This gives an accurate depiction of what a state is and also takes into account the ambiguity of authority, i.e. it isn’t necessarily legitimate. The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States defines a state using a number of criteria.
Firstly, it must have a permanent population and be in a defined area of territory. By this it is meant the inhabitants of the state must be living in a certain geographical location on a permanent basis.
Secondly, the government of this state must be able to maintain this control. This is also an ambiguous statement and can be interpreted in a number of ways. Under this guise a dictatorial state could rise and there would be no problem as they maintain control by whatever means possible.
Finally, the government of a state must be able to conduct international relations with other states and must have links with other states which are easily recognisable, i.e. trade agreements, extradition treaties and membership of international organisations possibly.
The Montevideo Convention is only a basic guide of what a state is, as there are some instances of states which do not conform to these conventions. Israel is an example of a state which does not conform to these conventions. The main and controversial reason for this is that Israel’s borders are in constant debate and dispute with the Palestinian authority and among other Middle Eastern states. Despite this factor Israel is still recognised as a state.
An important factor in defining or indeed recognising what the state is, is the concept of sovereignty. In the international system the concept of ‘external’ sovereignty is the most relevant of the different concepts of sovereignty. By external sovereignty it is meant that a state can maintain the ability to act as an ‘independent and autonomous entity’ (Heywood, 2002). Heywood highlights another point that sovereignty also relates to the issue of a states place in the international system (Heywood, 2002).
A states relationship to other entities in the international system is a very prominent issue, especially with the emerging and constant importance of such organisations of the European Union (EU), WTO and UN as states either try to maintain their sovereignty or in the instance of the EU ‘pool’ their sovereignty (Shaw, 185).
By pooling sovereignty it is meant that a state will surrender some of its external sovereignty to co-operate with other states thus making the international system easier to work as each state is not pursuing its own agenda and international consensus is easier to come by.
The most prominent example of this is that of the EU. Each member state is a sovereign entity itself, but on some issues the EU will speak, or act as one set of nations. For example in WTO negotiations one representative is sent as opposed to twenty-five member states all sending their own representative.
So now it is clear what a state is: a self-governing territorial entity which maintains sovereign power. This power can sometimes be pooled and territory can be a disputed issue. As long as the above points in the Montevideo Convention are loosely followed then this is what we can define a state as.
The next issue to be discussed is the concept of a ‘nation’. The three terms discussed in this essay are quite often confused and sometimes those discussing international relations confuse what is meant by the terms.
Jackson and Sørenson give a simple description of what a nation is, they state that there are linguistic, cultural and historical bonds amongst a group of people and this helps to define what a nation is and what its characteristics are (Jackson & Sørenson, 2003).
From this definition it can be seen that a nation is a group of people tied together through a set of commonalities. There are however problems with this definition as commonalities can differ and are not necessarily present in some nations. For example, the United States of America (USA) consider themselves a nation through their common belief in the principles of liberty and freedom, yet there are two major languages that are used, and not all of the USA’s current inhabitants are descendants of its founders, recognising its historical context.
It must also be highlighted that a nation is not necessarily constrained to national borders. The manifesto of the United Arab Republic put the case forward for a united Arab nation, and although this was not realised, the majority of Arabs consider themselves part of an ‘Arab nation’. Equally the Jewish nation existed for thousands of years before the foundation of Israel in 1948 and those Jews living outside of Israel still consider themselves part of the Jewish nation.
Nationality is not necessarily confined to commonalities of history, culture and language. Sylvester puts the point across that feminists are not just a group of people that put forward the cause of common equality, yet they are a nation of people operating within the international system (Sylvester, 2002:293). As illustrated by Sylvester’s ideas and Zionism, nation isn’t always commonalities, but it can simply be a cause, i.e. that of foundation of the Jewish state, and universal suffrage throughout the world.
There are some instances when nations or the idea of belonging to a nation do not apply. Evans and Newnham define this as ‘statelessness’ and that according to the UN Conference on the Status of Stateless Persons ‘a person who is not considered as a national by any state under the operation of its law’ is a stateless person. Although this relates to states and statehood this could lead to a person being rejected by their nation if the state happens to be a nation-state.
Now it is clear what a nation is, an attempt can be made at what a nation-state is. By definition it is clear that a nation-state is a mixture of sovereign state which encompasses the concept of nationhood. This concept in itself is subjective as some people consider themselves part of a state but not part of a nation. This leads us to the conclusion that a nation-state can no longer exist in the current ‘globalised’ world as culture; people are very easily moved around the world.
Heywood notes that the nation-state means different things to different schools of thought. Firstly, for Liberals the nation-state ‘is fashioned out of civic loyalties and allegiances’ (Heywood, 2002: 121), for conservatives ‘it is based on ethnic of organic unity’ (Heywood, 2002:121). Thus it can be seen that a ‘nation-state’ is indeed a subjective idea.
Out of the three terms discussed above the one which is most relevant in the international system is a matter of personal opinion. The composition and nature of the international system represents a number of conflicting ideals and groups and so each of the above terms has some relevancies.
In my opinion, I believe that the most relevant of the above terms is that of a state. The reason for this is that nation-states are almost non-existent due to the fast-changing composition of inhabitants of states or countries.
Although nations are recognised as an important part of the international system, international organisations such as the WTO and EU make up their membership from ‘states’ as opposed to ‘nations’.
Taking the importance of INGOS into consideration it must be noted that the state is no longer the only kind of player in international relations. Stiglitz in his book ‘Globalisation and its Discontents’ highlights the importance of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank in peoples lives and how important an impact and effect it is having upon the people of developing countries. INGOS are not the only type of non-state player which have importance and effect on peoples lives within the international system. ‘International terror’ by its very nature affects the international system and is not a state.
So, of all the terms above, I think that ‘state’ is the most important term within the international system, as the state is the principal actor in international organisations, and international organisations are having an increasingly important effect upon the international system.
Bibliography
Baylis, J. and Smith, S., 2001, The Globalisation of World Politics, United States, Oxford University Press
Beitz, C., 1979, Political Theory and International Relations, Chichester, Princeton University Press
Buzan, B., 1991, People States and Fear, Hertfordshire, Harvester Wheatsheaf
Cohen, R. and Kennedy, P., 2000, Global Sociology, Hampshire, Palgrave Macmillan
Evans, G. and Newnham, J., 1998, Dictionary of International Relations, London, Penguin
Heywood, A., 2002, Politics, Hampshire, Palgrave
Heywood, A., 1999, Political Theory: An Introduction, Hampshire, Palgrave
Jackson, R., Sørenson, G., 2003, Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches, Oxford, Oxford University Press
Lacquer, W. and Rubin, B., 1984, The Israel-Arab Reader, London, Penguin
Mlinar, Z., 1992, Globalisation and Territorial Identities, Hants, Avebury
Pilger, J., 2002, The New Rulers of the World, London, Verso
Reich, R., The Work of Nations, United States, Random House
Shaw, M., 2000, Theory of a Global State: Globality as an Unfinished Revolution, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
Smith, A., 1880, The Wealth of Nations, unknown, Clarendon Press
Stiglitz, J., 2002, Globalisation and its Discontents, London, Penguin
Sylvester, C., 2002, Feminist International Relations: An Unfinished Journey, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
Urry, J., 2003, Global Complexity, Cambridge, Blackwell Publishing
Whittaker, D., 1997, United Nations in the Contemporary World, London, Routledge
Wight, M., 1995, Power Politics, London, Leicester University Press
