States are Tied to Territory

Around the 12th century, as a consequence of the transfer of royal sovereign rights for a particular territory to a feudal lord, the prevalent perspective of territorial state development evolved as a consequence of this event. This view is known as the “traditional view.” This meant that inside territories, uncontrolled feudal jurisdiction gave way to a bigger central authority that maintained a more stable area through bureaucracy, a competent and qualified army, and taxation. Additionally, this meant that the region as a whole became more unified. The mediaeval hierarchical structure of control and jurisdiction, on the other hand, was in a state of continual uncertainty because it was challenged by a shift in the balance of power. This is in contrast to the modern system. 

History 

A fight for authority between authoritative institutions such as “emperors and popes, popes and kings, and kings and emperors” is where the concept of sovereignty originated. [13] The concept of a “collective” of countries that upheld a “rule of law” that provided a more secure security against the excesses that were typical of the hierarchical authority and power structure prevalent throughout the mediaeval period. [14] It was essential for the formation of ancient rulers’ states or empires to maintain ethnic variety, a growing population, economic and ecological diversity, and an organised bureaucracy. This was one of the primary goals of these ancient leaders.

Coercion

It is a theory that has been contested among academics that one of the primary driving forces behind the establishment of territorial states was the control and exploitation of the territorial resources via the use of force. These resources were the primary source of revenue for the state. It was essential to keep control over the resources of the region since failing to do so would have resulted in a decrease in revenue, which would have in turn eroded the power of the state. The governmental unit that can guarantee the safety and well-being of its citizens will always be viewed as authoritative by the populace. It is generally accepted that the only states to have emerged were those that were able to compete in war with other territorial states, which resulted in states forming large militaries that had technological and tactical advantages. This theory is supported by the fact that this was the only way states could emerge. Between the years 1500 and 1700, Europe saw what is now known as the “military revolution,” which was characterised by an increase in the number of conflicts that were larger in scale and lasted for longer. This made it possible for there to be “changes in the art of war,” which led to the development of more effective strategies as well as a significant increase in the size of armies, which in turn made it possible for armed governments to significantly expand their populations. According to the territorial state model, war and the establishment of states are unrelated to the economic growth that occurs only as a result of conflict. This view of state formation is supported by the territorial state model. 

Capital

The other opposing view contends that there is a clearer and more robust connection between commercial activity and the establishment of territorial states. The concept of a bound globe as a location consisting of defined regions emerged as a result of the spirit of “exploration and trade,” which was initially represented on a map by sea routes and places of goal. In the 15th century, worldwide sea lanes were created, which enabled the world to become united in a genuine global economy of trade and transportation. As a consequence of the increased size of demand and supply networks that resulted from this, economic cooperation was fostered. Economies that were formerly isolated on practically every continent are now connected through a global marine commerce system. In this system, risk is spread out more equitably. The expansion of the global market economy, population growth within states, and economic aspirations all contributed to the intensification of land use by territorial governments for the purpose of increasing agricultural output for commercial markets. The economic and legal structures that were present in the territorial state gave the impression that there was some type of government regulation and collaborative use of the territorial land and water. The exercise of territorial jurisdiction involves making decisions on patterns of land use, which may include regulating the conduct of those who make their homes inside territorial borders. As a result of the economic capital that they created, territorial nations were dependent on local as well as developing global markets.

Conclusion 

These expanding global market economies also made it possible for many “prosperous metropolitan centres” to defend themselves against any challenges posed by neighbouring governments who opposed them. If a certain region does not exhibit any signs of urban or economic expansion, the likelihood of that region falling under the control of a major territorial power increases. This can be observed in countries like France and England, where the rulers acquired control of the territory by coercion. As will become clear in the next sections, the rise in the number of rich cities was directly associated with the rise in consumer demand. This unquenchable desire prompted transnational city governments to engage in increased levels of worldwide exports and importing.