[4] This moralistic inclination seems very much pertinent nowadays. The fact that most of the crises we encounter are not only strategic, but moral, as well. The use of civilian casualties, economic coercion, and technological warfare all raise questions which can hardly be answered by means of legal frameworks.
Plan: Power, Law, and Legitimacy.
Strategically, rethinking the Siyar is not about substituting the modern international law. It is regarding the broadening of our concept of power. Classical Siyar did not have an absolute power. It had the limitations of both moral and legal restrictions. The extremes of war were not unrestricted; the laws did not permit the destruction of crops which were not necessary, or the violation of an agreement. Compare this with today’s strategic environment. States are continually acting in grey zones, in the context of cyber warfare, proxy warfare, economic sanctions, and more, where there is ambiguous accountability. The emphasis is not on victory in war but the determination of its result without actual conflict.
In this regard, there is an opportunity that I see. Accommodating Siyar into the modern IR discussions may offer a new prism of thinking, which would focus on responsibility and strategy. It may also help to legitimize the international law in the Muslim majority countries where the Western legal systems are not always regarded with respect. In recognizing the fact that Siyar belongs to the world legal tradition, we will be moving in the right direction, that is, towards a more inclusive system.
Ethics: The Heart of the Matter.
Yet, perhaps the strongest argument as to why it is important to revisit Siyar is ethics.The more I read about it, the more I was impressed by its focus on humanity. The concept that despite war, there are ethical limits, which cannot be overstepped. It was emphasized on the need to draw the line between combatants and non-combatants. The establishment of the justice as not only a legal necessity, but also a moral one. These principles are not abstract, but are very concrete.
Similar concerns are reflected in the modern international humanitarian law, one of which is the Geneva Conventions. And still, the cases of violation are common. This begs a challenging question: Is the issue the lack of rules, the lack of the ethical commitment? According to Siyar, law in itself is not sufficient. It should be based on some moral framework that forces them into following it not only by using force, but also by belief.
Meanwhile, I do know how difficult it is. Siyar came into existence with a completely different historical context. To fit the new world of nation-states, globalization, and technological warfare, it has to be reinterpreted. Even scholars claim that to make Siyar applicable to the realities of the modern day political world, Siyar needs to be recontextualized.[5] And herein lies the real work–not the romanticizing of the past, but a critical engagement with the past.
An International Relations Multiple Future.
After taking a step back, and looking at the larger picture, I realize the debate is not merely about Siyar or Westphalia. It concerns the future of the international relations as such.Are we approaching a genuinely global system, in which there are several legal and ethical traditions which coexist? Or do we still hold onto a model which has become too complicated to represent the world we live in? In my case, pluralism is the way out.
The reimagining of Siyar has nothing to do with rejection of the Western international law, but rather, it has something to do with enriching it. It is also about coming to the realization that the world order has never been as diverse as we think. And it is having a system that finds ways of tapping into numerous traditions to meet the commonalities. Since after all the aim of international law is not supremacy–it is justice.
Conclusion: Rethinking the Foundations
Trying to recollect that classroom variant of international relations, it now seems incomplete. This tale never commenced with Westphalia, and it is certainly no place to finish it. To have introduced Siyar into the discourse, is not to rewrite history–it is to correct it. And even more to the point we are opening the door to a more inclusive, ethical and realistic global politics. Since in a world of conflict, uncertainty, and power shifts, we do not simply require more powerful institutions. Our foundations need to be more in-depth.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Opinion Desk.
[1] Siyar as a precursor and contributor to modern international law
[2] Siyar governing inter-civilizational relations and legal conduct
[3] Convergence between Siyar and modern international humanitarian law
[4] Siyar as a framework for global interaction and legal order
[5] Need to reinterpret Siyar in modern nation-state system