Caner elebiolu

TERRITORALITY, STATES AND NATIONS

A short overview of evolution of states in Europe
Territoriality has a crucial position in history and evolution of state system. However although it needs to be evaluated and discussed well in social sciences, it didnt received much theoretical discussion academically One common explanation indicates that territoriality is based on providing security inside. Protecting inside from the outside is often the core idea. However; it is a fact that claiming territories and protecting the territories caused more than 100 million peoples death in the 20th century. Boundaries which separate the territories also cause death apart from wars and conflicts. Every day many people are dying as they trying to cross borders in order to get a better job, fleeing from political violence or government suppression and sometimes to reunify with family members. As an example; we can give the case of US-Mexico border. Many people including women, workers and children are losing their lives because of starving, thirsty and illness1. Notion of Territory To start with the etymology of the word territory, one common form is Latin word territorium. It means the land around the town. However, according to William Connoly, Territory actually derives from terrere,(terrorizing). He says that territorium is a place from which people are warned2. Territories and boundaries exist in everywhere and every section of daily life. For most people; these small micro-territories are more noticeable in practice. Houses, farms, offices, neighbourhoods, districts, study rooms, restricted areas etc. The meanings of every type of territoriality may draw from from treaties, international agreements, constitutions, regulations, contacts and various other forms3. As an example, we can look to the Traditional Notion of protecting the property: it gives the right to protect your area, territory. According to Louisiana Supreme Court, it is said in a trespassing case a mans home is traditionally been his castle, he has right to protect it with his own means. Different disciplines study territoriality; international relations, anthropology, environmental psychology and human geography. In modern political science, sociology and international relations territoriality could be defined more narrowly in terms of spatially defined political rule4. Henrik Spruyt and Charles Tilly pointed the importance of city-states in the late medieval Europe (Tilly 1990; Spruyt 1994). Osiander (2001) sees Westphalia Treaty as a break-point between todays (nation) state system and earlier state formations.

1 2

Delaney, David. 2005. Territory. A Short Introduction to Geography. Oxford: Blackwell p.27 Ibid, p.14 3 Ibid, p.29 4 Kahler, Miles-Walter, Barbara F. 2006 Territorality and Conflict in an Era of Globalization, Cambridge University Press p.3

Territoriality phenomenon is beyond just the border of states. Territoriality related with international politics and boundaries of states is a one aspect of this. Territoriality is important to see how individuals, communities, societies associate and identify themselves. It shapes and also is shaped by collective social and self-consciousness. We can experience phenomenon of territoriality while going abroad by air. Documents of visas and passports, passport check-points, custom police etc. These places are where we can observe and feel territoriality in a shape. A few sentences about territoriality and overlapping identities: The places where we live give us labels in our social communication. Our hometown; our region, country or continent is giving us multiple identities at the same time. People carry overlapping identities which are connected to territorial areas which they belong. We can explain that with an example: Think of a German person who is travelling around world from Munich. When he starts travelling with a close city, Nuremberg, he becomes a Mnchnerin (from Munich), then he goes to Berlin now becomes also a Bavarian referring to the region. Each time he has an additional title while the territorial area increases in scale. Then he continues to Copenhagen as he is recognized as German outside his country. Think of he takes the plane to New York; now people may call him European in addition to German. We can expand these examples; if he passes to India or China this time he becomes also a Westerner. He can be simultaneously Mncherin, Bavarian, German, European and Westerner. He is of course a German and European in Munich already yet no one calls him with those labels there. We can see that a person has multiple identities which are given by territories within each other. Territorial Nation-State In the modern world; spreading of territorial nation-states are the main characteristic indicators of political supremacy. Territorial nation states have the sole authorities in their defined territorial land. One may claim that todays globalizing world reducing the degree of power of nation states. However, we cannot claim that territoriality of states is decreasing. Due to globalization process it is a fact that we have much more interconnectedness between not only states, but also between states and civil society, multinational corporations, individuals and so on. International trade areas such as NAFTA, MERCOSUR or military agreements such as NATO or Warsaw Pact in the past or regional organization like EU are argued that showing the fading and vanishing of sovereignty of territorial states. Yet; it only shows us the proliferation of web of connections between different units. What we can say is that the notion of nation state is not disappearing, but advancing and upgrading. As it is like we mentioned, territoriality is the main feature of nation-state. Controlling a certain territorial area became a substantial expression of political power. Territoriality can also be observed at the sub-state level. The internal divisions of a country; whether through local or federal government, represent a formalized internal territorialisation5. We can easily give examples of German states (Lnder ), 52 states of the USA, Counties of England or the countries (England, Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland) of the UK. They are all sub-territorial areas which belong to a larger political territorial unity. R.J.B Walker, modern principle of state sovereignty expresses the claim by the states to exercise legitimate power within strictly delimited territorial areas.6(Agnew,Corbridge 1995,
5 6

