The Modern State and International Relations

The Modern State and International Relations Q2. What is the most significant feature of the modern state and how has it shaped international relations? The core of the early modern period to vast histories of sovereignty and state formation is a topic produced for some of the work done by the most influential political theorists of the past century. However an attempt of understanding the nature of political consciousness requires a historical understanding of the theoretical evolution of the modern state itself. This, in turn, requires an understanding of earlier state formations and ideologies that has influenced the evolution (Nelson, 2006). In this essay, I will discuss the topic of the modern state, its significant feature and how modern state has shaped international relations. In discussing the features, this essay aims to identify and define the term state, the components and key concepts of modern state, followed by the main significant feature and its impact towards the new era of international relations. The modern state is believed to have rises between the fifteenth and eighteenth centuries in Europe, and later spread to the rest of the world through conquest and colonialism. This ideal of modern state comprises of four defining characteristics that is territory, sovereignty (external and internal), legitimacy, and bureaucracy. Legitimacy can come in various forms, from traditional, to charismatic, to rational-legal, the latter of which requires a highly effective bureaucracy and some semblance of the rule of law. States uses the four aspects to provide their populations goods such as security, a legal system, and infrastructure. â€Å"Weak states† are those that cannot adequately provide these goods, and once a state has become so weak that it loses effective sovereignty over part of its territory, it may be called a â€Å"failed state† (or in extreme instances a â€Å"collapsed state†) The most definitive terms of state comes from the German political sociologist and economic historian Max Weber (1864–1920). Max Weber claims that â€Å"the state is human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory†. A starting-point for Weber, which contrasted with much earlier thinking, was that the state could not be defined in terms of its goals or functions, but had rather to be understood in terms of its distinctive means. Thus, he argued that â€Å"the state cannot be defined in terms of its ends. There is scarcely any task that some political association has not taken in hand, and there is no task that one could say has always been exclusive and peculiar to those associations which are designated as political ones. Ultimately, one can define the modern state only in terms of the specific means peculiar to it, as to every political association, namely, the use of physical force†. For Web er, the modern state was a particular form of the state which was itself, a particular form of a more general category of political associations. There are two more recent definitions of a state. The first is by a sociologist named Charles Tilly and the second is by the Nobel-laureate economist, Douglass North. Chares Tilly claims that states are â€Å"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† (Tilly 1985, 170). Douglas North says that â€Å"a state is an organization with a comparative advantage in violence, extending over a geographic area whose boundaries are determined by its power to tax constituents† (North 1981, 21) There are two key concepts of the modern state The territorial state and the unitary sovereign will whereby the modern state project is aimed at replacing confused political order. Global spread of the idea of the nation-state Weber ‘the modern state is the result of a century’s long process of disarming non-state/private actors’. According to Charles Tilley, the state proved itself to be a superior. Modern state can also be associated with charter of the UN. A state is more than a government; that is clear. A state is the means of rule over a defined or sovereign territory. It is comprised of an executive, a bureaucracy, courts and other institutions. In a broad sense, any polity, any politically organised society, can be viewed as a state, and various criteria can be used to distinguish between different kinds of state. There are three components to the modern state comprises of territory, people and central government. Territory comprises of the element on which its other elements exist. People are every territorial unit that participates in international relations supports human life. Central government is the members of the state designated as its official representatives. States not only claim ultimate power within their realms (internal sovereignty), they also claim independence of one another (external sovereignty). Some of the significant features of modern state may be the dominant form of political authority and imagination today but it has taken many and specific forms across the world without completely removing or superseding older languages of power and public authority. According to Weber, the modern statemonopolizesthe means of legitimate physical violenceover awell-defined territory. Monopoly on force– has the right and ability to use violence, in legally defined instances, against members of society, or against other states. Legitimacy– its power is recognized by members of society and by other states as based on law and some form of justice. Territoriality– the state