State and Preventing Armed Conflict in the Contemporary World.

Max Weber defines the state as the holder of the monopoly of the legitimate use of force over a given territory and he adds that this monopoly is only possible because those who are subject to the authority of the state, to some extent accept it or consent to it. I think that this definition effectively captures the essential of what constitutes the modern state – a state which I believe is in a process of radical transformation – but I propose one modification to the wording of this definition: the modern state is the holder of the monopoly of legitimate violence. I prefer 'legitimate violence' to 'the legitimate use of force' because it indicates more clearly that between legitimate and illegitimate violence, the only difference is that it is legitimate, in both cases what we are dealing with is violence. Max Weber's wording suggests that there is between the 'legitimate coercive force' of the state and illegitimate violence a difference in nature, as if 'coercive force' was something radically different from violence. This is not to say of course that legitimacy is simply a sham, an illusion or a lie, its effects as we will see are very real. Further, the word 'use' , used by Weber, suggests rationality in the state's recourse to force, 'the monopoly of legitimate violence' implies no such connotation (nor does it exclude it). Finally, the modified formulation also aims to draw our attention to the fact that violence and legitimacy are intimately linked. Legitimacy, political legitimacy, I argue, is inseparable from the ability to make the distinction between good and bad violence and that ability is ultimately rooted in violence itself. A second important aspect of the modern state concerns its function. According to just about every modern political theory the fundamental, in the sense of the primary, function of the state is to protect its citizens against violence, to protect them both from the violence which they may exercise against each other, and from the violence of external enemies. These two aspects of the modern state are closely related for it is through its monopoly of legitimate violence that the state protects its citizens from violence. Further, this function of the state does not only exist in the minds of political theorists and philosophers, a modern state that works, as opposed to a failed state, is one that can effectively impose its monopoly of legitimate violence over its whole territory and thereby protect

Przegląd Politologiczny

The paper discusses relations between political mobilization, security and political relations. Security is understood as a social phenomenon, clearly explained by Clausewitz in his book On War. According to Clausewitz, political relations are of key significance for understanding the phenomenon of security. This thesis is not challenged, however, it is necessary to explain why political relations are necessary. The paper consists of four parties. The first part explores security and its evolution from a historical perspective. The second part analyses relations between a war and political mobilization. In our opinion, war is something more than simple continuation of politics by other means. Part three discusses the personal security, which was not a priority for the states. The problem of security appeared in its complex form only when people became ready to fight as a result of political mobilization, and with the creation of stable political organization. Section 4 describes pol...

The Journal of Conflict Studies, 1995

The international system is in a period of state expansion, or at least attempted expansion. More entities are trying to assert their independence now than at any time since the decolonization era of the 1950s and 1960s. In the process the state is being battered as both a concept and a legitimate reservoir of popular allegiance. The supposed benefits of national sovereignty are being challenged in a variety of ways throughout the world. States, in their traditional sense, are becoming both smaller and larger, and both less and more than was expected of them during the first half of the twentieth century. New organizations — regional associations both within and among traditional states, economic associations, social, ethnic and religious communities, affiliations based on interests or purpose rather than geographic propinquity — are all challenging the traditional role and sovereignty of the state in international politics. This article attempts to shed some light on what is happen...

In the 21 st century, the conditions of being a global or regional power have changed and strategic and political factors such as controlling global money circulation, determining the international agenda, deployment of military power in key regions, and being the centre of attraction have become absolutely necessary. In this context, the actor that ensures these conditions more than others and that has more coercive power and attraction to exercise on others will be able declare its regional hegemony and will become a global center of power if it can spread its influence globally. This article aims to disclose the essential conditions for nation-states to maintain their existence and to secure their interests in the new world order. It also seeks to examine the ways in which nation states can handle and overcome the threats posed by hegemonic powers. To do this, we have to begin by explicating the evolution of hegemony and power relations within the historical context beginning from theoretical origins.

The sudden demise of Cold War politics ended the possibility of nuclear war to international security. In the absence of macro-level threats to international security, scholars, analysts and policy-makers hastily searched for new threats to fill this gap. In this context issues such as pandemics, violations of human rights and democratisation have become important subjects amongst Western policy makers and analysts of international security studies. However, in the world outside the Western orbit, issues of geopolitics have retained their de facto importance in international security and have grown even stronger in some regions, such as Middle East, South and East Asia. This article examines the role of state based on three key challenges of international security, geopolitics, non-traditional threats, and human rights. It will be argued that in spite of the fact that critical schools of thought, advocating importance of non-state actors to international security, have gained recognition in the post-Cold War era; states remain crucial and responsible actors in international security.

The essays in this volume explore situations of civil strife, violent resistance and war in the circumstances of shi s in the organization of state power and the emergence of new forms of sovereignty. The specifi c empirical contexts analyzed are those in which the agents and organs of state power are eff ectively at war with the populations over whom they claim control. In these situations the character of particular state orders, the nature of sovereignty and the manner of their legitimacy are thrown into relief. These are major concerns of the arguments presented here which are alive to the fact that the state, real or imagined, is neither monolithic nor universal in form but has taken shape in o en very diff erent historical circumstances. The authors in the main concentrate on civil strife and war at the colonial or postcolonial peripheries of dominant state-metropolitan centers. However, the extent to which the state circumstances of these contexts are linked with larger metropolitan-centered processes is of major concern in this volume. As the contributions argue, war and civil violence within specifi c states has much to do with the dynamics of such linkages. That is, many of the dimensions of intra-state confl ict and war are not a function of particular state orders alone but of the larger arenas of political and economic action in which they are set o en involving relations of contest with other states and/or consequences not apparently related to particular state practice. Thus, Max Gluckman 1963 dem-Notes for this section are located on page 21.

2021

In the context of the systemic transformation of international relations and the global challenges of the new order, States faced a whole range of problems, the solution of which was beyond the power of individual institutions or structures at the regional or global levels. It was the states at the individual and collective levels that were able to mobilize internal and external financial resources, work out a package of anti-crisis measures and keep the development of their own economies in a relatively resistant state, and ensure the revival of the dynamics of development.

2009

Citizens of the Western world live in an unprecedented era of peace and security. Of course, the headlines from Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan and parts of Central America remind us that this pacific order is not global. But there is little doubt that the incidence (and probably severity) of armed conflict–and, more importantly, levels of domestic or internal violence–have declined dramatically when compared over a long historical perspective.

2018

Usually a nation-state called a “country” , a “nation” or “state” but technically it is specific form of sovereign state means a political entity on a territory which is guided by a nation. The nation derives its constitution from their cultural norms or from the religion set of values later became their legitimacy to efficiently serve their citizens. The modern nation state is relatively 17th century’s event in human history emerging after “Renaissance and “Reformation”. These two major events change the concept of governing bodies almost globally “Kingdoms” or “Christian-Dom” replace by competitive & professional state bureaucracies who can governs large groups of people impersonally. Like ‘Frederick ii of Prussia’ consider as first cited originators of modern state bureaucracy. It is based on idea the state can treat large number of people equally by efficient application of law by the bureaucratic machinery of the state.