Nation States

1. Nation States

2. Nations and States These two terms are not synonymous. “The State” refers to an area bound by political structures and subject to an authority. A successful State is one where its legitimacy is recognised by the people. A “Nation” does not refer to a body of land or any political ideology or system. Instead, the term applies to a particular group of people who have some shared ethnicity or cultural identity. For example, the Jews are a nation who have been spread across many political boundaries, whilst Israel is a State in which some Jews live alongside other groups under a political system. The concept of nation is essentially to describe something factual and is only contentious if it is used to discriminate against others. The concept of state is perhaps more abstract and, therefore more difficult to justify – why should political boundaries exist? What is authority and who should have it? What claims can the state make over the individual? etc. A “Nation State” refers to “A political unit consisting of an autonomous state inhabited predominantly by a people sharing a common culture, history, and language.” Is Britain a “Nation State”?

3. Nationalism “Nationalism refers to the attitude of caring about one’s nation and national identity, and also the policy of a nation to pursue or sustain self-determination.” (Lacewing) The concept of Nationalism often generates passionate responses. Many modern thinkers see it as dangerous, leading to intolerance and an inward looking perspective. Others view it as an essential ingredient in creating a successful State – without a sense of national identity, establishing values to live by can be difficult. Many commentators view Britain as a State that struggles to establish national identity. Parties such as the BNP like to blame this on a liberal immigration policy.

4. National sentiment David Miller offers the following definition of nationalism“…that a national identity is a defensible source of personal identity, that nations are ethical communities imposing reciprocal obligations on members which are not owed to outsiders, and that nations have a good claim to be politically self determining.” Nationalism obviously has a strong focus on national identity that can command loyalty, even love for one’s country. In contrast, individualism and cosmopolitanism can appear abstract and cold. NB Individualism = an atomised view of society i.e. a whole made up of many individuals. Cosmopolitanism = a commitment to accept and integrate cultural and ethnic types.

5. Liberty Liberal principles are more difficult to apply when directed at Nation States than they are when directed at individuals. We may be less willing to allow a State the opportunity to conduct “experiments in living” than we would with individuals as the consequences may be more severe. For example, allowing countries the right to experiment with a Theocracy may lead to “brainwashing” and the growth of dangerous attitudes – intolerance etc. Further, allowing Iran the right to experiment with nuclear energy or extreme principles of social justice may have serious consequences. Obviously, such freedom for the state will impact severely on the freedom of the individual – giving a state the liberty to experiment with enslaving ginger dwarves will obviously impact on individual negative liberty.

6. Are restrictions on cross-border movement and association just? Conservatives would agree that restrictions are necessary if the preservation of identity, and the traditions that support it, is to be maintained – upholding a central narrative. Consequently, they are likely to be resistant to immigration. However, can such closing of borders be seen as “just”? What gives anyone the right to reside in a wealthy state and further, the right to stop others from seeking to improve the conditions they inherited? Rawls’ “veil of ignorance” thought experiment seems to support the idea of removing borders and applying principles of justice to all. Peter Singer alludes to this issue in “Practical Ethics” via use of his post-apocalyptic thought experiment – who should we admit to the bunker? His conclusion is based on globally applied Utilitarian principles, arguing that developed nations should continue to accept immigrants until “the balance of interests has swung against a further increase”. As with all Utilitarian calculations, this is a difficult one to make. Many in the UK (the majority in fact) would argue that the balance of interests has now swung against immigration. Control is necessary to provide quality of life for members of the state.

7. Do rights apply to groups and nations? International Law attempts to provide states with certain rights e.g. the right to self-determination, the right to free trade etc. However, such rights are only applicable if the countries concerned acknowledge the institutions that issue the law e.g. the UN, World Bank etc. Also, it can be argued that such rights are not the rights of the State, but simply the rights of the individuals that compose it. Some have resisted this reductionist model, claiming that the body of state is more important than the parts that make it – think about the cover of Leviathan.

8. Does a nation have a right to self-determination? Answering this question involves performing a balancing act between a commitment to tolerance, a sensitivity to human rights and an awareness of what is practically possible in the State. Historically, attempts to establish independent states for nations has led to instability and War. Palestinian Problem? It is difficult to argue that a right to self determinism can be established, though a claim may still be made. Restrictions on existing nation states?

9. Does distributive justice apply globally? Marxists would obviously answer “yes” to this question. For them, the aim is to dismantle all the forces of Capitalism and then apply Communism globally. Yet, it is worth noting that most “Communist” countries quickly abandoned this commitment. Cosmopolitanism is another ideology that opposes limiting justice to nation states. Rawls’ Theory of Justice is often used to defend this position (though not be Rawls himself). This cosmopolitan ideal does seem too hopeful – international cooperation has rarely produced strong bonds and never on a universal level.