exists in a defined territory (which includes land, water and air) and exercises authority over the population of that territory. Changingconceptions of the modern stateinevitably provoke conflicting views of sovereignty. While some argue that the growing impact of cosmopolitan norms and transnationally-based governance are weakening state sovereignty, others claim that the concept is merely being redefined. Indeed, the latter group even includes proponents of global governance, who argue that state sovereignty can actually be strengthened rather than weakened by the transfer of power to the supranational level. Modernization has brought a series of indisputable benefits to people. Lower infant mortality rate, decreased death from starvation, eradication of some of the fatal diseases, more equal treatment of people with different backgrounds and incomes, and so on. To some, this is an indication of the potential of modernity, perhaps yet to be fully realized. In general, rational, scientific approach to problems and the pursuit of economic wealth seems still too many a reasonable way of understanding good socia l development. At the same time, there are a number of dark sides of modernity pointed out by sociologists and others. Technological development occurred not only in the medical and agricultural fields, but also in the military. Environmental problems comprise another category in the dark side of modernity. Pollution is perhaps the least controversial of these, but one may include decreasing biodiversity and climate change as results of development. The development of biotechnology and genetic engineering are creating what some consider sources of unknown risks. Besides these obvious incidents, many critics point out psychological and moral hazards of modern life alienation, feeling of rootlessness, loss of strong bonds and common values, hedonism, disenchantment of the world, and so on. Likewise, the loss of a generally agreed upon definitions of human dignity, human nature, and the resulting loss of value in human life have all been cited as the impact of a social process/civilization that reaps the fruits of growing privatization, subjectivism, reductionism, as well as a loss of traditional values and worldviews. All states use at least the threat of force to organize public life. The fact that dictatorships might more obviously use force should not hide the fact that state rule in democracies is based on the threat of force (and often the use of force). That states rule through the use of force does not mean that they are all powerful. This explains why North and Tilly only claim that states must have a â€Å"comparative advantage in violence† or have control â€Å"over the chief concentrated means of violence†. Nor does the state’s ability to use force necessarily mean that it can always enforce its will. All states tolerate some non-compliance. At some point, the marginal cost of enforcing laws becomes so great for any state that it prefers to allow some degree of non-compliance rather than spend more resources on improving law enforcement. Idealism is a classical theme of an unchanging and untrustworthy human nature, of anarchy in the international order, of ‘cold war’ as a semi-permanent state, of amorality in international affairs, of the security. The experience of the 1930s – above all, the rise of fascism and the descent into a second world war – dealt a severe blow to this liberal-minded progressivism and made space for what was to become the dominant paradigm in IR: realism and its second-generation progeny, neo-realism. At the heart of the realist approach is the insistence that we study the political world ‘as it actually is and as it ought to be in view of its intrinsic nature, rather than as people would like to see it’ (Morgenthau 1978: 15). For realists, both human nature and the character of international politics to which this gives rise are, in their essentials, timeless and unchanging. These characteristic claims of realism can be developed in terms of the eight key propositions which follow. States are the major actors in world affairs States behave as unitary actors States act rationally International anarchy is the principal force shaping the motives and actions of states States in anarchy are preoccupied with issues of power and security Morality is a radically qualified principle in international politics States are predisposed towards conflict and competition, and often fail to cooperate, even in the face of common interests International organizations have a marginal effect upon these prospects for inter-state cooperation However, critics of realism have never gone unchallenged. States are not the only major actors in world affairs Anarchy is constrained by forms of international cooperation Institutional arrangements may allow for much greater international cooperation than realism supposes International organizations may have a significant effect upon the prospects for inter-state cooperation States are not solely preoccupied with issues of military security Increasingly, international relations are about economic power Realism’ does not reflect ‘reality’ but one world-view (among many) in the service of particular interests In conclusion, while various states justify coercion in different ways, (through elections, through birth, through religion etc.), while they may use coercion for different purposes (to improve social welfare or to enrich themselves), and while their use of coercion may have different effects (higher