The Emergence of Nation State

System
Introduction
The terms nation, state, country and nation-state are used to refer to political, economic,
social and cultural actors in the international system. The modern nation-state refers to
a single or multiple nationalities joined together in a formal political union. The nation-
state determines an official language(s), a system of law, manages a currency system,
uses a bureaucracy to order elements of society, and fosters loyalties to abstract
entities like “Canada,” “the United States,” and so on.
What’s the difference between these concepts?
A nation-state differs from a “state” or a “nation” for a couple of important reasons:
A nation refers only to a socio-cultural entity, a union of people sharing who can
identify culturally and linguistically. This concept does not necessarily consider formal
political unions.
A state refers to a legal/political entity that is comprised of the following: a) a permanent
population; b) a defined territory; c) a government ; and d) the capacity to enter into
relations with other states.
This distinction is an important one because we, as political scientists, must be able to
account for both political and socio-cultural factors in a political entity. Using the
term nation-state, permits this investigation.

Definition
A nation state is a geographical area that can be identified as deriving its political
legitimacy from serving as a sovereign nation. A state is a political and geopolitical
entity, while a nation is a cultural and ethnic one. The term “nation state” implies that the
two coincide, but “nation state” formation can take place at different times in different
parts of the world, and has become the dominant form of world organization.

The Emergence of Nation State

The Westphalian system of sovereign states was established in 1648 as part of the
Peace of Westphalia. There were three core points to the treaty:
o The principle of state sovereignty;
o The principle of (legal) equality of states;
o The principle of non-intervention of one state in the international affairs of another.
 

