International relations theorists often refer to the ‘nation-state’ in their analyses, tending to avoid academic precision. Some years ago, a seminar concluded that international relations as a discipline had come to view dialogue and synthesis as incompatible objectives (Hellman, 123–53), thus underling by default that there was no single all-encompassing theory. Seeking precision on the meaning of ‘nation-state’ is a Sisyphean task, essentially because the term ‘nation’ is laden with all manner of emotions, such as nostalgia, atavism and indeed 'nationalism', whereas the term 'state' is devoid of that, as it is essentially legal, specific and dry. Etymologically speaking, a nation is where one is born, but with emphasis on ethnicity (the Greek word for nation is ‘ethnos’). Thus, a nation can transcend borders, one of the most obvious examples being that of international Jewry, or the Greek diaspora. As such, very few nations correspond precisely to state borders.

Get E-International Relations delivered to your inbox, free of charge. As you sign up, consider becoming a paid subscriber to support our work.

Mass movements of populations have rendered a precise definition of a nation difficult. For example, when an American president speaks of the American nation, one can wonder whether he means anyone born in the US, which includes original indigenous tribes and elements of various other nations, or whether he really means 'state', but prefers to hide reality with the more emotional sounding 'nation'. According to Britannica, a nation-state is a territorially bounded sovereign polity—i.e. a state—that is ruled in the name of a community of citizens who identify themselves as a nation. Yet this ‘one size fits all’ definition does not correspond to reality. It might almost apply to Japan and Iceland, but (for example) the US is full of different nationalities.

The concept of state is at least simpler: a group of peoples living within a defined and internationally recognised border, with its own government and sovereignty. As such, territory is the essential factor. We know enough about the ancient Greek city states and Renaissance Italy to see that states based on territory have existed for a long time. But when we come to the term nation-state matters become complicated. First, many IR analysts, often of the realist school, use nation and state interchangeably. A way of avoiding this ambiguity is to use the word 'country’, but even that is vague. To confuse the issue, politicians and others use the term national interest when they really mean state interest (we shall discuss interests a little later). Even the term international relations lacks in precision, since it really means inter-state relations. It is well known that the expression 'international' came into use through the famous mistake made by Jeremy Bentham when he coined it to describe the system of law between sovereign states as a translation of the term ius gentium, which the Romans used to refer to the corpus of rules, controlled, of course, by Rome. Perhaps ‘inter-nation relations’ would be a less woolly term.

Unlike with the word ‘state’, it is difficult to fully grasp the term ‘nation-state’: it seems to be a utopian ideal at best or an oxymoron at worst. The fixation with the Peace of Westphalia of 1648 by many IR analysts and historians has rather muddied the waters, since there are claims that the concept of sovereignty arose out of the various associated treaties. While it is recorded that various sovereign German states were created out of the Holy Roman Empire, and that they were able to choose whether to be Roman Catholic or Protestant, and that the principle of equality between states was established, Jean Bodin had already established the current concept of sovereignty in 1576, in his work Les Six Livres de la République, in which he argued that a state should be sovereign. There are also differing interpretations of sovereignty, perhaps one of the more extreme versions being encapsulated in Louis XIV’s statement ‘L’état, c’est moi’, underpinned by Richelieu’s emphasis on the king as sovereign. This form of absolutism was also shared by Hobbes, although he also emphasised the idea of a social contract.

As for the Peace of Westphalia’s........

© E-International