Arnold Wolfers pointed out that in the Anglo-American concep- tualization of the international system versus the nation-state, the most persistent image has been one of international discord versus internal order and civility.
I disagree with him, as a nation-state does not necessarily reflect order and civility, and some African countries are great examples of that.
without being permitted to ensure that these resources are effectively and prop- erly used.
If resources are placed in the hands of corrupt statesmen, then what is the point of sending them in the first place? Those corrupt rulers will probably waste them and the people will keep suffering. A system of surveillance over the use of resources has to be developed.
which would legitimate an international theory of morality based on assumptions of social jus- tice that have heretofore been largely confined to internal politics.4
I do not understand this part
it appears that other African states had given their tacit consent to the action, and may even have solicited it
What evidence of consent does the writer have?
Any international actor that seeks to interfere by force or any other illegitimate means in the affairs of a member state is almost certain to be confronted by a con- demnation of its actions by most other states
Then why didn't most states condemn Israel for illegitimately interfering in Palestine and causing long term destruction there? The statement above is not reflective of reality
The success of the O.A.U. is indicated by the fact that the majority of the numerous disputes among its mem- bers have been contained through its internal political process
If the O.A.U is effective in containing disputes, why wasn't it able to solve the conflict between Egypt and Ethiopia over the Renaissance dam?
In sum, the ideology of Pan-Africanism has been expressed in the acceptance of the inherited colonial jurisdic- tion
I do not understand why.
Second, there is a common interest in the support of international rules and institutions and state jurisdictions in the African region that derives from the common vulnerability of states and the insecurity of statesme
Does that mean that African states accept the rules of international society, even if they do not want to, out of fear of external and internal threats?
which was directed at political independence and the free- dom of the continent from European rule.
The problem, from my point of view, is that Africans did not think about the period of post-independence. All their efforts were aimed at independence and freedom. Then what about after acquiring this freedom? They did not think of the growth, development, and innovation needed for their states to rise. They viewed independence as their goal, when in fact it was just the beginning.
Empirically these entities are really microstates, but juridically they are full-fledged states.
I have always thought that the empirical and juridical definitions of a state are the same. But after reading this article, I could clearly see the difference. Also, I think the international society should help weak states politically and economically, so that they would be states empirically, not only juridically.
equires full respect for the frontiers we have inherited from the colonial system."3
I disagree with him greatly. How can he respect the borders inherited from the colonial systems when those borders were artificial and arbitrary according to Samuels? Those artificial borders were one of the major causes of having multiple political identities that do not want to live with each other, which contributed to state ineffectiveness and weakness.
but inter- national society does not promote the welfare of individuals and private groups within a country or transnational groups among countries; nor does it protect individuals or private groups from their governments.2
I do not understand why wouldn't international society protect people from their possibly abusive or corrupt governments. State sovereignty is and won't be more important than the people. Without citizens, state sovereignty is a mere illusion.
Political scientists do not need to be convinced of the limitations of an exclusively legalistic approach to the state
The juridicial understanding of a state is undoubtedly important, but if we consider it alone then we risk having an incomplete understanding of the state. A juridicial approach to the state has to be accompanied by an empirical approach.
By Weber's definition, the basic test of the existence of a state is whether or not its national government can lay claim to a monopoly of force in the territory under its jurisdiction.
I do not think that Weber's definition is comprehensive. This is due to the fact that some states, who do not have a monopoly of force still exist. If having a monopoly of force was the only criterion for state existence, then some of the African states that do not exercise monopoly over force would not have existed and continued existing until this moment.
rican economies are among the poorest and weakest in the world:
Africa contained raw materials such as rubber, timber, gold, and ivory. Such resources could have made African economies thriving. The question is "Where are those valuable raw materials?" And "Can colonizing countries such as Britain be the primary cause of the current shortage or absence of those resources?"
In our judgment, the capacity of Africa's governments to exercise control hinges upon three factors: domestic authority, the apparatus of power, and economic circumstance
I think that this part is important.
Despite over- whelming superiority in men and equipment, the Nigerian Federal Army had great difficulty in defeating the forces of B
I think that lack of unity and absence of military strategies and organization may be the primary reasons for the difficulty faced by the Nigerian Army in defeating Biafra's forces.
"there were times when the Federal Army seemed to have lost the will to win."2
This may be partially due to a low level of nationalistic patriotism. I think that the army contains several political identities and different ethnicities, which in turn resulted in low levels of nationalistic patriotism.