Over the years, the Westphalian model became universally accepted, and widely
respected. But, with time, came changes to the society, and, with them, came critique of
the system. Today, challenges to this model of international relations come from various
fields, such as international security, humanitarian activity, and global economy. Still,
the Westphalian state system plays a huge role in the modern society, although it needs
adjustment to today‘s society‘s needs.
The idea of sovereignty is a widely supported one. The notion that every state has the
right of self-governance over its people and territory builds the foundation for interstate
peace, but, at the same time, experiences much critique.
Along with giving each state the privilege to make its own decisions, sovereignty gives
benefits to individual nations, while providing multiple disadvantages. The plusses of the
idea are obvious: each state can decide the best for its people, thus, hopefully,
developing economically, socially, and politically. Other states, no matter how powerful,
do not have the right to take upon the rule of a sovereign country. The principle of
autonomy does not allow exploitation of the weaker on the scale of the relations
between states. In ideal, sovereignty does not let the EDCs give into the temptation
ofrestructuring the LDCs for their own needs. Many leaders, especially in the countries
of Asia and the Middle East, support the notions of self-determination and non-
intervention, both in terms of political and cultural influence. On the other side, individual
countries, when isolating from the world, sacrifice the immense long-term benefits of
international cooperation. In order to bring benefits to all countries, rules that are to be
developed for the international community need to respect the various opinions on
global issues, instead of focusing on the needs of the richest, most technologically
developed nations. If the laws respect the needs of the community, the purpose of
sovereignty is partially lost, which means that with globalization and development of
international networks, sovereignty needs to be given up for the sake of international
progress.
In the Fareed Zakaria‘s Culture is Destiny: Conversation with Lee Kuan Yew, the former
Prime Minister of Singapore emphasizes the importance of cultural atmosphere in the
development of a particular country. Therefore, if a country makes the decision to
preserve its culture, the neighboring nations‘ attempts to change its cultural environment
can be perceived as violations to the principles of sovereignty. Various foreign activities,
such as bringing foreign businesses into the isolating country would disturb its barriers
for outside intervention of any kind. At the same time, forbidding the introduction of
international businesses in a country would be contradicting to the recently developed
idea of liberalization of trade.
Second half of the twentieth century was identified with the spread of the ideas of
liberalism around the world, and into many spheres of activity. The development of
liberal international institutions in the past decades is a great example of that. These
organizations, while serving a great range of purposes, often get in the way of ideals of
the Westphalian system. Followers of liberalism often support spread of the Western
model of societal interactions, which includes democratic form of government, open
markets, and implementation of human rights in every part of the world. In many cases
of non-Western, as well as Western, countries, the idea of spreading the ideas of
liberalism is strongly opposed with the argument of national sovereignty. Nevertheless,
the more powerful Western governments continue pressing on the opposition of their
values by, sometimes, inhuman methods. The concepts of the Westphalian system
protect the victims of forced spread of liberty.
The WTO and the IMF are excellent examples of interference of international institutions
and national sovereignty. In the case of Bretton Woods institutions, there is a clear
confrontation of the struggle for global economic openness vs. sovereignty of individual
players. In the WTO, the majority of independent countries are either members or
perspective members. Its purpose is to open up the world market by removing trade
barriers, by creation of a multilateral trading system. The WTO favors the laissez-faire
approach to international business development, while fighting protectionist policies of
any level, thus interfering with the right of self-determination of each participant. WTO
officials argue that sacrificing the short-term goals of protectionist behavior brings
benefits to the whole world, thus affecting all of its members. Sovereignty can help
protect a state from short-term economic losses, such as unemployment in certain
areas of professional work; but, it brings in the benefits of international cooperation, thus
increasing the effectiveness of production of each individual member. Helen Milner,
political scientist from Stanford University, mentions that international economic
institutions, like the Bretton Woods institutions, ―constrain the behavior of the most
powerful countries and provide information and monitoring capacities that enable states
to cooperate,‖2 which further supports the work of international economic institutions.
The Westphalian principles need to consider the point that, often times, giving up
individual interests results in greater long-term outcome, both for the international
community in overall, and for every player in particular.
In terms of security issues, there are several problems with the 1648 principles of
Westphalia. One of them is caused by the change in the international nature of conflicts.
Another security issue with the old standards of sovereignty is created by modern
technology. Nowadays, conflicts mostly arise within countries, rarely affecting the
surroundings of the conflicting nation. Although some supporters of absolute
sovereignty may argue that individual states should not care about the ongoing events
of their neighbors, it might very well be in the interests of each player of the international
arena to participate in peacekeeping in the nations that experience. The extent to which
these international peacekeeping operations should be taken is debated by many.
Thinking about this subject, one might consider different causes of violence inside
states. When the disorder in a country is part of a coup d‘état, outside intervention
would probably be unnecessary, additionally interfering with the process of self-
determination. A different case of an ongoing genocide in a country, especially if it
seems to have the potential to cross the national borders, could be the time when an
early intervention would tackle an immense threat to world peace. Moreover, even if the
situation does not seem close to going outside a state‘s borders, it might be necessary
to intervene in a state that has the potential to be wiped off the earth, or to commit
massive violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The problem with the
notion of pacifying involvement is the fact that leaders of some particular states deem
themselves to be the world judges, allowing themselves to get involved, guided often,
by self-interest, in the conflicts that are far from threatening global peace. This setback
should be mitigated by the enforcement of principles of international cooperation
through international institutions which respect the opinions of a variety of state actors.
An incomparable illustration of a situation where international intervention was needed,
but did not come in full force, is the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. Samantha Power, a
journalist and a writer, studied the disastrous decisions by the United Nations, its
bureaucracy, and the United States in particular. According to Power, these actors are
to blame for the consequences of nonintervention in Rwanda3.
When a state‘s behavior is not regulated in any way, there is a possibility of
development and proliferation of technologies, whose destructive power, when built,
neither the 17th century‘s, nor the 21st century‘s laws have the capability to stop. The
greatest examples of these technologies are nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons
of mass destruction. In order to prevent the possible unwanted consequences of letting
the nuclear buildup go uncontrolled, the Non-Proliferation Treaty was organized. The
NPT establishes that in order to contribute to the battle against weapons of mass
destruction, nuclear technology trade and nuclear technology development are
forbidden. The participating nations have to give up some of their sovereignty for the
sake of international security.
An outstanding example of the nuclear dilemma from the current international affairs is
the Iran‘s nuclear program. The U.S., along with its allies, pressure Iran to close up the
program. Iran, on the other hand, declares to be working on peaceful goals, therefore
claiming its right of self-determination. The system of sovereignty, in this case, aids
Iran‘s behavior which threatens international peace. James Phillips, a passionate critic
of Iran‘s nuclear development, says in one of his statements that, ―as potentially costly
and risky as a preventive was against Iran would be, allowing Iran to acquire nuclear
weapons would result in far heavier potential costs and risks.‖4Phillips‘ statement
supports the notion that once a state starts claiming its right to choose whether the
development of weapons of massive destruction goes on inside the state, international
security is placed in danger.
In addition to the questions of security and economics, many critics of the Westphalian
system bring up the goals of humanitarian progress. The majority of values of
humanitarianism were laid out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
International Criminal Court was established on its premise. When members of the
international community take actions that violate the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, the ICC has the privilege to prosecute the violators even in case if the violator is
not a member in the ICC. This procedure majorly interferes with the ideals of
Westphalian society. In his writing, Briony MacPhee makes a strong line of support for
the ICC, by attacking the common critiques to theorganization. Briony MacPhee
mentions, ―much of the humanitarian work sponsored by the U.S. abroad may no
longer be necessary, allowing Americans to continue to advance their humanitarian
ideals while avoiding the deaths of American soldiers and rerouting the millions spent
on humanitarian aid,‖ as one of his strong messages to the U.S. The U.S. vastly
supports human rights values, but refuses to join the ICC because of the ideals of
sovereignty.
As a result of the continuous disputes on the principles of the Westphalian system of
state sovereignty, there developed numerous alternatives to this model of international
relations. Stephen D. Krasner, a professor at Stanford University, in his Sharing
Sovereignty: New Institutions for Collapsed and Failing States6 article found that
sovereignty does not accomplish its purpose in many parts of the world. Krasner‘s
version of the new international system should include de facto trusteeships and shared
sovereignty, where ―national rulers would use their international legal sovereignty to
legitimate institutions within their states in which authority was shared between internal
and external act. The Real New World Order brings up the idea of trans-governmental
networks, which, in the near future are going to be smoothing out the frontiers, thus
getting rid of the principles of sovereignty.
The most important aspect of keeping our world safe is considering all actors on the
stage before making decisions about international politics. Whether the written laws say
one thing or another, often times the world brings in new issues that, in order to be dealt
with, need to either break the old rules, or to create new ones. The Westphalian system
has some imperfections which stood out more as years passed, but that only proves the
fact that it is the most excellent system of international relations that was created so far.
The nation-state developed fairly recently. Prior to the 1500s, in Europe, the nation-
state as we know it did not exist. Back then, most people did not consider themselves
part of a nation; they rarely left their village and knew little of the larger world. If
anything, people were more likely to identify themselves with their region or local lord.
At the same time, the rulers of states frequently had little control over their countries.
Instead, local feudal lords had a great deal of power, and kings often had to depend on
the goodwill of their subordinates to rule. Laws and practices varied a great deal from
one part of the country to another. The timeline on page 65 explains some key events
that led to the rise of the nation-state.
In the early modern era, a number of monarchs began to consolidate power by
weakening the feudal nobles and allying themselves with the emerging commercial
classes. This difficult process sometimes required violence. The consolidation of power
also took a long time. Kings and queens worked to bring all the people of their territories
under unified rule. Not surprisingly, then, the birth of the nation-state also saw the first
rumblings of nationalism, as monarchs encouraged their subjects to feel loyalty toward
the newly established nations. The modern, integrated nation-state became clearly
established in most of Europe during the nineteenth century.
Example: Russia is a great example of consolidation of power by monarchs.
Throughout most of the medieval era, what became Russia was a minor
principality centered on the city of Moscow. Over the course of a few hundred
years, the rulers of Moscow took over more land, eventually expanding to cover
much of what is now Russia. This expansion came through a mix of diplomacy
and war. When Ivan IV also known as Ivan the Terrible came of age and
assumed the throne in 1547, he was crowned the first czar. He proceeded to
devastate the nobility by means of a secret police and gained the loyalty of
commercial classes by giving them positions in a new state bureaucracy. These
actions led to the deaths of thousands. THE RISE OF THE EUROPEAN
NATION-STATE