Storey, David. Territory. The Claiming of Space. New York: Pearson: Prentice Hall, 2001 p.5 Delaney, David. 2005. Territory. A Short Introduction to Geography. Oxford: Blackwell p.53

83-84) The total sovereignty of the state over its territorial space in a world fragmented into territorial states gives the state its most powerful justificationTerritoriality makes attention and focus over borders. We cannot think a nation-state without clearly defined territories. The level of territoriality, that is to say intensification degree of territoriality varies from place to place. Robert Sack, human territoriality A maximum security prison is more territorial than a cell in a country jail. And that ordinary country jail is definitely more territorial than a house. Intensify of territory may be seen as to be a function of intensifying of control or power7.

Evolution of States and Emergence of Nation-States in Europe

The nations which we know them as separate nations today; werent different nations at all in the past. In fact; the only important thing was being subjects of a kingdom before the 14th century. Many elements played a role in road to reach todays nation-state system. In order to talk about nation-states we must go back in centuries and have a look to Europe realm in the middle ages. We can track modern European states until the barbarian entities8. Kingdom word would be too inappropriate for them, so I prefer to use a Latin word regnum. The ruler was called with an ethnic name such as Rex Frankorum yet their subject werent homogeneous units. They were far from being a nation. In those so-called kingdoms or regnums, subjects (it was too early to mention people) were loyal to the ruler himself or his family but not to the state. This personal loyalty constructed the ground for the Feudal Europe rather than centralized kingdoms especially in the early and mid-medieval period. Europe was much more different in 1000 years ago. We are pointing a time which is also called ancient regime. Not the idea of nation, even the notion of state wasnt like today. We roughly use the state word for any organizational structure which had a dominance and coercion in a defined territory in different degrees. The rulers emperors, kings, princes, dukes...- were seeking their own interests, desires and personal revenges but not struggling for the good of theirs subordinated people. There was no centralized state anywhere in Europe. It was like a ocean of countless different states, principalities, city-states, like-states. In the 15th century; we cannot even give an exact number of states in the Europe. There were around 200 states, would-be states, statelets and state-like organizations. The numbers vary according to used criteria; some writers classify the distinct administrative bodies of empires as separate states and some dont. With this point of view; the number depends between 80 up to 500 states in Europe (Including Swiss Cantons and Ottoman free provinces)9. Number of states came to a more considerable point in 19th century; it was now between 20 and 100 states. After the unifications on Germany and Italy; the modern state system of Europe took the todays appearance mainly. In 13th century, some writers started to say that the political body of the state was a corpus mysticum, meaning the state is just like the Church10. Raison dtat* principle also emerged for the first time at that time. After the vast defeats and disappointments of the
7 8

Ibid, p.75 Ibid, p.17 9 Tilly, Charles.1992 Coercion, capital, and European states, A.D. 990-1990, Oxford : Basil Blackwell. P.45 10 Deutsch, Karl-Foltz, William J. W. 1966 Nation-Building. Atherton Press,New York p.21

