Will the world always be divided into nation-states?

Politics International Politics
61

[quote=“fruitloop”]Perhaps in some ways you could see nation state as an International Relations shorthand for the form of state common from the 18th to 20th century, not necessarily only having one major ethnic, linguistic or racial group. In some cases the lack of these might supposedly be made up for by defining political values (as in the US). In this way The US, USSR, China, India can still be seen as nation states.

By that I mean, possessing sovereignty, a distinct population (citizens) clearly defined borders etc. One theory or metaphor is commonly known as the Billiard Ball Model - states are impermeable - they can bounce off each other but not penetrate each other - they are mutually exclusive.

Prior to the reformation, European states were subservient to the Pope so this model didn’t hold then. These days, with all the international institutions, regulations and treaties, it’s difficult to justify impermeability (true sovereignty) too - perhaps The Vatican and Switzerland are the most sovereign states in the world - Switzerland only became a member of the UN in 2002 and The Vatican is not.[/quote]

The confrontation between China and the Western states in the 19th C. shows the difference between the nation-state system and traditional Chinese view of itself as the ruler of “all under Heaven” without equal.

In Medieval Europe more important than the supremacy of the Pope- itself an extremely fiercely contested battle- was the entire feudal system, where allegiances were on a personal basis, so you had situations where the King of England was a feudatory of the King of France for certain of his possessions, landowners would be part of a long, interlocking, and sometimes contradictory chain of loyalty, and entire countries were transferred as a result of royal marriages i.e. Henry II (of England) and Eleanor of Acquitaine (aka Peter O’Toole and Katherine Hepburn).

As far as the US being a multinational empire, no- though I think the USSR, as successor to the Russian Empire, would qualify. The US is made up of individuals of different racial/ethnic background, not different nations brought under one authority. Hmmm… with the possible exception of Indian tribes (and the South-West?)

But I think TC is right on his point - there were polities in the past that would fit the description of nation-state, even if there was no nation-state system.

62

Can you name any? The closest thing to an early nation-state that I can think of is the Icelandic Commonwealth (circa AD 1000~1200), and that’s iffy.

63

Couldn’t we see the USSR’s national identity as Soviet, just as the American one is political, based on the Constitution, truth, justice and The American Way, rather than an ethnic or linguistic identity?

Anyway, if we’re going to challenge people to name prior nation states, lets be clear about properties. Off the top of my head, two old fashioned criteria:

  • common national identity - ethnic, linguistic, political or other.

  • a sovereign state - with the means to make and enforce laws and answerable to no-one within its own boundaries (unusual or non-existent today).

Since powers in the US are delegated to the central government/federal state by the states (which have the inherent rights), not vice versa, where does sovereignty lie?

64

[quote=“fruitloop”]Couldn’t we see the USSR’s national identity as Soviet, just as the American one is political, based on the Constitution, truth, justice and The American Way, rather than an ethnic or linguistic identity?[/quote]We might, but the various peoples would disagree.

[quote=“fruitloop”]Anyway, if we’re going to challenge people to name prior nation states, lets be clear about properties. Off the top of my head, two old fashioned criteria:

  • common national identity - ethnic, linguistic, political or other.

  • a sovereign state - with the means to make and enforce laws and answerable to no-one within its own boundaries (unusual or non-existent today).[/quote]I’d amend the first, adding, "- or state programs to forge such an identity, either over and above ethnic, linguistic, or regional identities, or subsuming them.

Not so sure about the legitimacy of the second. Depends on where sovereignty held to exist: in the state, or people.

To your criteria, I’d add a more or less bureaucratic division of responsibility for governance.

65

China was not a nation-state until the establishment of the ROC…

It can be argued that there is a White Nation and a Black Nation with State of USA. Setting the precedence for newer immigrant groups to form Asian Nation and Hispanic Nation in order to seek political representation within the State.

66

It could also be argued that we’ve moved on to multi-ethnic nations, only some of which will be officially multi-cultural.

67

multi-culturalism will be the end of the US.
Or at least that is being preaced by the White Nation…cough…I mean conservatives

:laughing:

68

the US is a melting pot, not a mosaic

69

It’s a bit of both. I’m pretty sure that if you try to melt in some places, you’d be shot at, arrested, or beaten. Hell, some places aren’t even close to thawing. It’s like pizza toppings. Some just don’t go well together, and most hate anchovies. But now onions are coming back as favorites. and eggplants too.