Undoubtedly the biggest problem of both civilian and military administrations in Africa is the questionable reliability of staffs
Is there a mechanism by which the problem of inefficient state apparatus can be solved in African countries? If yes, why wasn't it implemented?
soldiers in Black Africa have become not only government officials, but also rulers of their countries
An example would be Sadat, Nasser, and Mubarak who were army officers and later became presidents of Egypt
Constitutional and institutional offices that are independent of the per- sonal authority of rulers have not taken root in most Black African countries
What gave rise to such a phenomenon? And could Egypt be an example?
Recent African politics have been char- acterized by the opposition of most African governments to competitive party system
I understand that political participation and competing are some of the rights of political parties. But I still see governments as vindicated in opposing competitive party systems, as their competition can possibly lead to disorder or even civil wars.
. Efforts by African gov- ernments to emphasize the "nation" and "nationalism"
This reminded me of Egypt. Series that spread nationalism such as The Choice and that was broadcasted in Ramadan. Also, channels show short videos of the abuses done by the Muslim Brotherhood during the period of their reign and emphasizes the importance of defending Egypt as one unit against enemies.
The populations of many Black African countries are divided internally among several-and often many-dis- tinctive ethnic entities by differences of language, religion, race, region of residence, and so forth.
I think that this is largely due to colonialism, as was explained in Samuels' reading.
many ethnic entities are divided by international boundaries, with members residing in two or more countries
An example of this can be the Kurds, who reside in areas of Turkey, Iraq, and Iran.
an effective government,
How does Brownlie define an effective government? I think that it has to be more precise.
, a limitation of Brownlie's is the tendency to postulate that the empirical attributes of statehood-i.e., a permanent population and effective government-are as definite as the juridical attributes;
Why are judicial attributes more definite than empirical ones? Does this imply that the law is rigid and unchanging even if a change is necessary?
By Weber's definition, a few of Africa's governments would not qualify as state
If some African governments do not qualify as states, then why are they still recognized as states by others states and exist on the world map as states?
two concurrent monopolies of force cannot exist over one territory and population
I kind of disagree with this statement, as for example in Syria, the state army and ISIS both have monopolies over force and exist.
the populations are divided along ethnic lines; in some, there has been a threat of political disorder stemming from such divisions
This shows how having diverse political identities in a state can weaken it and lead to chaos and disorder. Also, this highlights that early forming European states tried to annihilate diverse political identities and support a common national political identity to avoid chaos being prevalent in their territory, as opposed to the late forming African states who didn't have neither time nor resources after decolonization to do so (Samuels, 2012).
ome governments have periodically ceased to control substantial segments of their country's territory and population.
Can the Lebanese Hezbollah be an example of an uncontrolled segment of the population?
disorder has deteriorated into civil warfare.
Like the civil war that occurred between white settlers and black African insurgents in Zimbabwe, as mentioned in Samuels' reading.
f protection rackets represent organized crime at its smoothest, then war making and state making - quintessential protection rackets with the advantage of legitimacy - qualify as our largest examples of organized crime.
I feel that Tilly is very critical of state making to the extent that he compares it to organized crime. I think that he is biased towards a certain point of view.
w ar had every political recommendation and every financial draw back.
The financial disadvantages of war are expressed in the fact that money is needed for troops and their training, equipment, and organizational plans needed to fight the wars. Also, is the highlighted statement an irony?
clients
Does clients refer to citizens or state supporters?
Why war?
The same question kept popping in my mind as I read this article. I think that there are more advantageous alternatives to war, such as negotiations for instance.
The extension of the Europe-based state-making process to the rest of the world, however, did not result in the creation of states in the strict European image.
I agree with this and it can be proved by the example of Zimbabwe mentioned in Samuels' piece. The state of Zimbabwe was created after colonization ended, but it was not created in the European image.
Any state that failed to put considerable effort into war making was likely to disappear.
As war making led partially to state formation, maintaining war making was crucial for the state to continue existing. However, maintaining war making can lead to financial problems that could destroy a state.
If citizens in general exercised effective ownership of the government -
I do not think that citizens would ever be able to exercise effective ownership of the government. If they were able to, states wouldn't have existed from the beginning.
What distinguished the violence produced by states from the violence delivered by anyone else?
I think that the violence produced by anyone would be unjust and harmful, but violence produced by states should be just and done for the benefit of all citizens. For example, if someone kills another, the state punishes him to stop him from killing more people. This shows a beneficial use of violence: supposedly state violence.
the managers of states formed alliances with specific social classes.