levels of investment), it is also notable that such commonly-observed features of many modern societies as the nuclear family, slavery, gender roles, and nation states do not necessarily fit well with the idea of rational social organization in which components such as people are treated equally. While many of these features have been dissolving, histories seem to suggest those features may not be mere exceptions to the essential characteristics of modernization, but necessary parts of it. However, it is important to recognize that, although the nation-state has become by far the most predominant political entity in the world, there are still â€Å"stateless nations† like the Kurd s in Iraq and â€Å"diasporic nations† without a clearly identified homeland such as the Roma. As a result, nations and states remain distinct concepts even if they increasingly seem to occur together. References Ahmad, R.E., Eijaz, A., 2011, â€Å"Modern Sovereign State System is under Cloud in the Age of Globalization†, South Asian Studies – A Research Journal of South Asian Studies, Vl.26, No.2, pp.85-297 Clark, W.R., Golder, M., Golder, S.N., 2012, â€Å"Chapter 4: The Origins of the Modern State†, Principles of Comparative Politics, Vol. 2, pp1-66 Closson, S, Kolsto, P, Seymour, L.J.M., Caspersen, N, 2013, â€Å"Unrecognized States: The Strugge for Sovereignty in the Modern International System†, Nationalities Paper: The Journal of Nationalism and Ethnicity, Routledge Publishing, Vol.41, pp.1-9 Farr, J., 2005, â€Å"Point: The Westphalia Legacy and The Modern Nation-State†, International Social Science Review, Vol. 80, Issue 3/4, pp.156-159 Mann, M, 1993,â€Å"A Theory of The Modern State†, The Sources of Social Power Volume 2, The Rise of Classes and Nation States 1760-1914, Cambridge University Press, Vol.2, pp.44-89 Morris, C.W, â€Å"The Modern State†, Handbook of Political Theory, Sage Publications, pp.1-16 Nelson, B.R, 2006, â€Å"State and Ideology† The Making of the Modern State – a Theoretical Evolution, Palgrave Macmillan, pp.1-177 Netzloff, M., 2014, â€Å"The State and Early Modernity†, Journal for Early Modern Cultural Studies, University of Pennsylvania Press, Vol. 14, No.1, pp.149-154. Pierson, C, 1996, â€Å"The Modern State: The Second Edition†, Routledge Taylor Francis Group, pp.1-206 Sidaway, J.D., 2013, â€Å"The Topology of Sovereignty†, Geopolitics, Department of Geography, National University of Singapore, Vol.18, No.4, pp.961-966 Chapter 3: The Modern State, http://www.chsbs.cmich.edu/fattah/courses/introPolSc/ch03state.htm Introducing Comparative Politics: The Modern State, http://college.cqpress.com/sites/drogusorvis/Home/chapter2.aspx The Problem with Sovereignty: The Modern States Collision with the International Law Movement, http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/Articles/Special-Feature/Detail/?id=135613contextid774=135613contextid775=135611 1

Essay --

Divorce is not an exception anymore. In fact, with the rate of marriage decreasing over the past decade, and the divorce rate remaining steady, we are likely to know more people who are divorced than those who are legally bound. During this semester we read four novels. Divorce was a common theme in all of them. Only a few generations ago, American culture rejected divorce as scandalous. Today, law, behavior, and culture embrace and even celebrate it. It got me to wondering about the children of divorced parents. It got me to wondering, what about the children? Being concerned about them, I decided to research the Disruption of many traditional households. What happens during and after the process of divorce, predominantly to the children. Does parents’ divorce have negative impact on their later outcomes. After considerable research, I found that an increased social acceptance of divorce over the years has not reduced the negative effects experienced by the children of divorced parents. Every year, more than a million of American children suffer the divorce of their parents. Divorce causes pain to all involved, but most especially to the children. Though it is showed to be more accepted by society, it may put children in a downward trajectory from which they might never fully recover. A 2011 study by the University of Wisconsin-Madison found that children of divorced parents often fall behind their classmates in math and social skills, and are more likely to suffer anxiety, stress, and low self-esteem. The reason that math skills are affected is likely because learning math is cumulative. "If I do not understand that one plus one is two," lead researcher and a Ph.D. candidate in sociology Hyun Sik Kim says, "then I cannot unde... ...ge formation behavior and educational attainment. Wolfinger's research is based on the National Survey of Families and Households, which included detailed information on family background for 13,000 people, and the General Social Survey, which surveyed 20,000 people over a 30-year period. In conclusion, children of divorce are often subject to many negative effects. â€Å"Broken† homes are a tough situation to deal with. Divorce causes many problems and should not always be the solution to family problems, there is counseling and many other solutions to look into before automatically switching to divorce. As was discussed in this research, there are many educational, psychological and emotional effects on children of divorce. The best solution to all this pain is to be open and honest with children as well as try to seek out help. Divorce should be a last resort.

