3 ms·
Unfortunately, "state" can't be used unambiguously to mean a sovereign political entity, because there are so many states that aren't sovereign (e.g. New York).
by ghkbrew 8y ago
Unfortunately, "state" can't be used unambiguously to mean a sovereign political entity, because there are so many states that aren't sovereign (e.g. New York). I would guess "nation-state" has acquired it's current popular meaning because it is one of the few terms that unambiguously implies sovereignty, which is what the speaker is usually trying to emphasize.
- hammock 8y agoWhen the United States were created, they were intended to be sovereign (Articles of Confederation)
- ghkbrew 8y agoSure, that's how they were more or less envisioned. But they are not, leaving us with at least two meanings for the term "state".
- deaddodo 8y agoThe US isn't the only place to use "states". Austria, Germany, Argentina, Mexico, etc are all based around states. There's an important distinction between "states" and "provinces" that people tend to forget. Provinces are subdivisions of a larger entity, usually a unitary State, and inherit their powers from it. States, on the other hand, grant a central arbiter powers via cession; almost exclusively in the form of a federation or confederation.