Some Thoughts on Statehood (Part 1: What Makes You a State?)

The concept behind a state and all of its variations have always been points of much political and social debate. This was especially true in the 1900s during the two World Wars where the League of Nations provided sovereignty provisions to territories previously under the jurisdiction of greater powers and the devastating effects of the Second World War made it increasingly difficult for the European "Empires" to maintain dominance in minor/weaker territories. Self determination and sovereignty were "given" by drawing boundaries on the map (most notably, much of the states in the Middle East were originally part of the Ottoman Empire, divided after their dissolution in the conclusion of the First World War).

But what exactly defines something as a state? The most elementary definition of a state is that it is an organization in which it exerts some level of authority within its territory(s). Depending on the exact circumstances of the state, it may or may not be the absolute authority, such as the case of the US where individual states are secondary to the federation. In the case of a state under a federation, it is clear that the state derives its authority from the federation, which acknowledges its existence and authority within its territory. However, what about the federation itself? Or in the case of an independent sovereign state, who acknowledges it?

If we were to examine a more traditional formation of governing body, the question of legitimacy were commonly answered through divine right (or hereditary right, which was often related to divine right) or through the tip end of a sword. Regardless of the method used, the governing body has the consensus (though it may be coerced consensus) of the people to exert its authority on the people. Once a state has the legitimacy as the authority within its territory, it would need to be able to enforce its ownership of the territories it holds by the use of force (or more often, mere deterrence by sheer force potential) from those without. By its ability to maintain its territory by force (alternatively, by diplomacy at which point both parties recognize each other), the state is effectively validates its existence from external forces.

In a contemporary setting, in addition to the state's ability to enforce its borders, it must also garner approval from the international community, typically by attaining membership status within the UN (however, there are definitely cases where an entity would be considered a sovereign state by typical standards, but is not fully recognized by everyone within the UN, as is the case for Taiwan). It is important to note that as according to more modern interpretation of sovereignty (rooted in the Atlantic Treaty of 1941), any group of "nation" that seek self determination should be granted so. If we were to abide by that principle, it is entirely possible that a sovereign state can exist without meeting the traditional conditions of having authority within its territory.

Let's recap what we've discussed. A state is an entity that derives its powers from the legitimacy to exert its authority over its territory. Typically, this legitimacy is borne through force, and additionally through acknowledgement of its existence as a valid body of authority by others. However, in the modern world, there are many "states" that do not fit this typical bill and may be lacking consistent command of authority or territory. An interesting comparison to statehood is friendship. I can claim to be a friend of someone, but if they do not reciprocate and reaffirm my claim that he/she is my friend, this "friendship" may as well not exist. In part 2, we will explore why the international recognition of statehood is so important and coveted.