PolSci Oh! PolSci

 

Sir Ian Nasser Berowa gave us this very long assignment. i was just so thankful that i was able to finish my assignment/ bring home exam on time. i just hope if ever i wasn't able to pass top it at least i passed his standard. 

Sir Berowa? he's really something. he is one of the most brilliant professors i ever admired in our university. even he is so liberated and sometimes our views and opinions with regards to morality does not and are opposite poles i still love to hear him defending his side. his words are eye opening to us. his words always make us feel empowered. i just hope he'll continue to be a good example to everyone. anyways.. the  following were already my assignments : ) just one to share.

Emergence of nation states and problematic political concepts in four ‘waves’:

From the French revolution to the end of cold war

by: Ahmet Sozen 

In this paper, the concept of sovereignty and other related important problematic analyzed in different historical process of the emergence of nation states. The author divided the time periods into four phases with the assumption that each phase includes one important emergence of nation states. 

The first wave was referred to the era of liberalism to realpolitik. In this era was the emergence of the concept of nation state from the religious perspective.  Before, people believe that the absolute power is bestowed by God to the leader that is why the Pope places his hands over the emperor’s head in his crowning ceremony to symbolize transmission of divine rights.

 However, during the middle ages the King emerged more powerful than the church and in the long run the people was oppressed by the king. In the age of enlightenment the philosophers were able to emphasize that sovereignty must come from the people. On the other hand, ‘people’ were seen as ‘unified body’ instead of as individuals, so the French constitution was written in the narrow perspective.

The sovereign king was replaced by the sovereign nation wherein the sovereignty is absolute and indivisible hence, the concept of sovereignty was abused by the ruler of the nation. While sovereignty was supposed to be derived from the people, the ‘people’ was ignored.

After which, national movements emerged and the idea behind those movements was liberal humanitarianism challenging the imperial regimes to replace such regime with nation sate which guarantees their individual liberty and rights then the new nationalism entered the age of realpolitik, a policy based on power and self-interest, and not on human declaration.

 The Second wave resulted to enlargement of nation states in terms of population and territory. Plebiscites were held in recognition of self-determination and to determine which nationality was in majority. Self-determination was, then, based on nationality and due to the lack of effective international community and nonbinding nature of international law; most of the minorities were abandoned to the mercy of the ruthless oppressors. The result was oppressive treatment of the minorities by their own states under the shield on national sovereignty.

The third wave in the historical perspective happened during the cold war era. Because self-determination and sovereignty of the nation sates were abused in the former era, their came the revolutions and emergence of the nation states composed of the minorities. Since these new states are not yet capable of leading into a production nation it was referred to as, by Jackson, a weak, marginal, insubstantial nation states after the WWII. The UN recognized the right to self determination as a political and moral concept but it had “no legal validity within the law of nations. As a result the colonial powers tried to postpone the transfer of power to the native people. So the divide and rule principle again triggered national movements.

The fourth happened during the post cold war era where in the collapse of the soviet union began. The nationalist movement with their capacity to mobilize huge masses of people played the decisive role and there comes another smaller ethnic groups claiming for their desired nation state. 

The author believes that there exists an international system though not a perfectly ordered one and that is the League of Nations and the United Nations which are to define the customary relations between and among states. The author also believes that these organizations will not serve the interests of the dominant states but would work most efficiently for the benefit of all people around the world

We are now in the Fourth Wave of the emergence of the nation states. However, now we have the means, already founded- but needing reforms, to restructure the international society and its dominant patterns of relationships between and among states- in such a way that the sovereign nation states would not treat their own citizens against their humanitarian rights and other ethnic groups should be incorporated into the international society by creating new spaces for them so that they would feel secure and bounded and create the sense of community.

  Nations, State, and Territory

by: Annie Stilz

The article of Annie Stilz’ focuses on the concept of nations, sate and territory stating that a theory of territorial rights can aid in two important tasks: explaining the legitimacy of long- settled boundaries and helping us to demarcate new ones.

Accordingly, states can claim rights over territory based on three basic elements. First, they claim the right of territorial jurisdiction, which entitles them to make and enforce law on the land within their borders. Second, a state generally claims resource rights in its territory. Finally, states claim the right to control borders and to regulate the movement of people and goods across the territory. This paper considers only territorial jurisdiction, on the theory that we can extend the view to control of borders and resources in a second step.

The author aims to develop an alternative to the currently dominant account of territorial jurisdiction, the nationalist theory. The nationalist theory holds that the state derives its territorial rights from the prior collective right of a nation to that territory. On this view, a state has a right to exercise authority over a territory if: a) the land in the nation it represents has a right to the land in these areas and b) the state is properly authorized by that nation.

An alternative was also developed by the author and that is legitimate state theory which holds that a state has rights to a territory if (a) it effectively implements a system of law regulating property in that territory, (b) its subjects have a legitimate claim to occupy the territory, (c) the system of law “rules in the name of the people”, by protecting basic rights and providing for democratic representation, and (d) the state is not a usurper.

Stilz noted that the right to occupy a territory is not the same as right to property there. Instead, it is a right to be in legal residence on the territory: to be physically present, and to have one’s rights defiend and enforced by whatever state has jurisdiction there. Hence coming up to a more redefined occupation principle that rights to occupation means that a person has a right to be on a territory if he expects to occupy the territory I the future, if his expected occupancy of the territory is an assumption that structures his major life-pursuits, and if he formed that expectation through no fault of his own. What is truly the heart of the matter is individuals’ need for a stable reseidence; their need to live under a legitimate state that defines their rights.

Lastly author also discussed about the annexation objection stating that even if states are the only actor that can possess rights of jurisdiction over territory the people may possess a kind of right over territory too. It is said that membership in a state is a moral imperative rather than a choice, since living under the common system of law is the only way to respect others’ freedom- as-independence. Although it is unchosen , the relationship of “peoplehood” will be collectively autonomous if a) it guarantees basic rights, thus securing each citizen’s independence; and b) allows citizens a voice in determining the rules under which they must live.

 How we acquired the concept of the state (and what concept(s) we acquired)

by: Quetin Skinner

The authors article focuses to show how the application of the term “state” in such a way that it eventually came to express the concept if political supremacy. By tracing the genealogy of the concept of the state, the author hopes to provide means of dissipating the confusions.

Nowadays, the state usually refers to the bearer of sovereignty over some determinate territory. In later periods primarily in France, England and Italy, state refers to the status or standing of rulers themselves, stressing that it would be a state of majesty or a high estate

Early periods had a new concept of state and this was to refer to the general state or estate kingdoms or communities or the people as a whole. Some writer such as Starkey and Ponet also characterize assemblies of the representative of people as meetings of the principal states or estates of the realm.. In Thomas More’s Utopia, because the Utopians live in a society in which the laws embody the principles of justice, they may be said to have attained the best state of a commonwealth.During this period, it is generally agreed that the rulers hold supreme power over the commonwealth.

Under the status popularis, the people were generally described by the Renaissance theorists of republican government   as living a free way o life.. As a result, republics came to be described as ‘free states’ or ‘states’ by contrast with monarchies. By this time Henry Parker claim that, because parliament can be viewed as a representation of the sovereign people, it can turn be regarded as equivalent to ‘the whole body of the State’. However, Hobbes discredits this claim and he does not agree that the true bearer of sovereignty is the body of the people.

To the query who is to be identified as ‘the proper Subject or sovereign power? Defenders of divine right, Hobbes and protagonist of Parliament didn’t agree to a certain concrete answer. If, however, sovereignty is the property neither of the king nor of the people, who can possibly lay claim to it?

To this Hobbes claims that, when a multitude authorizes a man or assembly to serve as their representative, the effect is to transform them from a mere aggregation into one person. Hobbes stated that ‘a COMMON-WEALTH, or STATE, (in Latin CIVITAS)’ can be defined as ‘ One Person, of whose Acts a great Multitude, by mutual Covenants one with another, have made themselves one every one Author’. Then we are told that the name of the man or assembly that ‘bears’ or ‘carries’ this person is the SOVERAIGNE, who may consequently be said to represent or ‘Present the Person’ of the commonwealth or state’. There we read that ‘what distinguishes the state from a multitude’ is that ‘the state is a society animated by as single soul.’

Even though most political theorists came to agree that the state is the name of the sovereign power, they were completely unable to agree about the range of reference of the term state itself.

Skinner, in her article only presented the concepts on state as the term implies but does not present the concrete description of it. Skinner wanted to imply that we need to give up the idea that the term ‘state’ names an unambiguous concept.