Roman Church in the previous centuries (We can give an example of the great destruction and misery which brought by 8 Crusades Campaigns to the Holy Lands, Anatolia and Constantinople). Loyalty to the Church begin to pass to the state, and once it begun it was irreversible. People now werent welcoming the intervention of the Church to the states with open hands as before. A phrase derived in England and France Rex est imperator in regno suo giving a superior authority to the ruler in theory. The emperor (Holy Roman Emperor) doesnt have effect on ordinary subjects and he doesnt interfere directly his subordinated kingdoms. We should also mention the notion of Christianity in order to evaluate those times. Medieval thinking was emphasizing oneness, reductio ad unum. There must be only one Christian commonwealth, states and ethnicities are irrelevant. And this aimed unity of Christianity was shaped in form of Holy Roman Empire11. Emphasis on Holy Roman Empire was based on a passage in Bible. In 2-Thessalonians 2.1-8, it is interpreted as the fall Roman Empire would result coming of the Anti-Christ. Therefore, in order to medieval thinking, as (Holy) Roman Empire stands, world shall stand12. States form an unofficial system aiming to interact with each other. 1000 years ago; there was no such a system in Europe. People of Europe were living under fragmented sovereignties and loose empires, league of city-states. However, we may mention a few relatively distinct zones in Europe instead of a system. If we have a short look to the map; Muslims were controlling the East and South Mediterranean and most of Iberian Peninsula From central Italy to Flanders there were countless semi-independent authorities. Their jurisdictions were contested by both Vatican and Holy Roman Empire. In the northeast on this section there was a Saxon-Germen zone13. One may also distinguish the Danish influence in Scandinavia and British Isles from this Saxon-Germen zone. These zones began to close each other because of some reasons. These are mainly; increasing commerce between northern parts and Mediterranean, marching of tribes and armies of the East and Christian-Muslim clash by Crusades. As of 1500; one can claim that European continent was more connected to each other than the situation in 1000. It was a time when states were linked each other with various treaties, bilateral agreements and marriages between royal families14. Also, wars between parties ended with formal settlements. Todays state system was coming into shape step by step. Rather than city-states or league of states, more centralized and national states were taking part in the stage. At the meantime; some parts of European were still far from the changing structure. Scandinavian countries were still seen apart from Europe and also were Poland and Russia. They integrated to the system later. It has been hundreds of years; however we can still see a degree of distance between Scandinavia and the rest of Europe. They have some different opinions about European Union integration process and they are in Nordic Union (Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland and Iceland) besides EU. (Norway is still out of EU) The bloodshed of Thirty Years War (1618-48) resulted important changes in Europe. It started when Holy Roman Empire attacked Protestants in Bohemia in order to cut their voices and end their presence. Other European powers involved in this war and it ended with Treaty of Westphalia (1648) which is a very crucial milestone not just for the history of Europe but also for world history. 145 states from most of Europe came together with this treaty. It
11

Osiander, Andreas. 2001. Before Sovereignty: Society and Politics in Ancien Rgime Europe. Review of International Studies 27: p.127 12 Ibid, p.128 13 Tilly, Charles.1992 Coercion, capital, and European states, A.D. 990-1990, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. P.162 14 Ibid,163