Power of organizations Essay

Lee Iacocca was born Lido A. Iacocca, on October 25, 1924 to Nicola and Antoinette, who were both Italian immigrants. His parents were hardworking people and his father Nicola believed that America was a land of opportunities. As long as people were willing to work hard, it America, it was possible to achieve anything. Lee followed his father’s work ethic and when he just a boy of ten years, he would take his wagon to the grocery store and wait outside. He volunteered to take the groceries of the shoppers to their respective houses for a tip. When he turned 16, he worked 16 hours a day in a fruit market. Lee confesses that the depression of the 1930s resulted in a transformation to his personality and he became a materialist. He graduated from college with the goal of earning $10,000 a year till he was 25 and then, he planned to work towards becoming a millionaire (Iacocca, 1984). The depression also made Lee a less intolerant person towards waste in any form: food, clothing or business and a conservative person in his investments. He always knew that disaster can strike any time. During his school days, Lee also faced racial discrimination due to the fact that he was Italian. Moreover, he was pained by the fact that his two Jewish friends were treated worse than he was. When Lee was in Chrysler, he named Gerald Greenwald as the Vice President of Chrysler. He would be the first Jew to enter the top ranks of any of the top three automakers (Iacocca, 1984). After his graduation at Lehigh, he got a job with Ford. But he could not pursue that job at that point in time, because he won the Wallace Memorial Fellowship at Princeton. He Graduated from Princeton and started working for Ford in 1946. Lee married Mary McCleary in 1956 (Iacocca, 1984). Lee considered his family life very important and reserved weekends to spend time with family. Lee’s success in business was not only due to his hard work and education, but also due to his ability to adapt to any situation (Swinfin, 2006). He was also a decisive man and had the ability to take innovative decisions. In 1956, when his district was the last in sales, he introduced a new program called â€Å"56 for 56†. This program made it possible to purchase a new 1956 Ford for 20 % down and $56. 00 a month for 3 years. The program was a huge success and more than 75,000,000 cars were sold and his district secured the first place in sales. Lee also undertook the challenge of the Fairlane Committee, which was responsible for producing a new type of car. Lee analyzed the research data on demographics and buying capacity of Americans and concluded that the car must be small, but needed to hold 4 passengers. There would be a 2500 LB limit, and the cost could not exceed $2,500. 00 with equipment. The end product was the 1964 Mustang (Iacocca, 1984). Iacocca Lee was a good leader who used good marketing research data, surrounded himself with good people, and was open to new ideas. Lee became President of Ford on December 10, 1970. He initiated a program called â€Å"Shuck the Losers†. This program gave managers 3 years to make their departments profitable or sell them off (Iacocca, 1984). This shows that Lee was also highly competitive in approach and stern when he had to be. Though there were many successful projects while he was at Ford, by the end of 1975, Lee started having personal conflicts with Henry Ford II. Lee was fired in July of 1978 and thereafter he joined Chrysler on November 2, 1978. Lee found that Chrysler had a problem in its communication style and team work. He reduced his salary to $1 per year and bargained with the union for cuts in salary and benefits. First, Iacocca announced plant closures, job layoffs, and his plans for the company. His next move was cutting several large models, which were heavily unprofitable, and put the subcompact Dodge Omni and Plymouth Horizon into production. The Omni and Horizon became instant hits, selling over 300,000 units each their debut year (Iacocca, 1988). By 1983 Lee turned around the fortunes of Chrysler and repaid all government loans. Lee made a public statement, â€Å"We at Chrysler borrow money the old fashioned way. We pay it back. † At Chrysler, Iacocca not only overcame a $3. 3 billion deficit but capped it with another $3. 3 billion profit between 1982 and 1984. That represents a net gain of $6. 6 billion, or an average increase in earnings of $6 million per day over the previous period (Harmon and Jacobs, 2006). The administrative style of Lee Iacocca is based on tapping the hidden power of organizations. He peeled â€Å"the encrusting layers of dead habits, vested interests, outmoded strategies and inertia and removed the lid on an enormous reservoir of productive energies. He did it by firing 33 of the company’s 35 vice-presidents and allowing long-suppressed ideas, energies, and talents to rise to the surface† (Harmon and Jacobs, 2006). Thus Lee was responsible for discovering the potential of organizational power. This discovery not only brought into use hidden potentials but also created new possibilities. The administrative style of Lee Iacocca enabled organizational power to maximize the productive and efficient utilization of ideas, resources, energies, and opportunities. He combined the organization power with his personal talents at communication, decision-making, motivating, time management, flexible approach in leading, and innovation to achieve great success as a leader. Lee Iococca, after his successful career at The Ford Motor Company and Chrysler, said, â€Å"I seized the opportunity, but I was no ninety-day wonder. It took me almost forty years of hard work. † This then, was the main reason behind his success.

