STATES: ORIGINS AND CONTEMPORARY DYNAMICS

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Rocket clouds
STATES: ORIGINS AND CONTEMPORARY DYNAMICS by Mind Map: STATES: ORIGINS AND CONTEMPORARY DYNAMICS

1. THE MODERN STATE (DEFINITIONS)

1.1. WEBER: Classical Definition of the Modern State

1.1.1. Understanding that the modern state is defined by the specific means it employs, namely physical violence - physical violence is not the state's only means, but the means specific to it because the state claims the monopoly of legitimate use of force within a given territory (Politics as a Vocation, 1919)

1.2. CHARLES TILLY: Nation-States

1.2.1. Nation-states as "relatively centralized, differentiated organizations the officials of which more or less successfully claim control over the chief concentrated means of violence within a population inhabiting a large, contiguous territory"

1.2.2. Tilly's definitions most certainly evocative of Weber's classical approach

1.3. CHANGING CONCEPTS OF THE NATION-STATE?

1.3.1. Is the traditional concept of the nation-state still valid and accurate?

1.3.2. Biersteker: forms of state, meanings of sovereignty and conceptions of territoriality are not fixed or constant across time and place (2002)

1.4. THREE DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS OF THE ORIGINS OF THE STATE

1.4.1. Scholarship that stresses changes in the military environment

1.4.2. Economic perspectives that highlight the growth of trade and production

1.4.2.1. Anderson: Inherent flaws in feudal production necessitated sate intervention

1.4.3. Institutionalist views that accentuate the particular features of territorial sovereignty

1.5. LEVI DEFINITION (in Vuo: 165)

1.5.1. "A state is a complex apparatus of centralized and institutionalized power that concentrates violence, establishes property rights, and regulates society within a given territory while being formally recognized as a state by international forums"

1.5.1.1. BUT: these definitions reduce the state to it's material existence, emphasis on culture and ideology enriches our understanding of the modern state

1.6. NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE SOVEREIGNTY (JACKSON)

1.6.1. Derived from ideas of negative and positive liberty (Isaiah Berlin)

1.6.2. Negative Sovereignty is the legal foundation upon which a society of independent and formally equal states fundamentally rests

1.6.3. Positive sovereignty is a substantive rather than a formal condition

2. EUROPEAN VS. NON-EUROPEAN EXPERIENCES

2.1. Gryzmala-Busse and Jones Luong (2002): Eastern European states built in post-Soviet Union period and were therefore significantly shaped by the already existing institutional templates and requirements for statehood

2.2. The Role of Territory and Borders: Central and Eastern European development especially strongly marked by frequent border changes (e.g. Oder Neisse line)

2.2.1. Concept of the nation-state that is less focused on territory?

2.3. Hans Kohn: "New nationalism in Western Europe corresponded to changing social, economic and political realities [while] it spread to Central and Eastern Europe long before a corresponding social and economic transformation" (in Sugar and Lederer 1993)

2.3.1. Nationalisms in successor states of the Soviet Union not only based on Western models but included a basic frustration towards this influence of the West

2.4. Economic Factors: European rulers in premodern period faced same pressures from their neighbors as rulers during Warring States Period in China - BUT because Europe was richer and more commercialized, most European rulers relied on borrowing to build their states, Chinese rulers were forced to develop their own administrative capacity --> early unification of China

2.5. SORENSEN: Why does the connection between war and state-making appear to not be present at all in the weak states in the Third World?

2.5.1. Third World power-holders face no serious external threat - they are protected by strong international norms - Third World armies face inwards, armed forced aren't organically linked to their populations (but there are limits to this distinction)

3. STATE FORMATIONS

3.1. WAR-MAKING AND STATE-MAKING

3.1.1. Tuong Vu: "Wars make centralized states but only under certain narrow conditions, which Europe met in the 18th century, but which did not exist elsewhere" (Vu 2010)

3.2. STATE BUILDING AND NATION BUILDING

3.2.1. SPRUYT: "state-building (the attempt to enhance the capacity to rule) and nation building (the attempt to construct a shared political identity among the subjects of that particular territorial state) [...] went hand in hand"(Spruyt 2002)

3.3. THE ROLE OF COLONIALISM IN STATE FORMATION

3.3.1. Comparative Assessment: Myanmar experienced British colonization, Thailand officially remained independent

3.3.2. Colonialism created a pressure for many SEA countries to assimilate to Western (European) concepts of borders, boundaries, sovereignty and territory

3.3.2.1. Tongchai Winichakul: "Imperialist advances in Burma and China had alarmed Siam into urgent acquisition of the more influential and superior Western knowledge" (Winichakul 1994)

4. CASE STUDIES

4.1. THE ROLE OF VIOLENCE IN MYANMAR (CALLAHAN)

4.1.1. The origin of Myanmar's unusually durable form of military rule has it's origins in the specific historical circumstances that established a state constructed around organized violence in a colonial context

4.1.2. War and crisis created powerful institutions in the wake of the disintegration of the British colonial state

4.1.3. Link apparent between war and state building - BUT specific kind of warfare: violence primarily directed against internal enemies (i.e. the population)

4.2. POST-COMMUNISM AS EPISODE OF STATE-BUILDING (GANEV)

4.2.1. Post-communism "should be conceptualized as a historically distinct episode of state building" (Ganev 2005)

4.3. NATIONALISM IN THAILAND AND MYANMAR

4.3.1. "Divide and Rule" Approach of the British Colonial Government in Myanmar vs. "Unite and Rule" Approach of the Thai Government as a Direct Reaction Against the Threat of Imperial Powers

4.3.2. Unreasonable to argue that Thai nationalism wasn't affected by foreign influences - development of Thai nationalism closely linked to the forced conflation of ethnic identities and the threat of colonial expansion

4.4. AFGHANISTAN AND VIETNAM (TAYLOR)

4.4.1. Argument: War can make states in the contemporary world, but only under fairly specific conditions - factors that contributed to state making in Vietnam that were absent in Afghanistan

4.4.1.1. The existence of a core ethnic group that had served as the basis for a relatively long-standing political community in the past - higher ethnic homogeneity associated with stronger states

4.4.1.2. The combination of war and revolution, which facilitated the promulgation of a unifying ideology that combined nationalism with a powerful political ideology