Such a social class may be the elites for example. With their money, connections, and power, they could benefit the state.
W hen ordinary people resisted vigorously, authorities made concessions: guarantees of rights, representative institutions, courts of appeal.
Do people have to resist in order for authorities to give them some of their basic rights? Why do people always have to struggle to live and to take what's theirs, such as their rights?
state making actually reduces the protection given some classes.
Why is state making associated with inequality and injustice?
as well as of debt
Why would countries increase their debt and risk that their economies would weaken for war making? Why don't they let go of war making, saving themselves from debt and ensuring their economic security?
however, war making provided the main stimulus to increases in the level of taxation
This point is similar to Samuels argument, which is that rulers needed to extract taxes to fund the military for war making.
the increased cost of fortifications
Why did the costs of fortifications increase?
He then claims that the improvement of artillery in the fifteenth century (cannon made small medieval forts much more vulnerable to an organized force) shifted the curve of economies and diseconomies to make larger armies, standing armies, and centralized governm ents advantageous to their masters.
Without a centralized government, a large army would have nothing to administer it and thus would be ineffective.
according to Bean, military innovation promoted the creation of large, expensive, well-armed national states.
I think that Samuels stated something similar to this when he said that the medieval military advancements made rulers increase military spending to have strong armies for fighting wars, which contributed to early state formation.
Yet the same magnates were potential rivals, possible allies of a rebellious people.
Why did governments collaborate with magnates if they were possible allies of the rebellious people?
A king's best source of armed supporters was sometimes the world of outlaws.
This statement makes me think again of the concept of power. Leaders' extreme desire to preserve or expand their power makes them work with the outlaws they are supposed to punish for committing wrongful acts. Consequently, this would undermine the credibility of both rulers and the state itself.
Power holders did not undertake those three momentous activities with the intention of creating national states
I think that they undertook those factors with the aim of maintaining sovereignty over their territory, as explained by Samuels, or even expanding their territory.
War making, extraction, and capital accumulation interacted to shape European state making.
This reminded me of Samuels' argument, which is that the need to conduct wars led to the need to extract taxes in order to fund those wars. All of this contributed to European state making.
Since governments themselves commonly simulate, stimulate, or even fabricate threats of external war
I disagree with the idea that governments "commonly" fabricate threats of external wars. If governments commonly fabricate such threats, then there are no real threats and the world is perfectly fine. Real threats exist and jeopardize the safety of multiple countries and if anyone looks around him, he would easily identify those threats. Moreover, I think that if threats are commonly fabricated, we would easily know that. In our technology characterized world, differentiating between fabricated and real threats would not be a difficult task.
It will therefore help us to eliminate faulty implicit comparisons between today's Third World and yesterday's Europe,
I agree with Tilly, as the conditions faced by yesterday's Europe differ greatly from the ones that third world countries currently face.
It will show us that coercive exploitation played a large part in the creation of the European states.
Does coercive exploitation refer to colonialism?
In fact, until recent decades, no sovereign central political authority existed in many places around the world, even in theory.
This makes me wonder how did no one figure out, except recently, that central authority is the key solution to many problems existing in a certain territory.
Social Effectiveness Score
Can "whether citizens engage in activities such as sports oor joining organizations" added?
state repression
I think that state repression is too broad and must be defined.
Political Effectiveness
Can "whether elections are fair or not" be added to political effectiveness?
he State Fragility Index
On which basis are some items placed placed under legitimacy and others under effectiveness?
in many cases, they have relied on graft and manipulation of the political rules to stay in power—a process that perpetuates state weakness.
Does that mean that power makes leaders blind to the degree that they would manipulate the rules just to stay in power? Instead of trying to benefit their people, they harm them just for staying in power?
State weakness can, thus, result in a proliferation of armed groups outside the control of state security forces, corruption, civil conflict, and trafficking in drugs, weapons, and even humans.
Can Syria and Libya be correct examples of such state weakness and its consequences?
A dominant ethnic group exists in both countries,
If one dominant ethnic group exists in Zimbabwe, then why did a civil war occur?
Zimbabwe was wracked by 15 years of civil war
This relates to the point of the importance of having a common national political identity in order to have a strong sovereign state.
Such difficult terrain weakens states’ capacity to control their own borders and police their own territory, provide public services, extract taxes, and prevent smuggling.