Time Frame Major Event

Most people lived in small villages;

they paid tithes to feudal landlords,
didn‘t travel, and cared little for
Pre-1500s anything beyond the village.

1485 Henry VII wins the War of the

 Roses in England, begins the
Tudor dynasty, and starts the
development of the English nation-
state.

Spanish monarchs Ferdinand and

Isabella finish taking back all of
Spain from the Muslims; the era of
1492 Spain as a global power begins.

Ivan the Terrible rules Russia; he

unifies the government and creates
1547–1584 the first Russian nation-state.

Louis XIV of France creates an

absolute monarchy; France
emerges as the dominant power in
1638–1715 Europe.

Peace of Westphalia cements the

legal status of the nation-state as
1648 sovereign.

The French Revolution begins; it

creates the modern French nation-
state and sparks nationalism
1789 around Europe.

Unification of Italy and Germany is

1871 complete.

Treaty of Versailles ends World

War I; it breaks up several
multinational empires and creates
1919 many new nation-states.

1945 The United Nations forms.

Example: In the eighteenth century, nobles held most of the power in Poland. The
monarch was very weak. As a result, Poland could not defeat its powerful neighbors
Austria, Prussia, and Russia. These three centralized nation-states partitioned Poland
on three different occasions 1772, 1793, and 1795 eventually eliminating Poland until
1918, when a new Republic of Poland formed.

The Importance of Napoleon

Napoleon Bonaparte was a key figure in the development of the nation-state. Amid the
chaos of the French Revolution in the late eighteenth century, most remaining medieval
and feudal laws were overturned and a truly national law code was established.
Similarly, a national military was created. Although not the only reason,France‘s status
as a nation-state was a key factor in its ability to dominate feudal neighbors in Italy and
Germany. Napoleon‘s military victories also paved the way for the emergence of nation-
states in the rest of Europe: In many places, the people rallied together as a nation in
order to defeat Napoleon.

