NATION-STATE DEFINITION

Organizing and controlling

Humans have carved up the Earth's surface for purposes of managing and controlling it through political geography. Understanding how political processes are affected by spatial features helps us understand the spatial outcomes of political processes. From the bedroom of a child to the whole planet, political spaces exist at multiple scales. In each place, someone or some group sets the rules governing what happens there, how power is shared (or not), and who is even allowed to enter the space. These are territorial rules.

For religious, economic, or cultural reasons, many people have attempted to exert control over the physical world. Political power has been expressed geographically as nations and leaders vie for control over people, land, and resources. Scholars developed many theories about how political power is expressed geographically in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Using these theories, conflict can be justified and avoided.

Organic Theory

The Organic Theory states that nations must continually seek nourishment in the form of gaining land to survive in the same way that a living organism seeks nourishment from food to survive. As a result, it implies that if a nation does not seek out and conquer new territories, it will risk failing because other nations also behave organically. This is akin to the law of the jungle – eat or be eaten.

In World War II, Hitler argued that if Germany did not grow in this way, it would fall victim to Europe and eventually to the whole world as it did during the First World War. He used Raztel's term Lebensraum to justify Germany's behavior.

Theory of the heartland

According to Mackinder's "Heartland Theory," or "The Geographic Pivot of History," whoever controlled Eastern Europe would control the world. He referred to the heartland as the "World Island" from which he could control all of Asia and Africa. What made the heartland so important at that time? East Europe is rich in raw materials and farmland, which support a large army that controls the coasts and water ports that enable international trade.

Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union believed this was possible, but neither foresaw the rise of other world powers, such as the United States and China. In addition, they did not know that military technology would soon progress beyond tanks and ground troops to include nuclear weapons, high-tech missiles, and drone airplanes.

Theory of Rimland

It was Mackinder's "lands of the outer rim" that led to the control of Eurasia, and then of the world, according to Spykman's Rimland Theory. According to him, the Rimland is more important than the heartland because it contains most of the world's people and resources. The Rimland stands out as an intermediate region between the heartland and the marginal sea powers. It is the amphibious buffer between the land and sea powers, and because of this, it faces fundamental security concerns on both sides.

In politics, Spykman advocated for the consolidation of the Rimland countries to ensure their survival during World War II. After the defeat of Nazi Germany and the emergence of the Soviet Union, Spykman's views were adopted during the formulation of the Cold War American policy to contain communist influence.

States of the Union

Political maps of the world are built primarily on the basis of independent states. A state (also called a nation or country) is a territory with defined boundaries governed by an established government with control over the country's internal and foreign affairs. In a sovereign state, all internal and foreign affairs are under the control of the state. Sovereign states claim territories. United Nations statistics show that there were 193 nations in the world in 2016, but many of those nations dispute their boundaries.

There are some nations that are stateless. It means that there are groups of people with a shared history and identity, but no parcel of land to call their own. Due to their long struggle with the Israeli Jews - some of whom, until 1948, belonged to the previously best-known nation without a state - the Palestinians are perhaps the most well-known stateless nation.

A federal system of government has a central governing authority and smaller units, such as states. The more powerful the central government, the closer federalism becomes to a unitary state, where the governing body has supreme authority and dictates how much power the units should have. A unitary state makes a lot of sense in nations like Egypt, France, and Japan, where nationalistic feelings are strong, and many centripetal forces like language, religion, and economic prosperity unite people. When central control is not opposed strongly, unitary systems work best. Consequently, the political elites in a capital city (like Paris or Tokyo) often have a disproportionate amount of power. Fights over local control are minimal, and the power of local (provincial) governments is relatively weak.

Some countries have an underdeveloped sense of nationhood, making them more suited to a Federalist form of government where power is geographically distributed among several subnational units. As countries are "young" - and still developing a common identity necessary to establish a unified nationality - this style of governance makes sense. Additionally, federations may be most effective when nations have multiethnic or multinational nations. Instead of splitting into smaller states, a country can choose to give each of its ethnicities or nationalities some degree of autonomy. The central government allows local people to choose whether they want to teach their own language or specific religion in the local schools. The central government is responsible for managing national defense, interstate transportation, and regulating the common currency in a federal system. The U.S. was founded on the federalist principle.

