Jerusalem as a Geopolitical Space Beyond the Contemporary Multilateral Paradigm
Abstract: This article examines Jerusalem as a geopolitical space irreducible to the classical categories of the contemporary international order. Through an analysis of the failure of diplomatic neutralization, the transformation of sovereignty, and the return of historical identities in global politics, the essay interprets Jerusalem as one of the principal sites of crisis within the post-1945 multilateral paradigm. The city thus emerges not only as a symbolic center of the Middle Eastern conflict, but also as an interpretative framework for understanding the transformation of the contemporary global order.
Keywords: #Jerusalem #Sovereignty #Geopolitics #InternationalOrder #Multilateralism #HistoricalIdentity #CristinaDiSilvio #EthicaSocietas #EthicaSocietasJournal #ScientificJournal #SocialSciences #ethicasocietasupli
Introduction
There are cities that belong to a state, and cities that exceed the state itself. Jerusalem belongs to the second category. Its modern history cannot be interpreted solely through the classical categories of territorial sovereignty, as the city simultaneously concentrates religious, historical, symbolic, and geopolitical dimensions that resist any attempt at political neutralization. It is precisely this irreducibility that makes Jerusalem one of the decisive spaces of contemporary international politics.
Throughout the twentieth century, multilateral diplomacy attempted to address the Jerusalem question through the typical instruments of the postwar order: internationalization, suspension of disputes, negotiated ambiguity, and the separation between historical identities and political recognition [1]. None of these mechanisms, however, succeeded in permanently stabilizing the city. On the contrary, Jerusalem has progressively become the place where the crisis of the political categories established after 1945 is most evident.
The contemporary geopolitical centrality of Jerusalem does not stem solely from the Middle Eastern conflict, but from its position as one of the key friction points between abstract international order and concrete historical continuity. In this sense, the city does not represent a marginal exception within the global system, but rather one of the clearest sites where the transformation of the international order becomes visible.
The Failure of International Neutralization
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 of 1947 envisaged a separate international status (corpus separatum) for Jerusalem, removing the city from both Arab and Jewish exclusive sovereignty [2]. This proposal reflected a typical postwar diplomatic belief: that highly symbolic spaces could be neutralized through legal-administrative formulas capable of suspending historical and religious affiliations.
In the case of Jerusalem, this paradigm quickly revealed its structural limitations. The city could not be reduced to a technical object of international governance, as its centrality preceded the contemporary political architecture itself. Jerusalem was not merely a territory to be administered, but a space in which memory, identity, and sovereignty are historically inseparable.
The failure of the corpus separatum should therefore not be read solely as the failure of a diplomatic solution, but as the crisis of an entire conception of international order based on the possibility of separating political space from its historical stratifications. The Jerusalem case illustrates the growing difficulty of multilateral institutions in neutralizing places where symbolic dimensions continue to produce concrete geopolitical effects [3].
Jerusalem and the Crisis of the Westphalian Paradigm
Modern European political thought is built around a specific notion of sovereignty: territorial control exercised by a state within defined and recognized borders [4]. Jerusalem fundamentally escapes this framework. It cannot be understood merely as an administrative capital or urban space, as its political legitimacy is intertwined with a historical depth that predates the modern state itself.
The Israeli reunification of the city in 1967 represents a crucial turning point, not only strategically but also theoretically. From that moment onward, Jerusalem becomes one of the clearest examples of the contemporary transformation of sovereignty: no longer defined exclusively by formal international recognition, but also by the capacity to consolidate itself historically, administratively, and symbolically in space [5].
The subsequent proclamation of Jerusalem as the “complete and united” capital of the State of Israel through the Basic Law of 1980 further intensifies this tension between international law and consolidated geopolitical reality [6]. The international community has continued to maintain a formally cautious position regarding the city’s status, but this caution has increasingly collided with a political configuration already firmly established on the ground.
Jerusalem thus becomes one of the clearest sites where the modern distinction between political fact and legal recognition is steadily eroding.
The Return of the Sacred in Contemporary Geopolitics
One of the most significant features of the current international crisis is the return of historical and religious identities within global politics. For a long time, Western liberal paradigms assumed that the sacred could be confined to the private sphere, progressively separating it from geopolitical dynamics [7].
Jerusalem demonstrates the incompleteness of this secularization process. The city continues to generate political effects precisely because it simultaneously represents a space of religious memory, historical continuity, and contemporary sovereignty. In it, spiritual and political dimensions cannot be fully separated.
This is particularly relevant in the Israeli case. The relationship between the Jewish people and Jerusalem predates the modern state system and constitutes one of the foundational elements of Jewish historical and identity continuity. Reducing the Jerusalem question to an administrative or territorial dispute therefore ignores the historical depth that makes the city unique in the international system.
In this perspective, Jerusalem reveals the return of a “historical” dimension of sovereignty, in which collective identity, memory, and political legitimacy increasingly interact in shaping global politics [8].
