Before the discussion of whether globalisation is undermining the role of the nation state can take place we must first discuss what is meant by a nation state.
Violence Legitimate Force and Illegitimate Violence The people today are living in a new-fangled, unmatched and exceptional age of terrorism. The pioneer of modern sociology, Max Weber, defined state as "a human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory" as qtd.
He puts emphasis on the point that a state can only exist in a meaningful manner if it has the power to use violence as a sole source of the right. He considers that "the right to use physical force is ascribed to other institutions or to individuals only to the extent to which the state permits it" as qtd.
However, sociologists before Marx have linked the monopoly of violence with the indispensable task of the state in the wake of its daily manifestations that are several in numbers Whitehead Throughout their work, Marx and Engels have regarded force as a critical function of the state.
However, they also emphasize that it is an ideological function of the state to use force and violence as an active part. It is not to be monopolized by the ruling elites in power who have the command over the state apparatus.
They also consider violence or a threat of it as the tool of the state to handle and maintain the influence and organization of the things under the power of the state.
This threat, if historically seen, was also evident in the olden times when it was used as "an instrument of class rule regardless of the apparent mode of government within the state machine" Whitehead Although the existence and power of the states is necessary, the genuineness of their argument regarding the regulation of the use of force is progressing both trans-nationally and internationally.
In addition to this, the number of private actors has extended tremendously. Legitimate Force and Illegitimate Violence There are two keystones of state legitimacy that are widespread in a contemporary state; the power over violence and antagonistic behaviors and the provision of defensive measures and public order.
These cornerstones are founded on the basis of the definition of state given by Weber. He concludes that the state is "an organization that has the legal monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force" as qtd.
On the path of the building of Europe as a modern state, it became the key function of a state to exercise legitimate violence. The main reasons of this weakening not only include the violence privatization but also its internationalization Jensen. There is a strong connection between a state and its use of force.
In order to maintain a secured environment, it is exceedingly important to have power over the use of force and the means of violence. It is remain an issue to find out about the legitimacy of a state as an inherent quality Jensen.
The legitimate state is composed of a number of different organizations who have a direct involvement in the armed conflict. There are two sides who consider each other to be responsible of the violence in the respective society.
Monopoly and Olygopoly Essay Sample. A monopoly exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity (this contrasts with amonopsony which relates to a single entity’s control of a market to purchase a good or service, and with oligopoly which consists of a few entities dominating an industry) Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic. Violence Legitimate Force and Illegitimate Violence The people today are living in a new-fangled, unmatched and exceptional age of terrorism. The pioneer of modern sociology, Max Weber, defined state as "a human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory" (as qtd. In Whitehead ). Related to this second hypothesis of this essay is the third hypothesis that the history of monopolized by the state or the institutions of the central government. Local communities in the military regime then sought to claim a monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force.
Therefore, every party thinks and views of its actions and projects as legitimate and at the same time question the actions of the opposition. In simple words, both the official State and terrorist organizations regard each other as the party which is unlawful, brutal and apolitical.
Therefore, it is required by the State to present an intangible justification about its own acts of violence which it considers as legitimate.
It must also present the difference between its own actions and the actions of the opposition or terrorist organizations which it considers as being unlawful and dishonest. This clearance of difference about the same acts portrays the State as the side who has the authority to carry out such acts following certain rules and regulations.
On the other hand, opposition is labeled as the side involved in troublemaking, vicious, unlawful and illicit acts. The State has kept the authorization of not only monopolizing legitimate violence but also of defining it.
In short, the state possesses the right to define violence and also categorizes violent and forceful acts. It must be kept in mind that the State backs up the mentioned definitions and categorization of violence and force by using the law as a tool.So, in this case physical force can be used without any punishment and is still taken for legitimate.
Therefore, it is not right to claim that the legitimate use of physical force is the monopoly of the state. In order to make this definition more precise, the following attributes, proposed by the Fund for Peace, are often used to characterize a failed state: * loss of control of its territory, or of the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force therein, * erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions, * an inability to provide.
Definition of the “State” in Political Science. Article shared by. of more or less legitimate physical compulsion.” of the State, according to Finer, is in its monopoly of coercive power.
“This, then, is the State; and its supreme power and monopoly of coercion (which it can devolve in many ways on its own terms) is sovereignty. State of Nature is a term in political philosophy used in social contract theories to describe the hypothetical condition of humanity before the state’s foundation and its monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force.
Sep 04, · See Part I of my essay published by the new journal The New Polis: According to Erika Cudworth and John McGovern in The Modern State: Theories and Ideologies, in politics the state is defined as a political community living under a single system of government in the most basic terms.
Additionally, the state is a key. Fukuyama’s definition of “the state” is the one offered by Max Weber, the German sociologist, in “a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.”.