The government of a unitary system, like China, may grant a special exemption to one region, such as allowing semi-autonomy or greater local control, for a particularly troublesome province or ethnicity. Examples include Puerto Rico (United States) and Hong Kong (China). Nonetheless, there are dozens of other similarly self-governing regions around the globe, many with names indicating their status. While the unitary nations often benefit from this process to prevent political instability and conflict, the process can be withdrawn at any time by the central government.

The process of fragmenting a region into smaller, political units is known as Balkanization. Unresolved centrifugal forces can cause nationwide divisions, such as economic disparity and ethnic or religious conflict. When the Ottoman Empire occupied what is now Bulgaria, Albania, and Serbia, we refer to any country that has broken apart into several countries or states as a result of a civil war or ethnic cleansing, as in Armenia and Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and Yugoslavia.

The United States has had difficulty deciding whether to pursue a unitary or a federal style of government. From even before the War for Independence, this question has been a central part of American politics. The United States was originally organized as a confederation, a loosely allied group of independent states united to defeat the British. Between roughly 1776 and 1789, the country operated under the Articles of Confederation, which made it very difficult for the central government (Congress) to manage simple things like raising taxes, signing treaties, and printing money. The U.S. Constitution, under which the   current government operates, was adopted to create a balance of power between the national government headquartered in Washington, DC, and the many state governments. States initially operated as separate countries. As a result, the US uses the word state rather than the word province to designate major subnational government units. During our early history, we Americans believed we lived in "The United Countries of America."

Between the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean Sea, the Fertile Crescent gave rise to the idea or concept of a state. Ancient city-states were the first states to form during this time period. City-states are sovereign states that encompass a town and its surrounding area. City-states surrounded towns with walls and farmlands were located outside the city walls. Later, empires were formed when one city-state took control of several others.

Human activity was radically altered by the agrarian revolution and the industrial revolution. Agricultural and manufacturing innovations revolutionized Europe, and vice versa, political currents undermined the established empire mentality fueled by war and territorial disputes. A political revolution in Europe marked by various actions that ended continual warfare for territory and established peaceful agreements recognizing territory as sovereign. As a result of several treaties and revolutions, the majority of power was shifted from dictators and monarchs to the general populace. In the decades following the Treaty of Westphalia, a sense of peace and stability was established in Central Europe, which had been dominated by the Holy Roman Empire and competing powers. In contrast to the Roman Empire, which was based in Rome and ended centuries earlier, the Holy Roman Empire was centered on the German states of Central Europe from 962 to 1806. Political transformations were taking place throughout Europe during the French Revolution (1789-95) to establish democratic processes for governance.

As a result of a political revolution in Europe, the idea of the modern nation-state was conceived: a sense of devotion or loyalty to a particular country. Nation refers to a group of homogeneous people who share a common heritage, language, religion, or political ambition. A state is a government agency, such as the State Department in the United States. A nation-state is formed when nations and states join together, where citizens share a common heritage and a unified government.

In many political sectors of Europe, the formation or retention of nation states has become a driving force. All Europeans, and to a certain extent every human, want to belong to a nation-state whose culture, heritage, and government are the same. A nation-state-driven Europe, for example, has resulted in Italy for Italians, a united Germany for Germans, and France for French. Unfortunately, such an ideal is rather hard to attain. Although many European countries have political borders similar to nation-states, there is too much diversity within them for the idea of creating a nation-state to be feasible.

As the nation-state concept gained a foothold in Europe, the ruling powers turned to colonialism to extend their influence through the imposing of military, economic, and political power. The act of colonizing previously uninhabited or sparsely populated lands is colonialism. By colonizing, Europeans promoted political control over religion, extracted natural resources, increased economic influence, and expanded their political and military power. After colonizing the Americas, the European states turned their attention to Africa and Asia. This colonial expansion across the globe is called imperialism.

Imperialism refers to the occupation and organization of lands already occupied by indigenous societies. The spread of nationalism and the influence of modern political boundaries were facilitated by these two factors.

State Shapes

The shape of a state, though not the only factor in determining the political landscape, affects potential communication internally, military protection, and access to resources. On a political map, locate the example and try to find a similar state.