This statement reminded me of Sinai, Egypt. Many weapons and terrorists entered Egypt through Sinai, which is a mountainous region. Its difficult terrain makes it difficult for Egyptian authorities to secure it.
In many cases of early state formation, rulers often deliberately created and bolstered the legitimacy of a common national political identity, simultaneously weakening or destroying diverse local political identities.
I believe that having a common national political identity is extremely important for the strength of a state. When there are many political identities in a state, their interests usually conflict and the state eventually weakens. Even during celebrations or difficult times such as wars, the state would lack cohesion and unity.
When they became independent, these former colonies inherited artificial boundaries that had little or nothing to do with either geography or the distribution of ethnic, religious, or linguistic identity groups.
Why wasn’t this fixed? Why weren’t the boundaries redrawn in order to be accurate and fair?
In short, for many late-forming states, the legacy of European colonialism was poverty and ineffective and illegitimate government institutions.
Colonialism destroyed the colonized countries and annihilated their future chances of becoming powerful independent states. There should’ve been some form of organization to prevent colonialism: a legitimate organization that is powerful to the extent that states would conform to its rules and decisions. Colonizing countries should’ve been punished for the long term destruction they caused in the countries they colonized.
Even after the Cold War ended in 1990, the pattern continued: the number of civil wars increased, while the number of interstate wars remained fairly low.
Why did such a phenomenon of civil war increase take place?
Geography is not always destiny—places with similar natural envi-ronments do not always have similar political systems.
Western countries may have had the good fortune to be located in areas where crops thrive. But without hard work and effective political thinking, they would not have become as powerful as they are now.
The best answer to that question is that Europe had good luck rather than any particular advantage in brainpower or creativity, implying there is nothing inherently superior about Western cultures.
I think that there is nothing inherently superior about any culture, not only western ones.
This means that early state formation was triggered by war preparations
How can something as useful and integral as "states" be prompted by something as brutal as "wars"?
Warfare and taxation are necessary to establish and defend sovereignty over territory
Did some European rulers conduct wars to expand their territory rather than defend sovereignty over their territory?
Many contemporary states do not perfectly conform to these criteria of deperson-alized, complex central-government sovereignt
Why don't they conform to these criteria if conforming would make them powerful strong states?
When states are too weak, certain parts of society may also dominate the rest of society.
I wonder why states allow themselves to become weak to that degree? The statement above reminds me of Taliban’s recent control of the weak state of Afghanistan, though I am not sure if I gave a correct example.
nationalistic patriotism often motivates people toward valor on the battlefield
I think that nationalistic patriotism is more important than the size of the army or the equipment used by it on the battlefield. For example, the Muslims' army made up of only 300 men defeated the superior Qurayshi army, which consisted of 1000 men. I think that this victory is an example of the power of nationalistic patriotism.
and no other state recognizes Kurdistan as an independent state
Why do states oppose the idea of recognizing Kurdistan as an Independent state? Also, does the land they inhabit really belong to them? And is there evidence?
distinguishing the stateas a concept from the government.
I didn't know that they were two different concepts.
Hobbes suggested we willingly submit to such authority because the alternative—anarchy—is riskier to our ability to enjoy life.
I personally think that even a dictatorship is better than anarchy, as anarchies would jeopardize both our life and material security.
In the state of nature, “might makes right”: the strong do what they want, while the weak do whatever they must to survive
I think this highlights how selfish and self interested we are as humans. Also, the above statement emphasizes the importance of establishing a just sovereign state to avoid living in inequality similar to that of the state of nature.
because it required popular consent rather than divine right or coercion
Why is the writer stating "popular consent rather than coercion" when the popular consent is actually a consent to coercion or authoritative public decisions?
focus on the ways states and their rulers regulate what people do with their time, money, property, minds, and bodies.
I cannot help but think of what would happen if the rulers that regulate all aspects of people’s lives (minds, bodies, property) turn out to be corrupt? I guess that citizens will be mere puppets of the state, living in complete ignorance and indignity. Therefore, I do not think that states should have a limited control over people's lives.
States—as the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes first told us—exist to prevent such situations from arising.
The fact that humans cannot reconcile their individual and collective interests without a “state” to do that for them highlights how weak and irrational we are.
Individuals, thus, often have an incentive to let every-one else do the hard work associated with public benefits.
I feel that I too, unfortunately, do the same thing. If there are people available to do the work related to public benefit, I do not even think of participating. I sometimes feel guilty, as others are doing my work for me.