brought peace to Catholic-Protestant antagonism and settled some territorial questions between states. In addition; Switzerland (Swiss Confederation) and Netherlands (Dutch Republic) recognized as sovereign states15. In an empire, one state exercises sovereignty at least over one other distinct state. (Doyle 1986:30) Before Westphalia; it was the time for empires in Europe. With 1648, the closure alarm ringed for old empires in Europe especially for Holy Roman Empire. The path to national states opened with Thirty Years War. On the other hand; Ottoman and Russian Empires lasted for a long time after. While Habsburgs losing their power in the central Europe, other European powers were building external empires in Americas, Africa and Pacific. After Westphalia, states were begun to seen sovereign distinct powers with defined territorial boundaries. Territoriality of states tends to be more national. French Emperor (before 1804; Consul, President) Napolon Bonaparte made many steps towards national-statization of Europe. Under his rule; powerful French armies began to invade most of European states or making them compulsory allies until the final defeat of France in Waterloo 1815. During this period, the ideas sprinkled from French Revolution spread to the almost every corner of Europe especially with the help of a set of laws which is called Code Napoleon established in 1804.The process of 1815 Vienna Congress brought the European Concert system which aimed to put down nationalism and other spreading ideas of the Revolution. However, it was already an irreversible process. Even if Napoleon defeated and French authority pulled back; nationalist ideas emerged in all Europe including Russia, Poland, Prussia, Italian states and for the minorities within Austrian and Ottoman Empires. Under the leadership of Otto von Bismarck Prussia finally succeeded German unification (1871) after defeating the most important obstacles in his road- Austria and France. Peace treaties of First World War resulted more national states in Europe. Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Hungary and Poland became independent states. Austrian empire lost Hungary and Ottoman Empire was no more empire after losing all non-Turkish areas16. Each great war drew Europe near todays state system. Europe map gained last big changes after the collapse of communism and dissolution of Soviet Union. Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Belarus, Moldova Ukraine gained their independence from Soviet Union. Czechoslovakia separated as Czech Republic and Slovakia while two Germany unified. More precisely, Democratic Republic of Germany (East) merged into Federal Republic of Germany. On the other hand former Yugoslavian Diversity within states decreased in 19th century while increased between states. National symbols crystallized, national languages standardized and national labour markets organized17. In Europe; after the demise of the feudalism, older political entities were replaced initially by a series of city-states and larger territorially based units18.Step by step the idea feeling allegiance to God or a local lord began to swap with allegiance to a territory with certain people living inside. Conflicts emerged in the name of territorial grounds. In the previous paragraphs; we have briefly overviewed the evolution of states in Europe through ages. We started our journey with post-Roman Empire period, continued by late medieval period. We had a short view over the sui-generis structure of states of that time. We mentioned the relations between Holy Roman Empire and its subordinated states and emphasized the
15 16

Ibid, p.167 Ibid, p.169 17 Ibid, p.117 18 , David. Territory. The Claiming of Space. New York: Pearson: Prentice Hall, 2001, p.1

Westphalia Peace as a milestone for all states in Europe in terms of sovereignty. And we finally came to modern map of nation-states. In this part; I will have some words related with the notion of nation. As being part of social sciences; we have no single clearly defined explanation of nation. But it doesnt impede us to make some definitions. I will start with a definition that proposed by Carl Friedrich. According to him; a nation must have five major features. Any sizable population or group can be called as nation if: They are independent as not being ruled by outside forces, cohesive as having more effective habits of easy and varied social communication and cooperation in comparison with their cooperation and communication with outsiders, politically organized in the sense that it provides a constituency for a government which exercises effective rule within it, autonomous in that accords to this government such acclaim, consent willingness, and support to make its rule effective, internally legitimate in the sense that habits of compliance with the support of the government are connected with wider beliefs about the universe and about their own nature1912deutsch. This definition can be applied to both those historical nations of Europe and the newly nations emerged in Africa in the decolonization period.

