4 ms·

You're actually both right. In international relations there's two competing notions of nationhood. One notion is being recognized as such by other countries.

You're actually both right. In international relations there's two competing notions of nationhood. One notion is being recognized as such by other countries. The other notion is having land, a permanent population, and a monopoly on violence. Let's call these de jure nationhood and de facto nationhood. Both notions have their faults (full disclosure, I am partial to the latter). De jure nationhood has absurdities like the order of Malta. De jure nationhood is also terribly misaligned with facts on the ground in cases like transnistria and Palestine. De facto nationhood comes with the bitter pill that anyone who can organize enough violence is instantly legitimate, which leads to recognizing some rather unsavory groups.

0815test 7y ago
> anyone who can organize enough violence is instantly legitimate, which leads to recognizing some rather unsavory groups. I'm not sure that this is the case. Perhaps instead of "monopoly on violence", we should rather talk about a "property right on violence" - the key is not so much organizing enough of it, but keeping it in check from others. Note that just "organizing enough violence" doesn't tell us much of anything about this while OTOH, not defending one's claim from opportunistic outsiders is meaningful evidence that one probably wouldn't be providing effective security even if some sort of conflict were to flare up entirely on its own.
- ummwhat 7y ago
  The term "monopoly on violence" does not mean the sole user of violence or even a frequent user, merely that anyone who wishes to use violence legitimately (aka legally) must get permission from the monopoly holder. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
  - 0815test 7y ago
    > that anyone who wishes to use violence legitimately (aka legally) must get permission from the monopoly holder. Yes, but then I kinda fail to unambiguously see what you mean by "unsavory" - if these groups are successfully regulating the use of violence within their territory, that means they're providing the most basic function of a state. It just seems to be a fact about society that new states originally get started mostly when "roving bandits" start providing basic security within some stable territory and thus acting as "stationary bandits". It's not that clear why the fact that these groups are "unsavory" should be an obstacle to acknowledging this dynamic.

0815test 7y ago

> anyone who can organize enough violence is instantly legitimate, which leads to recognizing some rather unsavory groups. I'm not sure that this is the case. Perhaps instead of "monopoly on violence", we should rather talk about a "property right on violence" - the key is not so much organizing enough of it, but keeping it in check from others. Note that just "organizing enough violence" doesn't tell us much of anything about this while OTOH, not defending one's claim from opportunistic outsiders is meaningful evidence that one probably wouldn't be providing effective security even if some sort of conflict were to flare up entirely on its own.

ummwhat 7y ago
The term "monopoly on violence" does not mean the sole user of violence or even a frequent user, merely that anyone who wishes to use violence legitimately (aka legally) must get permission from the monopoly holder. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
- 0815test 7y ago
  > that anyone who wishes to use violence legitimately (aka legally) must get permission from the monopoly holder. Yes, but then I kinda fail to unambiguously see what you mean by "unsavory" - if these groups are successfully regulating the use of violence within their territory, that means they're providing the most basic function of a state. It just seems to be a fact about society that new states originally get started mostly when "roving bandits" start providing basic security within some stable territory and thus acting as "stationary bandits". It's not that clear why the fact that these groups are "unsavory" should be an obstacle to acknowledging this dynamic.