The State Test....According to Bobbit

The realm of foreign policy has shifted from its conventional means in recent times however; the blueprint of what classifies foreign policy is constantly under debate. That debate according to Bobbit helped create what we know today as the state. For the past few weeks, we have discussed the ideas behind the development of state sovereignty and its impact on state legitimacy. As we have learnt the idea of state sovereignty is a relatively new concept and it was not until the Treaty of Westphalia that the true meaning of state sovereignty was created.  In the readings this week, Bobbit explained that the idea of the state and state sovereignty came out of the states’ need to improve their authority and security due to the threat of invasion from outside forces. Not only was the need for security crucial but a strong internal structure was essential to the birth of the modern state. While I agree that security was essential to the birth of the states I also intend to focus the internal sovereignty of the state as well as the concept of equality that help explain the birth of the modern state.

            Bobbit’s progression of the state from a princely state to a nation-state is an interesting one because it showed the growth of technology and law both local and international. The state as we have learn exist in part to contain and control the monopoly of violence and as we discussed the progression of the state was not simply because of the need to monopolize violence but to protect the citizens within the state. In essence, the state became subservient to the people. While I agree largely with Bobbit I disagree with his premise that states mainly what he called the princely states were formed generally to protect the people. Rulers during this time were faced with the idea of losing their power to outside military forces so to protect themselves they needed to establish a security force. The only way these rulers would be able to raise a standing army was to acquire willing patrons or tax the people to build up that security force. (Soldiers, stronger walls) Protecting the people seemed like an added benefit especially since a few of these pre-states recently broke away from the church so if enemies immediately overran them their freedom was for naught.

Similar to Tilly who recognized that Europeans relied on technology advancement, Bobbit also believes that technological advancement was essential and largely ignores the economic aspects of growth that aided in the in the expansion of the sovereign state however; I believe and agree that he intentionally excludes economics because maybe it was not such a major factor as originally thought. To solidify his point he identified that great wars such as the battle for Constantinople have shaped states as they evolved from princely to territorial to nation-states. Perhaps without the threat of outside forces coupled with the suppression of the Roman Catholic Church, the modern state would have never taken shape. However, an interesting fact Bobbit mentioned was that great empires such as the Mughal empire which did have military capability was not able to take a solid hold in their region like the church, and that was because the lack of strength in their internal bureaucracy. This lack of solid internal structure is the second aspect of Bobbit’s argument which helps tie his readings together. Without structure (i.e. rule of law, government) states would be unable to maintain their stability and thus fall to internal uprising or external pressure hence the progression from princely to nation-states. Vital to the success of any state is the ability to protect their external sovereignty and control their internal sovereignty and it is these two aspects that I believe help solidify a state as a sovereign entity.

If we take these two aspects of Bobbit’s argument, we can apply it to what we today constitute as sovereignty. Nevertheless, with the idea of sovereignty brings to question the idea of equality. In our discussion we could not come to a consensus on what aspects help quantify what is equality. The treaty of Westphalia gave all states equal standing in the international arena however as we know, no state is ‘necessarily’ equal. Whether it refers to economic, military or social strength, we can still see an uneven tradeoff between the capabilities of different states. According to Bobbit, the birth and subsequent development of the state can be linked to the ability of a state to protect and serve it citizens however; depending on your definition of equality, you may not see states as being equal. Regardless of what your definition of equality is, in today’s society states that have the means i.e. money, military have the power to determine who is legitimate as is the case for many unrecognized states (ex. Somaliland). Therefore, while a state may have the aspects Bobbit indicates, in today’s society much more is required.