Profile
Settings
Refer your friends
Sign out
In other words, a nation-state has territorial boundaries. The right of a core national group within the state (which may include all or only some of its citizens) to self-determination is the source of the legitimacy of a nation-rules over a territory and over the population that inhabits it. This right is what gives a nation-state the authority to rule over a territory and over the population that lives there. Members of the core national group regard the state as theirs, and they refer to the vicinity of the state’s territory as their homeland. They also view the state as their place of origin. As a result, they demand that other groups, both within and outside the state, recognise and respect their control over the state. This is something they want to happen. The American sociologist Rogers Brubaker defined nation-states as “states of and for particular nations” in his book “Nationalism Reframed: Nationhood and the National Question in the New Europe” (1996).
The Nation-State is a Political Model that Combines Two Distinct Principles
the principle of state sovereignty, which was first articulated in the Peace of Westphalia (1648) and which recognises the right of states to govern their territories without interference from outside forces; and the principle of national sovereignty, which recognises the right of national communities to govern themselves. The principle of state sovereignty was first articulated in 1648, and it recognised the right of states to govern their territories without interference from outside forces. The moral and philosophical principle of popular sovereignty, according to which states are the property of their respective peoples, serves as the foundation for the concept of national sovereignty. The latter principle suggests that legitimate rule of a state necessitates some form of consent by the people who live in that state. Despite this precondition, it is not the case that all nation-states practise democratic government. In point of fact, a great number of autocratic rulers have presented themselves as ruling in the name of a sovereign nation, both to the international community of states and to the people living under their rule within their own countries.
Formation of New Nations and States
The establishment of the English Commonwealth in 1649 is regarded by some academics as the first instance of a nation-state being formed. This is despite the fact that France in the years following the French Revolution (1787–99) is frequently cited as being the first nation-state. Since the late 18th century, the nation-state has gradually become the pre-eminent vehicle of rule over geographic territories, gradually replacing polities that were governed by other principles of legitimacy. This shift occurred during the course of the modern era. The latter category included theocratic states, dynastic monarchies, colonial empires (justified by colonising powers as a means of spreading a “true” religion or of bringing progress to “backward” peoples), and communist revolutionary governments that purported to act in the name of a transnational working class. For example, the Dalai Lama’s rule over Tibet and the rule of the prince-bishops of Montenegro are examples of theocratic states.
Formation of Nations-States and Armed Conflict
War is more likely to occur as a result of the processes that are involved in the formation of nation-states. According to the findings of a study published in 2006 titled “From Empire to Nation-State: Explaining Wars in the Modern World, 1816–2001” by social scientists Andreas Wimmer and Brian Min, there are three types of wars that are more prevalent around the time that nation-states are being established: (1) wars of independence aiming to end foreign rule (for example, the Algerian War of Independence in 1954–62 and the Kosovo conflict in 1998–99); (2) civil wars within new nation-states (e.g., the German conquest of Alsace-Lorraine during the Franco-German War of 1871).
Conclusion
The latter principle suggests that legitimate rule of a state necessitates some form of consent by the people who live in that state. Despite this precondition, it is not the case that all nation-states practise democratic government. In point of fact, a great number of autocratic rulers have presented themselves as ruling in the name of a sovereign nation, both to the international community of states and to the people living under their rule within their own countries.