10. The Just War The aggression involved in war is at odds with basic values of civilization. It attacks people’s rights to life, security, subsistence, peace and liberty. However, just war theory claims that war can, under certain conditions, be morally justified. Pacifism argues that war is never morally justified. Realism says that moral concepts cannot be applied to questions of war (or foreign policy generally). Just war theory divides into three parts: • 1. jus ad bellum – the justice of resorting to war; • 2. jus in bello – just conduct in war; • 3. jus post bellum – justice at the end of war.

11. Aquinas’ Conditions • Following the merging of Church and State (Roman Empire) in the 4th century CE, Christians were forced to challenge the pacifist values they had held for over 300 years. • The task of somehow fusing Christian principles with the practical necessity of defending the state fell to Thomas Aquinas. • Aquinas reasoned that the Sovereign, as God’s representative on earth, was empowered to use violence in order to resist invasion and administer justice. • However, resort to war is only justified if the following conditions are set in place: • War waged by the right authority • There must be sufficient cause • Right intention must inform the decision.

12. Jus ad bellum: • Just cause • Right intention • Right authority • Last resort • Likelihood of success • Proportionately beneficial outcome.

13. Jus in bello • Weapons prohibited by international law must not be used. • Only combatants may be targeted. • Armed forces must use proportional force • Prisoners of war must be treated well • No weapons or means of war that are ‘evil in themselves’ are permitted • Armed forces are not justified in breaking these rules in response to the enemy breaking these rules.

14. Jus post bellum • Peace declared by the right authority • The objectives of the war should be secured • Peace settlements must be proportionate • Discrimination between combatants and non-combatants

15. Realism • ‘Realism’ objects that justice applies within the boundaries of a state only. In relation to each other, states act only in terms of self-interest. This claim can take either of two forms. • According to ‘descriptive realism’, states are simply not motivated by justice. They are motivated by the national interest, including power and security. However, it seems unlikely that states have no concern with justice – they are created and sustained by individuals (and a national community) who are concerned with justice. • According to ‘prescriptive realism’, it is prudent for states to act without regard to morality in foreign policy. It should respect the conditions laid down by just war theory only if doing so would be in the best interests of a state to, e.g. If doing so would lead to a more peaceful world.

16. Pacifism • Pacifism argues that war is always unjust. Aggression by a state does not need to be resisted by war, as there are other means, less destructive but just as effective, such as a very widespread campaign of civil disobedience and international sanctions. However, just war theorists will reject this. There can be times when these responses work (Gandhi’s campaign to free India from the British Raj; Martin Luther King’s campaign for black civil rights) – but they only work when the aggressor is sensitive to claims of justice. But what of an aggressor that responds to such campaigns with ethnic cleansing? War may be the only means to resist, and can therefore be justified.

17. ASYMMETRIC WARS An asymmetric war is one in which the two sides differ significantly in military resources or tactics. It may differ from ‘normal’ or symmetric war only in that one state is significantly weaker than the other; or it may involve one side not being a state or even a politically recognised body; or it may involve tactics of unconventional warfare, e.g. guerrilla warfare. Examples, therefore, are very wide-ranging, from the American Revolution of 1776 (a people v. an imperial force), World War II once the USA acquired the nuclear bomb, to the recent conflict between Israel and Palestinians in Gaza and the two Gulf Wars of 1990 and 2003.

18. Applying Rawls • Under the “Original Position” Rawls argues that all would have an equal right to self defence. • The Veil of Ignorance also leads us to commit to a situation where war may be used to secure a peace that is preferable to the position experienced pre war – all would rather have this right than a situation where they had to endure injustice. • Rawls emphasises the importance of right conduct during conflict – in particular, the protection of non-combatants. This can only be compromised in the eventuality of an “extreme emergency”. • Ultimately, for Rawls, war is only justified as a means of protecting human rights. • Rawls’ position has been criticised on the basis that it fails to account for the deep convictions (religious, political etc) that people hold outside the veil of ignorance. • Rawls’ response is that, outside the veil, people would see just how destructive such convictions can be. • Rawls’ original position has also been criticised on the grounds that it is permanently binding. This would seem unhealthy and inefficient given the fluid nature of society.

19. Applying Marx • According to Marx, war is the product economic tensions that reach a critical point and lead to a new system (dialectical materialism) • This process is inevitable and will eventually culminate in the Communist revolution. This will bring an end to all conflict and warfare will become athing of the past. • However, the revolution is a necessary evil that will have to be endured. • Marx has been criticised for presenting his theory as a scientific model. Heywood, in Political Ideas and Concepts argues that revolution is not always caused by economic factors. Rather, a lack of faith in the strength of the leader can prompt rebellion. • We can also refer to history as a counter to Marx – rejection of capitalism hasn’t become widespread and a more compassionate model to the one that Marx experienced has evolved.