A Problem Of Ocean Pollution - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 2 Words: 590 Downloads: 1 Date added: 2019/04/15 Category Ecology Essay Level High school Tags: Pollution Essay Water Pollutions Essay Did you like this example? Growing up and spending most of my childhood in one of the most beautiful places Florida has to offer, you learn to love the ocean and its surrounding features. As a little girl pretending to be a mermaid in the Florida Keys water, was such a thrilling experience, until you see trash floating beside you. This was a saddening and painful feeling knowing the affects that are occurring as you are trying to soak up the sun and view the beauty of the ocean. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "A Problem Of Ocean Pollution" essay for you Create order The ocean is a gift to the citizens that occupy two-thirds of the world. Ocean pollution comes from various land activities. These activities may involve, people, machines, companies, and chemical spills. The ocean was once a phenomenal view that society enjoyed without the trash. Imagine reversing society’s actions and recreating something we can enjoy, litter free for thousands of years, once more. Imagine living in a picture-perfect environment at the beach. Trash is nowhere in sight and your view of the ocean is breath taking as you watch the sea gulls and dolphins travel. This could be a possibility if society would stop polluting the ocean. If money was no object, I would create a nonprofit organization that would bring this dream into fruition. First, I would create a mission statement, that would be to recruit philanthropists with a like-minded vision and love of the ocean. Next, would be to hire workers â€Å"top-dollar† to get local beaches into â€Å"top-notch shape,†. The beaches would not be littered with cigarette butts, those filters can take decades to decompose after the cigarette butt has been discarded. As they break down the chemicals can be consumed by wildlife. According to environmental researchers by NBC news, scientists have found traces of these chemicals in roughly 70% of seabirds and approximately 30% of sea turtles. Plastic can holders, which are found around the necks of many sea creatures that cause irreplaceable damage, along with plastic bags. These deaths are noted as death by plastic for sea life, these deaths have increased every year. According to National Geographic, over 5.25 trillion pieces of trash have been discovered in the ocean. Plastic debris really took over our planet. The worst part about this is plastic is not biodegradable. The plastic we use daily should be turned into paper. With the â€Å"non-profit organization† taking place this company would supply restaurants and grocery stores with the necessary paper products, such as, straws, cups, and grocery bags. Consumers will be able to dispose of them and recycle these all back into paper products. An alternative solution for restaurants’ and stores , are biodegradable products such as dinnerware and utensils. Additionally, as a human I love to eat. I am not a picky eater when it comes to tasty food. Whether society intends to take up this knowledge or not, pollution causes humans to ingest contaminated fish and mammals from our polluted oceans. Human health seems to be less important to individuals as they age. With the non-profit organization created, this would help fishermen catch nontoxic seafood for human consumption. Along with enjoying the beauty of the ocean and creating harmony between man and nature. Loving the ocean as I do, it is disappointing to see such beauty being destroyed.Society as whole needs to think how the ocean is a gift and a privilege to behold. Sadly, over the years, it is becoming harder to preserve our oceans due to its beauty being demolished by the actions of our citizens. Ending ocean pollution starts with the man in the mirror.