The Future of Nation-States

Globalization
The first major trend is globalization. Over the last few decades, national boundaries
have broken down in a variety of ways, including economically. In today‘s truly global
economy, money and goods travel across borders in huge quantities and at great
speed. Many corporations build parts in a variety of countries, then assemble them in
yet another country. Most goods are no longer ―made in America,‖ for example,
because much of the manufacturing often happens in other places, whereas final
assembly occurs in the United States. The rapid growth of international investing has
further globalized the economy. Globalization often leads to transnationalism, so should
this globalizing trend continue, the nation-state might give way to the transnational
government.
The Perils of Globalization
Since the mid-1990s, people from around the world have attacked globalization.
Environmentalists see globalization as a disaster for the environment, labor unions fear
for their members‘ jobs in a global marketplace, and others see globalization itself as a
cause of poverty in developing countries. Most governments continue to favor
globalization, but anti-globalization protesters have made their mark by demonstrating
against meetings of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and other
international economic institutions. During the so-called Battle of Seattle in 1999,
thousands of protesters swarmed the hotel and convention centers at which meetings of
the World Trade Organization were being held.
Transnationalism
Transnationalism has also occurred at the political level. International organizations,
such as the United Nations and the World Trade Organization, play an ever-increasing
role on the political stage, and nations join them for such benefits as military protection
and economic security. In the case of the European Union, national boundaries have
very little meaning. All citizens can travel, live, and work freely throughout the European
Union, and all internal tariffs and trade restrictions have been abolished. Some
residents see themselves as citizens of a new European Union nation, not of their
smaller countries. Transnational governments and groups literally transcend
geographical and political boundaries.
Example: The World Trade Organization, the United Nations, and the World Bank are
just a few examples of international organizations that sometimes act like governments
or play a substantial role in international relations. Other examples include the
Organization of American States, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the Organization of
Petroleum Exporting Countries.
The fact that increasing numbers of people around the world speak the same language
demonstrates the transnational trend. English has become something of an international
language,
 

but other languages (such as French, Chinese, and Russian) are also spoken by many
around the world. Overall, the total number of languages spoken is decreasing, while
the total number of speakers of certain dominant languages is increasing.
Devolution
The second trend that marks the recession of nation-states concerns the increase in
political power being given to local governments, sometimes to the point of autonomy.
This trend is sometimes called devolution because states are said to devolve power
back to local governments. In the United Kingdom, for example, Scotland has been
granted a great deal of autonomy, as has Catalonia in Spain. Should this trend
continue, local governments would replace national or central governments. Although
the nation-state has been the predominant unit of political organization for most of the
last few centuries, its future is uncertain. Two trends point to the nation-state as
receding in importance, but these trends sometimes contradict each other. Still,
globalization and devolution continue to occur at a rapid rate throughout the twenty-first-
century world, and both will affect the future of nation-states.
New Federalism
Since the 1970s, a number of American presidents have pursued a policy sometimes
called new federalism. Supporters feel that the federal government has gotten too
powerful and that more power should be given to state and local governments. Although
the federal government remains strong, more power has been given back to state and
local governments. In the 1990s, for example, Congress created block grants that gave
money to states with few strings attached. States were also given more freedom to
experiment with policies, such as Wisconsin‘s experiment with welfare reform under
Governor Tommy Thompson in 1996.
The table below summarizes the trends of globalization and
devolution. GLOBALIZATION AND DEVOLUTION TRENDS

Globalization Devolution

Outward, away from the Inward, down from the

Power flows state central government

International organizations
and transnational Regional and local
Power belongs to governments governments

Power is lost by The state The central government

 Sometimes known
as Transnationalism Subnationalism

New Federalism in the

United States, increased
Scottish autonomy in the
United Kingdom, in-
creased study of local
The European Union, the and regional languages
United Nations, the World (such as Breton in
Examples Trade Organization France.
Huntington began his thinking by surveying the diverse theories about the nature of
global politics in the post–Cold War period. Some theorists and writers argued that
human rights, liberal democracy and capitalist free market economics had become the
only remaining ideological alternative for nations in the post–Cold War world.
Specifically, Francis Fukuyama, in The End of History and the Last Man, argued that the
world had reached a Hegelian “end of history”.
Huntington believed that while the age of ideology had ended, the world had reverted
only to a normal state of affairs characterized by cultural conflict. In his thesis, he
argued that the primary axis of conflict in the future will be along cultural and religious
lines.
As an extension, he posits that the concept of different civilizations, as the highest rank
of cultural identity, will become increasingly useful in analyzing the potential for conflict.
In the 1993 Foreign Affairs article, Huntington writes:
It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be
primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and
the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most
powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur
between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will
dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of
the future.
Sandra Joireman suggests that Huntington may be characterised as a neo-primordialist,
as, while he sees people as having strong ties to their ethnicity, he does not believe that
these ties havealways existed.