• Similar to a circle, compact states have relatively equal distances from their centers to any boundaries. This makes them effective. Kenya is a compact state.
  
• An elongated state is long and narrow. There is a major problem with internal communication in these states, which separates towns from the capital city. Take Vietnam, for instance.
• Compact states can be disrupted when a portion of their boundary extends outward exceedingly more than the rest. Some of these types of states exist so their citizens can have access to a specific resource, such as a body of water. Alternatively, the extended border was created to prevent two other nations from sharing a border. Namibia is an example of a ruptured state.
• There are other territories or states inside ruptured states. Lesotho is a great example of this, as it is a sovereign state within South Africa.
• Separated states are fragmented states. Some states are fragmented by large bodies of water. Indonesia is one example.
• Landlocked states do not have direct access to major bodies of water, such as the sea or ocean. Specifically, this hinders export trade and can adversely affect a state's economy. During the Berlin Conference of 1884, European powers divided Africa up into territories, creating many landlocked states in Africa. Several of these African territories became landlocked after gaining independence and breaking into sovereign states. This is the case for Uganda.

Limits

There are two types of boundaries: (1) natural - following the course of a physical feature such as a river or ridgeline; and (2) artificial - derived from humans. Despite this, so-called natural boundaries are still the result of human decision - why that river and not this other one? Additionally, a political boundary may persist after a physical feature, which created the original boundary, has moved. As a result, the Mississippi River's boundaries are fixed to its old course, although its meanders have changed in location.

Boundaries play a critical role in how people understand the world around them and can often lead to conflict at every level, from neighbors arguing over where a fence should be built to nation-states claiming territory owned by another country. "The Case for Doing Away With Borders - Completely", published by The Atlantic, argues that morally and ethically, everyone should have equal rights regardless of their nation-state.

The creation, determination, and sometimes redrawing of political boundaries is an important issue to examine. Kashmir is a territory disputed by India and Pakistan. Publishers must include Kashmir in their publications within India. 28,000 copies of the Economist's May edition sold in India were ordered to be covered or removed by the Indian government in 2011. The region is censored even on well-known multi-national companies like Google Maps, which means Indians grow up seeing Kashmir as a part of their country, on par with undisputed states like Tamil Nadu and Assam. An occupation of part or all of Kashmir would then provoke severe opposition in India. On maps outside the disputant countries, both boundaries are commonly shown, noting their status as disputed. However, this compromise is not neutral because it implies that both claims are equally valid. Imagine, for example, if Canada declared a claim to Washington State and maps published outside North America began showing that state as a disputed territory.

As we learn about boundaries, another question arises: “Who owns the sea?sea?sea?’ A maritime boundary is a division of the Earth's water surface. In this way, it usually defines areas of exclusive national rights over natural resources within those boundaries. The maritime boundary is marked at a particular distance from the coast. International waters are defined by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in some countries.

A dispute over territorial waters typically involves two factors: territorial sovereignty, which arises from history, as well as relevant jurisdictional rights and interests in maritime boundaries, which are a consequence of differing interpretations of maritime law. A dispute over territorial waters has not always been resolved through negotiation.

Strait of Juan de Fuca, for instance, is a huge waterway separating the Pacific Ocean on the west from the San Juan Islands on the east, and Vancouver Island and the Olympic Peninsula on either side. Canadian and American maritime boundary disputes remain in this strait. Only the seaward boundary extending from the mouth of the strait west 200 miles (320 km) is in dispute. Based on the principle of equidistance, both governments have proposed a boundary, but with different selections of base points, leading to small differences in the line. In addition, the British Columbia government has rejected proposals by the United States, instead arguing that the Juan de Fuca submarine canyon constitutes the appropriate geomorphic and physiographic boundary. The resolution of the issue should be simple, but it has been problematic because it may impact other unresolved maritime boundary issues between Canada and the United States in the Gulf of Maine.

Theories of a State

Power centralization and state formation

In the modern era, we take it for granted that different societies are ruled by different states, but historically, this wasn't always the case. Almost all the world's inhabitable land has been divided up into more or less definite countries since the late nineteenth century. Previously, quite large land areas were either unclaimed or uninhabited, or occupied by nomadic peoples who did not have statehood. For most of human history, people have lived in stateless societies, characterized by a lack of concentration of authority and a lack of significant inequality in power and wealth.

Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, China, and the Americas (e.g., Aztec and Inca civilizations) were the first known states. Agricultural technology and writing enabled power to be centralized in the earliest states. Agriculture allowed communities to settle and also led to class division: some people devoted all their time to food production, while others were freed to specialize in other activities, such as writing or ruling. Thus, states, as an institution, were a social invention. Political sociologists continue to debate the origins of the state and the processes of state formation.

Political theories of the state can be roughly divided into two categories. Capitalism is treated as a given in liberal and conservative theories, which focus on the role of states in capitalist society. These theories believe that the state is a neutral entity that is distinct from society and the economy.

Marxist Theory

Marxist theory, on the other hand, believes that politics and economic relations are intimately linked and emphasizes the connection between economic power and political power. The state is viewed by Marxists as a partisan instrument that serves the interests of the upper class. According to Marx and Engels, communism aims to achieve a society without classes and a state that has withered away. A non-socialist state's role is determined by its position within the global capitalist order, according to Marxist theory. Marx's early works portrayed the state as parasitic, built on the economic superstructure and working against the interests of the population. He believed that the state mirrored social class relations, that it regulated and repressed class struggles, and that it was a tool of political power and dominance for the ruling class.

Anarchism

Anarchism is a political philosophy that considers states to be immoral and advocates a stateless society instead. According to anarchists, the state is inherently an instrument of domination and repression, no matter who controls it. It is anarchists' belief that the state apparatus should be completely dismantled and an alternative social structure, independent of state power, should be established.

Pluralism

Individuals and groups compete for political power in pluralist societies. According to them, the state acts as a neutral body which enacts the will of whichever group dominates the electoral process. Robert Dahl developed the theory of the state as a neutral sphere for contending interests within the pluralist tradition. Additionally, he considered government organizations to be merely competing interest groups. According to the pluralist approach, modern democratic states respond to pressures exerted by a variety of related interests. According to Dahl, such states are polyarchies. It has been argued that pluralism is unsupported by empirical evidence.

Hydraulic Civilization

Early theories of state formation suggested that the centralized state was created to manage large public works systems (such as irrigation systems) and to regulate complex economies. Karl August Wittfogel formulated this theory in his 1957 book Oriental Despotism. According to Wittfogel, most of the earliest states arose in hydraulic civilizations, in which leaders controlled people by controlling water supply. Complex irrigation systems were often used by these civilizations. So, the people had good reason to give control to the central state, but by doing so, they also gave up control over their livelihoods, and the central state gained immense control over the general population. Wittfogel's theory has been criticized as inaccurate, despite its popularity. According to contemporary archaeological and anthropological evidence, many early societies weren't as centralized, despotic, or unequal as hydraulic theory suggests.

Coercion, War, and the State

Another theory of state formation explains the rise of modern nation-states by arguing that they became necessary in order to leverage the resources needed to fight and defend against wars. The most famous theorist in this tradition is the sociolog Charles Tilly. Tilly analyzed the rise of the nation-state as the world's dominant form of government from the Middle Ages to the present, as well as the reasons behind its unprecedented success. By comparison, Tilly sought to determine where the types of states we are most familiar with came from, and why they became so prevalent, instead of asking (like Wittfogel) where the very first states came from.

In Tilly's theory, the introduction of gunpowder and mass armies in premodern Europe made war extremely expensive. Therefore, only states with a large population and sufficient capital could afford to pay for their security, and thus survive in hostile environments. Thus, the modern state and its institutions (such as taxes) were created to enable warmaking.

Bureaucracy and rationalization

One theory of state formation emphasizes the long, slow process of rationalization and bureaucratization that began with writing. The Greeks were the first to formulate a political philosophy of the state, and to rationally analyze political institutions. Medieval Europe's feudal system contributed to the rationalization and formalization of the state. In feudalism, lords and vassals were fundamental to social and, in fact, state organization. They were the key players in negotiating with the king regarding legal and economic issues. States have become increasingly rational and bureaucratic since then, with expanding executive bureaucracies, such as the extensive cabinet system in the United States. From relatively simple but powerful central powers, states have evolved into sophisticated and highly organized institutions.