What is Nation?
A few definitions A nation may refer to a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, and/or history. There are different and sometimes conflicting views of nation. According to Dulles; a nation is a living organism which is an entity embracing its citizens with unity. On the other side; Ross Stagner, who examines the psychological aspects of nations and conflicts, thinks that a nation is nothing like a living organism. He gives an example to support that; if a person decides to walk there would be no internal resistance or a different voice from inside. However it wont be true within the nation in a wide variety of cases. No nation is %100 purely united and same as a living organism. Although nations are not exactly living organism; they have definitely a degree of internal unity. It can be think of a matter of perception and feelings. Citizens of a nation tend to perceive certain symbols and historical sharing as evidence of unity, and they feel that the nation should be a unit even if its not at all46. One should also know that a nation cannot be apart from its citizens. Carthage is no longer a nation, though her soil still fronts the Mediterranean Sea 20. Also; attitudes of citizens determine the situation of nation; although the English, Welsh and Scottish fought with each other for centuries, now they accept a unified country as British. Nations are evolved by some distinctive features. Linguistic differentiation is one of the most important points in emergence of nations. The choice of national alignments and national identity is related to the decision to perceive a common enemy21. Nations can be ally with each other depending on what they share, what their common points and interests We will have a look to Guibernaus (1996) view. According to him, national identity composes of five key elements. First, psychological as consciousness of forming a community; second, cultural as sharing a common culture; third, territorial as attachment to a clearly demarcated territory; fourth, historical as possessing a common past and fifth, political

19 20

Deutsch, Karl-Foltz, William J. W. 1966 Nation-Building. Atherton Press,New York p.12 Stagner,Ross. Phychological Aspects of International Conflict. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, California 1967 p.43 21 Deutsch, Karl-Foltz, William J. W. 1966 Nation-Building. Atherton Press,New York p.10-11

as claiming the right to rule itself22(s59storey). Muir (1997) wrote that national identity is important exactly because people believe it to be important. He marked a crucial point; nation is a subjective, normative thing. People dont born with a mark of Englishness, Frenchness or Turkishness in their forehand, they born as just babies. They gain the national identities after a series of cognitive processes within the society such as effect of family, education. A nation is more a mental construct than a tangible, non-abstract reality23. Some people may feel more than one national identity. Let us consider Jewish people in the USA, they may both feel allegiance to the US and Israel at the same time. Exceptional case of Jewish nation I will open a parenthesis here about the Jewish and Judaism; Judaism can be thought of as being simultaneously a religion, a nationality and a culture. This is an exceptional situation; normally being Christian or Muslim doesnt refer to a certain nation but Judaism does. Of course, Judaism is a religion, and it is this religion that forms the central element of the Jewish culture that brings Jews together as a nation24. It is also a notable point that Jewish people (as nation and also believers of Judaism) lived without a defined territory for almost 2500 years after being losing the last Jewish kingdom in Palestine territories. Before the establishment of Israel in 1948, Jewish people didnt lose their national feelings at all. Of course; all of them were spread to the world and were speaking the language of the host countries such as Polish, Russian, English or hybrid languages like Yiddish (German-Hebrew) and Ladino (SpanishHebrew). Their feelings of belonging Jewish nation was decreased in numerous centuries and wasnt as 2000 years ago naturally. After the establishment of the Israel state; Jewish people from all over the world, especially those who could escaped from the Holocaust came to Israel and they were subjected to strengthening Jewishness processes. A united nation requires a single language therefore the national language Hebrew has been taught to all Israelis. It is also called as Revival of the Hebrew language. Nation as a figure As we mentioned before; a national government must be seen legitimate and take the support of its citizens. Without it, they fail. A nation does not exist as a unit until the citizens see it as a unit of which they are a part25.(Stagner) Nations are usually personified in the eyes of the members of other nations. People tend to consider other nations as one single unit. For example; it is easier to think the USA in the form of Uncle Sam or seeing France under the figure of De Gaulle in the 1960s. In reality of course, these nations are much more complicated than one image. The habit of personifying nations or nation images go back to the times of absolute monarchy in Europe .We can remember when Louis XIVof France said Letat, cest moi26. That time he was the state, representing all France by his own.

