state

You are currently browsing articles tagged state.

My focus on the concept of sovereignty remains centered on the modern rational-legal form of authority. Sovereignty soon became the attribute of all acknowledged states and thus provided with a fundamental idea to the constitution, to the valid assertion, of political power. In certain occasion the arguments would also involve the state, in the sense that a modern plane of construction has combined these two concepts. State and sovereignty thus become interchangeable,(1) but sovereignty is a concrete figure belonging to the history of ideas, meanwhile the state refers to a wider array of features and historical events. Still the development of the idea of sovereignty affects profoundly to the content of state, sovereignty is deemed to rest as the foundation of the modern state.(2) The palpable crisis of sovereignty has been attributed to the crisis of state. The idea and the institution it supports enter in bankrupt simultaneously, demonstrating once more the importance of ideas in shaping the conditions of existence and these producing forms of legitimation, of general acceptance and attachment, attitudes.

We could recognize the state and sovereignty in the same relation as man and individual. State and man refer to wider spheres of knowledge, they are objects investigated by a multitude of disciplines (theory of administration, sociology of state, international relations; biology, economics, anthropology). On the other hand, both individual and sovereignty can be circumscribed to the history of ideas. They also shape our understanding of both man and state and they spread in the particular disciplines suffering certain mutations, but still their appearance is purely eidetical and their deployment textually traceable despite their inscription in practices.

(1) J. Hoffman, Sovereignty, Buckingham, 1998. N.G. Onuf, “Sovereignty: Outline of a Conceptual History”, Alternatives (16), 1991, pp. 425-46.
(2) “L’État moderne est un système juridique… Posé de cette manière, le problème de la date de naissance de l’État moderne n’est autre que le problème de la formation et de l’acceptation finale du concept de souveraineté.”A. Passerin d’Entrèves, La notion de l’État, Paris, 1969, p.123.

Tags: , , , ,

The respublica Christiana featured a diversity of statuses among diverse lords and land-tenants rather than a unified and universal system of attribution of authority. It encompassed diversity which, according to Aquinas, was the base of an order in search of the common good. Modern conceptions afforded a homogenization and extension of a unique model of authority: sovereignty. Other historical alternatives to the sovereign state faded progressively(1) and thus it became the sole acceptable universal notion around which to build statehood. The plain of consistence on which it was built succeeded spreading together with the forms of power stemming from it. The state’s genealogy was soon related to a single, individual, instance; to a centered, unified, will, mirroring God’s sovereignty.(2) Sovereignty not only supposed a final and unified authority but also excluded authors other than political, tracing a divide line with the respublica Christiana. The medieval order of disparate elements is transformed into a modern, centralized, uniform, system of homogeneous components. Bodin already admitted the convenience of an individual as sovereign in order to achieve unity and order. The free individual is the counterpart to an unlimited sovereign appertaining to the same plain of consistence and supporting the very activity of the king as individual himself.(3)

(1) For an interesting account of those alternatives cf. H. Spruyt, The Sovereign State and its Competitors, New Jersey, 1994.
(2) “The stateless society -…- has no single central symbol or instrument of rule, is acephalous and segmentary whereas a single headship is the mark of the presence of the state.” F.H. Hinsley, Sovereignty, Oxford, 1966, p. 7.
(3) Cf. P. King, The Ideology of Order. A comparative analysis of Jean Bodin and Thomas Hobbes, London, 1974.

Tags: