The Differences between Political Theory and Philosophy in Explaining Sovereign Nation-States
The concept of sovereign nation-state has existed since the onset of complex societies and urbanization in places like Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, and China. Since then, human beings have never existed without states hence making them part of the international society where they take part in trade, and diplomatic relations. Political theories on the sovereignty of nations-states provide the rationale and explanation to the reasons as to why sovereignty as a political event happens. Political theories often focus on the values, institutions, principles, features, and concepts that interpret existing political practices (Hammar, 2017). The theories are also instrumental in establishing how and why some political events occur. By analyzing past event patterns, political theorists use the theories to predict the occurrence of future political events. Political theories have no dominant methodology and can adopt either normative or empirical perspectives. The philosophy associated with the sovereign nation-state is concerned with critical thinking and interpreting the concept and motivation that lead to an event or behavior. It demands analysis, interpretation, and explaining political events even without the need for an immediate application of the analysis.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Definition and Explanation of the Social Contract
Sovereignty is a term derived from the French term souveraineté to mean supreme power. According to the political theory, nation-state sovereignty refers to the ultimate overseer role or authority a nation as an entity possesses. It is also the utmost authority a nation has in terms of decision-making in the maintenance of law and order. However, the concept of sovereignty poses a controversy in international law and political science for it is intertwined with other difficult concepts like the government and state, democracy, and independence. The idea of nation-state sovereignty has been commonly associated with the development of modern political systems also referred to as "Westphalian system" a name referenced to the 1648 treaty of Westphalia (Mellor, 2015). Different nation-states have their own different sovereignty features and characteristics. However, in the modern most of the nation-state sovereignty characteristics have been taken for granted in shaping the modern society as they sharp contrast with the pre-nation-state status. A notable feature and characteristic of the nation-state sovereignty is the formation of uniform culture by means of a state policy throughout the nation-state. One of a nation-state sovereignty demonstrative example of a uniform culture is the compulsory primary education that was created as a policy and is practiced throughout all states of the nation.
Related Thinkers and their Perspectives
Hammar (2017) argued that a state attains a nation-state status of sovereignty when a single culture or ethnic population does inhabit the area within the boundaries of the state. He continues to argue that the boundaries should be coextensive with the inhabitant's population culture and ethnicity. However, this criterion of defining a nation-state is narrow as less than 10% of the nations meet the definition requirements. The hammar’s perspective also does not take into consideration the presence of minority groups within the population. One most illustrative example of the shortfall of this model of nation-state status in history is the exclusion of the Jews and Romans in Europe's definition of a sovereign nation-state. Legally, most nation-state today considers the minorities as part of their population and enjoys equal rights of liberty as the majority who form the nation-state culture. One fact to remember is that despite the fact that the minority is also considered as part of the modern nation-states, the nation's symbolic narratives, histories still significantly exclude the minorities.
Stavenhagen (2016) held that nation-state sovereignty conjoins existing national cultural entities to the political entities with the aim of deriving the nation's political legitimacy so as to achieve its sovereignty and rule. It is by the population accepting the declarative statehood theory and opposing the constructive theory when a nation-state attains political legitimacy. Stevanhagen’s position further holds that a nation is an ethical and cultural entity while a state is both a political and geopolitical entity. The term nation-state, therefore, is a combination of the two that is a state agrees to endorse and adopt a cultural group among its population, mainly the majority and associates with it. Thus, the concept of nation-state sovereignty can be equated to other state formations that overlap such as the confederations, city-state, empire, and multinational states. However, what is of significance to note is that for a nation-state, there is a clear identification of the people with a similar culture.
A Historical Example (Pre-1990)
The concept of nation-state sovereignty has been used and practiced since the 16th century. Between the years 1530-1596, France Jean Bodin used the concept of nation-state sovereignty to increase the French kings' power over the feudal lords who were rebellious to the French rule. It is through the power gained through territorial sovereignty that facilitated the transition from feudalism to nationalism (Mellor, 2015). English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) argued that all true states must have either a body or institution or a person with absolute and ultimate authority to make and declare the law. However, in the 18th century, the popular idea of individuals exercising sovereignty was challenged by various scholars. John Austin (1790-1858) developed the concept of who shall be vested the sovereignty role for the nation, and it was vested to the nations parliament. Today the parliament is the highest organ that makes, and everyone within the nation-state boundaries is bound by the laws.
A Modern Example (The Year 2010 or Newer)
In the modern days, the sovereign nation-states are allowed to make laws that govern their territories as well as the implementation of international laws. No sovereign state can impose its values on another sovereign nation-state. The concept of nation-state sovereignty has been criticized for the increase of terrorism by powerful nations. Powerful nation-states have for centuries directly or indirectly imposed their values on other countries they believe to be less superior hence resulting in international misunderstanding and war (Hammar, 2017). There have been micro-instances of limited war between great nations who impose their value systems on other countries. The United States has since the year 2010 experienced a major diplomatic limited war with countries like China, Korea, and Russia. These limited wars have resulted in artificial restrains in the countries' economies that also affect the global markets.
My Opinion on the Relevance of the Social Contract in the 21st Century
Understanding the concept and characteristics of nation-state sovereignty is essential since nation-states use the state as the main instrument for social, economic, cultural life, and national unity. All nation-states ascribe to a uniform or centralized public administration within its boundaries, which is different from the ancient nation-state sovereignty status where small and less diverse territories existed. In the 21st century, power is bestowed to a specific institution and not an individual as it was in ancient times. It is because of Europe's nation-state triumph experienced in the 19th century that regional identities have become subordinate to national identity in the 21st century.
References
Hammar, T. (2017). Democracy and the nation state . London: Routledge press, p. 22-27.
Mellor, R. E. (2015). Nation, state and territory: a political geography . London: Routledge press, p.121-127.
Stavenhagen, R. (2016). Ethnic conflicts and the Nation-State. New York: Springer Books, p. 33-38.
