Nation-State System

In thinking about international relations, the state is central. For a country to be considered a state, four fundamental conditions must be met. First, a state must have a territorial base, a geographically defined boundary. Second, within its borders, a stable population must reside. Third, there should be a government to which this population owes allegiance. Finally, a state has to be recognized diplomatically by other states.

These legal criteria are not absolute. Most states do have a territorial base, though the precise borders are often the subject of dispute. Until the Palestinian Authority was given a measure of control over the West Bank and Gaza, for instance, the state of the Palestinians was not territorially based. Most states have a stable population, but migrant communities and nomadic peoples cross borders, as the Masai peoples of Kenya and Tanzania do, undetected by state authorities. Most states have some type of institutional structure for governance, but whether the people are obedient to it can be unknown, because of lack of information, or problematic, because the institutional legitimacy of the government is constantly questioned. A state need not have a particular, form of government, but most of its people must acknowledge the legiti­macy of the government. In 1997, the peoples of Zaire (subsequently renamed the Democratic Republic of the Congo) told the rest of the international community that they no longer recognized the legitimacy of the government, plunging the country into a civil war. Finally, other states must recognize the state diplomatically; buthow many states does it take for this criterion to be fulfilled? The Republic of Transkei – tiny piece of real estate carved out of South Africa – was recognized by just one state, South Africa. This proved insufficient to give Transkei status as a state, and the territory was soon reincorporated into South Africa. So while the legal conditions for statehood provide a yardstick, that measuring stick is not absolute.

The definition of a state differs from that of a nation. The nation refers to the characteristics of the people. Do a people share a common history and heritage, a common language and customs, or similar lifestyles? If so, then the people are a nation. At the core of the concept of a nation is the notion that people having commonalities owe their allegiance to the nation and to its legal representative, the state.

Some nations, like France and Italy, formed their own states. This coincidence between state and nation – the nation-state, is the foundation for national self-determination. Peoples sharing nationhood have a right to determine how and under what conditions they should live. Other na­tions are spread among several states. For example, Germans resided and still live not only in a united Germany but in the far-off corners of Eastern Europe; Kurds live in Iraq, Iran, and Turkey; Somalis live in Kenya, Ethiopia; and Djibouti as well as in Somalia. Still other states have within their borders several different nations – India, the United States, Canada, Russia, and South Africa are prominent examples. In the United States and Canada, a number of different Native American nations are a part of the state. In these cases, the state and the nation do not coincide.

Nations and states may seem identical, but they are not. States govern people in a territory with boundaries. They have laws, taxes, officials, currencies, postal services, police, and (usually) armies. They wage war, negotiate treaties, put people in prison, and regulate life in thousands of ways. They claim sovereigntywithin their territory. By contrast, nations are groups of people claiming common bonds like language, culture, and historical identity.

The current nation-state system has its roots in seventeenth-century Europe. Prior to its emergence, the feudal system and the Catholic Church dominated European political life. Local barons ruled over inherited lands and assumed the powers we typically associate with governments. Although there were monarchs who ruled over larger territories with frequently shifting boundaries, their power was generally weak, allowing barons to establish their own rule of law within their lands. However, many barons were also beholden to the Church, which sought to create a spiritually united Europe with religious and political power resting in the Papacy. For more than 900 years, the Church wielded tremendous power over Europe, coronating and exerting control over kings, directly ruling over some territories, levying taxes, and amassing great wealth.

Despite its long rule and pervasive influence, the Church’s power eventually began to decline. This decline was necessary to the emergence of the nation-state system, which is organized around national, and generally secular, differences rather than spiritual unity. The expansion of literacy was also a key component in the rise of the nation state system, making possible written contracts, currency, the transference of ideals, norms of behavior, and laws that, once recorded, became easier to pass from one generation to another. Literacy also made the development and growth of universities, science, and educated bureaucrats possible, which in turn allowed for continuity of governments and organized scientific inquiry.

Although the term ‘nation-state’ suggests a homogenous culture living within a geopolitical border, the reality is that both the presence of ethnic minorities and increasing global migrationflows disrupt the implied unity of the nation-state. Religious, ethnic, linguistic, regional, and socioeconomic differences within a country are not always divisive, but they can sometimes lead to conflict. From Northern Ireland with its Catholic and Protestant split to India where Muslims and Hindus have struggled over control of the Indian province of Kashmir, to the Sudan where Muslims and Christians struggle to coexist, religious cleavages have led to violent clashes around the globe. In extreme circumstances, these conflicts can undermine the viability of the nation-state.

Another internal threat to the nation-state is ethno-nationalism. Ethno-nationalism is characterized by an extreme attachment to ethnicity, a belief that only ancestry gives one the right to belong to a particular group, and a desire to establish independent nation-states based solely on ethnicity. This was the driving factor in the Balkan conflict, where Serb nationalism conflicted with Croat and Bosnian nationalism. Violence between these groups led to the dissolution of Yugoslavia into six new nation-states: Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia. In 2008, Albanian-dominated Kosovo declared independence from Serbia, further fragmenting the territory that once was Yugoslavia. At the same time that many nation-states are fragmenting along ethnic and religious lines, global migration patterns are further complicating the implied unity of the nation-state.

In addition to internal challenges facing nation-states, their supremacy as actors in the international arena is being challenged by a variety of non-state actors, including international govern­mental organizations (IGO). IGOs are international organizations that nation-states join for specific purposes, such as promoting peace, enhancing trade, and encouraging cooperation. Although nation-states secure benefits from their membership in IGOs, these organizations can pose challenges to nation-states because members are required to modify their behavior in accordance with the IGOs’ goals. Generally, nation-states accept this compromise because the perceived benefits of membership outweigh the loss of some degree of sovereignty.