In order to answer the question concerning the formation of states, it is necessary to clarify what constitutes a state; the Oxford English Dictionary defines a state as ‘a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government’. There are a number of ways and processes in which to analyse what state formation is, why they have formed and the way in which this has occurred. State emergence can be traced back to the creation of territorial boundaries in medieval Europe, such as the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, and its transition to a modern state can be attributed to the introduction of gunpowder in war (Hague & Harrop, 2010: 64). The formations of states have also been influenced by the growth of bureaucracy, administration and organisations. There are different theories as to the reason why states form, a certain few of which can be divided into the categories of rationalist, culturalist and structuralist perspectives. In this essay, these perspectives shall enter the debate in trying to justify the reason for state formation and the way in which it occurs. The most prominent feature in the formation of states appears to be the prevention and engagement of a state in war and its following consequences.
To examine what state formation is and how it has occurred the logical route seems to assess from where they have evolved. The notion of the state is a relatively recent concept, for example in 1555 there existed only two national states, England and France. With otherwise the existence of disorganised and corrupt empires, federations and protectorates. It appears states have formed despite the many obstacles facing their development. Not only did the challenges of securing territory exist but ri...
... middle of paper ...
... 24 (2), 177.
Braun, R. (1975), ‘Taxation, Sociopolitical Structure, and State-Building: Great Britain and Brandenburg-Prussia’, in C.Tilly (ed), The Formation of National States in Western Europe, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Dwyer, P (2000). The Rise of Prussia 1700-1830. London: Longman. 18-9.
Hague, R. & M. Harrop (2010). Comparative Government and Politics. 8th ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 64.
Moore, B (1967). Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 433-442.
Simmons, A. John (1992). The Lockean Theory of Rights. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 127.
Tilly, C. (1985). War Making and State Making as Organized Crime. In: P.B Evans, D. Rueschemeyer & T. Skocpol Bringing the state back in. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 171.
War is the means to many ends. The ends of ruthless dictators, of land disputes, and lives – each play its part in the reasoning for war. War is controllable. It can be avoided; however, once it begins, the bat...
the role of the state and also from the perspective of how the decision to fight impacts the
Paine, Thomas. 2009. "The rights of man." Rights of Man 1. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed February 27, 2011).
Military involvement in the country’s politics has become a common feature of modern states. This history of military-government relationship traces its roots back to hundreds of years during the wars of freedom and independence. In some countries, the military is heavily involved in political affairs while others keep politics out of the military. The differences in this relationship among states arise from underlying historical factors of the modern states. This paper considers two states, Germany and Nigeria where military is heavily involved in politics owing to a long history of political warfare fuelled by ethnic pressures and economic challenges. These states are used as a reference point for military involvement in politics and the conditions under which this happens. These examples show that historical and recent conditions make the relationship between government and military very different in African and European context. In the former, weak governments are unable to control military power, while on the later, even in countries with strong military, the political leadership put limits on military power.
"Declaration of the Rights of Man - 1789." The Avalon Project. Yale Law School, n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2014.
Del Testa, David W., Florence Lemoine, and John Strickland. Government Leaders, Military Rulers, and Political Activists. Westport, Conn: Oryx Press, 2001. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost (accessed November 10, 2013).
Lijphart, Arend. "Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method." American Political Science Review. 65 (1971): 682-693.
The purpose of this essay is to inform on the similarities and differences between systemic and domestic causes of war. According to World Politics by Jeffry Frieden, David Lake, and Kenneth Schultz, systemic causes deal with states that are unitary actors and their interactions with one another. It can deal with a state’s position within international organizations and also their relationships with other states. In contract, domestic causes of war pertain specifically to what goes on internally and factors within a state that may lead to war. Wars that occur between two or more states due to systemic and domestic causes are referred to as interstate wars.
Walker, I. (1991). Democratic Socialism in Comparative Perspective. Comparative Politics. 23 (4). Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/422259. [Accessed: 1/12/2013]
Hoffman, J. & Graham, P. (2009), Introduction to Political Theory, 2nd Edition: London: Pearson Education Limited.
War is a universal phenomenon, it is a violent tool people use to accomplish their interests. It is not autonomous, rather policy always determines its character. Normally it starts when diplomacy fails to reach a peaceful end. War is not an end rather than a mean to reach the end, however, it does not end, and it only rests in preparation for better conditions. It is a simple and dynamic act with difficult and unstable factors which make it unpredictable and complex. It is a resistant environment where the simplest act is difficult to perform. In this paper, I will argue why war is a universal phenomenon and what are the implications of my argument to strategists.
John Stuart Mill discusses the concept of liberty in many ways. I’d like to focus on his ideas of the harm principle and touch a little on his thoughts about the freedom of action. The harm principle and freedom of action are just two subtopics of Mill’s extensive thoughts on the concept of liberty. Not only do I plan to discuss and explain each of these parts of the conception of liberty, but I also plan to discuss my thoughts and feelings. I have a few disagreements with Mill on the harm principle; they will be stated and explained.
The belief of a nation running their own state is a right for most of us. However, this is only a new conviction. The right for one to sovereign their own nation has come due with hard work. Illicit imperialism has stricken humanity for numerous years. Due to the aspiration of power certain nations today do not self-govern their own state. But why would there be a desire for this power? Some of the main items include natural resources, increased assets, and military expansion. Ideally this is great if this is voluntary external rule, but when it’s no longer voluntary this is when the boundary has been crossed. This is why every nation should have control over their own state if they desire.
Spencer, C. S. "Inaugural Article: Territorial Expansion and Primary State Formation." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107.16 (2010): 7119-126. Print.
Newton, K. & J. W. Van Deth (2005). Foundations of Comparative Politics: Democracies of the Modern World, Cambridge: CUP, Ch. 4, ‘Presidential and Parliamentary Government’, 60-71.