The Crisis of the Post-1945 Order
Jerusalem’s geopolitical evolution reflects a broader transformation of the contemporary international order. The system built after the Second World War was grounded in several key assumptions: the primacy of multilateralism, the progressive neutralization of historical identities, the management of disputes through diplomatic suspension, and the separation between symbolic meaning and foreign policy [9].
In recent decades, these assumptions have steadily weakened. The rise of regional powers, the resurgence of identity-based politics, and the crisis of major multilateral architectures have profoundly altered the language of international relations.
The U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in 2017 and the subsequent relocation of the American embassy in 2018 must be understood within this broader transformation [10]. This decision did not merely alter a long-standing diplomatic position; it made explicit a trend already underway: the shift from a diplomacy based on indefinite suspension of contentious issues to an international order increasingly oriented toward the recognition of consolidated geopolitical realities.
Within this framework, Jerusalem emerges not as a temporary exception within the global system, but as an anticipation of an international order in which history, identity, and sovereignty are increasingly converging.
Conclusions
Jerusalem continues to occupy a unique position in contemporary international politics because it represents the point at which the categories of the postwar order most clearly reveal their limits. The city is irreducible not only to diplomatic neutralization attempts, but also to the modern conception of sovereignty as mere territorial administration.
Its geopolitical centrality derives precisely from this excess: Jerusalem remains a space in which historical memory, political legitimacy, and symbolic meaning continuously overlap without ever fully separating.
In the age of global crisis, the Jerusalem question therefore concerns not only the Middle East. It reflects a deeper transformation of the contemporary international order: the gradual return of history, identity, and historical sovereignties into world politics.
NOTES
[1] Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, Columbia University Press, New York, 1977.
[2] United Nations General Assembly, Resolution 181 (II), “Future Government of Palestine”, 1947.
[3] John Quigley, Jerusalem: The Illegal Occupation, Duke University Press, Durham, 2016.
[4] Stephen D. Krasner, Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1999.
[5] Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, Basic Books, New York, 1977.
[6] State of Israel, Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel, 1980.
[7] Talal Asad, Formations of the Secular, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 2003.
[8] Jan Assmann, Cultural Memory and Early Civilization, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011.
[9] Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1994.
[10] Donald J. Trump, Statement on Jerusalem, White House Archives, 6 December 2017.
REFERENCES
Asad, Talal, Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 2003.
Assmann, Jan, Cultural Memory and Early Civilization, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011.
Bull, Hedley, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, Columbia University Press, New York, 1977.
Kissinger, Henry, Diplomacy, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1994.
Krasner, Stephen D., Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1999.
Quigley, John, Jerusalem: The Illegal Occupation, Duke University Press, Durham, 2016.
State of Israel, Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel, 1980.
United Nations General Assembly, Resolution 181 (II), 1947.
Walzer, Michael, Just and Unjust Wars, Basic Books, New York, 1977.
LATEST 5 CONTRIBUTIONS BY THE SAME AUTHOR
THE RIFT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE HOLY SEE IN THE NEW INTERNATIONAL DISORDER
ENERGY GEOPOLITICS AND MACROFINANCIAL INSTABILITY
WORK AS A GEOPOLITICAL VARIABLE: MAY 1ST IN THE MULTIPOLAR ORDER
NATO AND MULTILEVEL COMPLIANCE IN INTERNATIONAL GOVERNANCE
ETHICAL GOVERNANCE OF CRITICAL SYSTEMS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: THE CASE OF BUSHEHR
FIVE LAST CONTRIBUTIONS ON GEOPOLITICS
DRAGHI IN AACHEN: EUROPE ALONE BEFORE THE TEST OF SOVEREIGNTY
PALANTIR: MUCH MORE THAN A MANIFESTO
GEOGRAPHIES OF AMBIVALENCE: THE DOUBLE FACE OF THE SAHARA–SAHEL CORRIDOR
SIGONELLA 1985: WHEN ITALY ASSERTED ITS SOVEREIGNTY
FIVE LATEST CONTRIBUTIONS
DRAGHI IN AACHEN: EUROPE ALONE BEFORE THE TEST OF SOVEREIGNTY
HUMANOID ROBOTS: REPRODUCTION OF THE LIVING AND ONTOLOGICAL LIMIT
RACE FOR THE CURE 2026 IN ROME: WHEN PREVENTION BECOMES COMMUNITY
TULIPANI DI SETA NERA 2026: SOCIAL CINEMA AS A LENS ON CONTEMPORARY FRAGILITIES
PALANTIR: MUCH MORE THAN A MANIFESTO
Ethica Societas is a free, non-profit review published by a social cooperative non-profit organization
Copyright Ethica Societas, Human&Social Science Review © 2026 by Ethica Societas UPLI onlus.
ISSN 2785-602X. Licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0