22 23

Storey, David. Territory. The Claiming of Space. New York: Pearson: Prentice Hall, 2001 p.59 Ibid, p.59 24 http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/jewnation.html Accessed on 25 December, 2011 25 Stagner,Ross. Phychological Aspects of International Conflict. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, California 1967 p.43 26 Ibid, p.49

Sometimes the views of nations over other nations might be interesting. We can look from the Cold War period especially; the perceptions of American and Soviet about each other. While American people thinks that USSR is an imperialist, non-democratic, exploiter aggressive and immoral state; it is exactly the same what Soviet people thinks the USA of. Dr. Ralph K. White called this as mirror images of nations. One other thing about the image of nations, we often hear about one nation only from one side. As examples; Westerns usually look Greek-Persian wars of ancient history from the Greek side, Carthage-Rome relations always viewed from the Roman side and we hear the history of American Indians by US view. Studying and examining any issue about nations or nationalism would not be always complete true, subjective and normative evaluations will always have a part of this. Nations in Latin America Nation building term means that it is a project. It must be planned somehow and processed in different ways as every project. The word of building may lead us somewhere; it refers to something that can be built in many different styles and various components. As we know that a house can be built by timbers or bricks or stones etc. and many different architectural models, so a nation-building process has not a one-fits all way. Well have a few words about the emergence of nations in Latin America. Although they lived under colonial power for long years just as the other colonized territories in Africa and Asia, Latin America wasnt under the same situation. Latin America was colonized mostly by Spain and Portugal. These European powers were the first of the colonizers however werent enough industrialized and developed as other colonial powers (Britain, France) in the later centuries. Therefore it reflected to the Latin American colonies and nation-building process was delayed. Unlike African and Asian colonies; Latin America gained independence before, in the 19th century. Despite the fact that vast lands with limited population and poorly demarcated territories, unexpectedly only few wars occurred among the Latin American countries.27. Latin America was traditionally far from the politics of the complicated European Continent. The doctrine of US President Monroe in 1820 helped Latin America to become isolated. American policy makers didnt want Europe to affect American Continents. We should also remember that Catholic Church affected Latin American politics. According to Robert E.Scott; there are two major elements which slowed the nation-building process in Latin America; problem of identity and congruity. The identity problem has two aspects; the lack of any strong sense of personal identity and the absence of a feeling of national identity28. Congruity problem resulted because of socialization process fails to inspire all citizens with general values and ideas in order to be a complete nation. Scott argued that the other aspect of congruity problem arises because in the absence of any broadly shared political culture norms, theres a total lack of agreement on the function of the formal constitutional agencies. We can think of Mexico example; they are in better condition in internally national integration among the some other Latin American countries. Most of the country was consisting of millions of traditional dwellers living in rural areas. Converting them to into Mexicans had been done fairly easily through new schools, roads, and other cultural and educational means and with face-to-face contacts29.

27 28

Deutsch, Karl-Foltz, William J. W. 1966 Nation-Building. Atherton Press,New York p.75 Ibid, p.77 29 Ibid, p.82

Nationalism; good or bad? Nationalism is a crucial and notable factor in contemporary nation-states. Labelling nationalism as good or bad would be delusive. Nationalism (or patriotism) may help people to act together and to be in solidarity. Lack of nationalism may cause unrest within people; individuals may act in order to gain benefits and advantages for their personal or small tribal desires. In short words; nationalism can serve to expand the area within which peaceful collaboration is the norm behaviour30. However; theres of course also an other side of coin in relation to Nationalism. It also may cause bloodshed and catastrophic wars between countries. Humanity suffered a lot because of aggressive nationalism of Nazi Germany, Italy and Japan in 1930s and 1940s. Tribal nationalism took many lives and still causing deaths in especially Sub-Saharan Africa. It has not been so many years since Hutu-Tutsi atrocities which resulted 1 million dead people in Rwanda. It is still in memories inhumanities and massacres in former Yugoslavian countries caused by aggressive nationalism in 1990s. Preserving their own territories is still the main objectives of every nation-state. As it was in the 20th century, there are ongoing disputes, conflicts and wars caused by territoriality in the 20th century. Any violation, interference or even dubious movements against territories of states may cause severe consequences. There are several examples of this situation; we can give an example of Israel-Palestine conflict as maybe the most well-known territorial conflict in the world.

30

Stagner,Ross. Phychological Aspects of International Conflict. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, California 1967 p.52