HOW TO DEFINE THE STATE?

When the behaviour of the state in regional integration is analysed it is necessary to adopt a fresh point of view. This new point of view requires the departure from old views and also from their definitions. Neorealism represents here these more traditional views and it is used as a point of departure in this chapter in order to help to demonstrate how the viewpoint of this study differs from the mainstream IR. The viewpoint of neorealism is to some extent limited if one tries to define what is the state. Neorealism separates international and national realms from each other and defines the state only in terms of its international position (Waltz 1979, 96). This kind of approach can be justified if the object of the study is specifically the state's role in the international system, but this approach also reduces the relevant factors and motivations of state behaviour in its foreign policy to the international realm. In other words, domestic considerations and motives would not have any role in the state's foreign policy. If one wants to define the state in a more general manner, one suitable definition could be Max Weber's classical definition of the state:

'…a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.'

(Weber 1947, 78)

As Alexander Wendt points out Weber's definition is the most suitable for systemic IR (for example, for neorealism) (Wendt 1999, 199). This is because Weber's definition is not much concerned with the relationship between the state and society. Therefore, this definition is also suitable for such approaches of IR, which consider that the domestic level does not have much importance in international politics.

As said (neo)realism alone is not a suitable approach in integration studies (see pages 62-63), because it cannot sufficiently grasp the motivations behind state behaviour in this kind of process. As concluded in the previous chapter it is necessary to enlarge the analysis to cover also domestic matters, which also implies that in this case it is necessary to redefine (although not to replace) Weber's definition somehow. As Weber's definition shows he considers the state to be relatively independent of society. The state performs certain functions for society (internal and external security), but society does not affect the 'content' or nature of the state (Wendt 1999, 199-200). But as was said above also

society matters in regional integration and this is naturally the direction in which the definition has to be enlarged.

Weber's definition can nevertheless act as a starting point for further exploration.

First of all, Weber's definition reveals that states are in no way given. A state can be replaced with a new human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. This new state can be almost similar to its predecessor, but it can also be dramatically different. A state can dissolve into smaller states or be subsumed by a larger one. In other words, a state is always a social construction, and can at any time be replaced with another construction. From this it logically follows that in order to exist the state has to reproduce itself continuously. In this reproduction certain features of Weber's definition should nevertheless be highlighted. First of all, a state is always tied to a territory – a state cannot exist without a territory. By definition, a state is the only actor that can use legitimate physical force within its territory, and therefore it has to be capable to defend its territory and its ability to exercise this right against external actors. This naturally refers to the concept of sovereignty as understood in IR. What is unclear in this definition, is the concept of the 'monopoly of the legitimate use of violence'. A state cannot exist without the monopoly of violence either. In internal matters, the monopoly of violence acts as a last resort, if there are no other options the state can always back its right to use its internal sovereignty with violence. The monopoly of violence can also be turned outwards when it backs the external sovereignty of the state. However, it is not sufficient just to hold this monopoly, it has to be also legitimate. But legitimate in whose eyes? This clearly refers to society, but Weber's definition does not clarify the relation between state and society further.

The Weberian approach is naturally not the only definition of the state and the concept has been approached also from many other angles that have also combined society in the picture. For example, Alexander Wendt tries to clarify the state-society relation and its effect on the interest formation of the state by combining in his presentation also two other definitions of the state, namely pluralist and Marxist (Wendt 1999, 198-202). Pluralists emphasise the role of society and Marxist place their emphasis on the structure that binds the state and society together. Wendt tries to build a systemic theory of IR, which assumes that states are actors, and therefore the Weberian approach is

his starting point. He nevertheless acknowledges that the state cannot exist without society, which naturally increases the value of the pluralist approach. The Marxist view is then important because it helps us to understand the relation between the state and society. A state governs the society in which it is embedded and this occurs through the structure of political authority. As a result, Wendt defines the state as follows:

‘the referent object of ‘the state’ should be conceptualized as an

organizational actor that is internally related to the society it governs by a structure of political authority…’

(Wendt 1999, 201).

It is also possible to define the state on the basis of these three approaches: Weberian, pluralist and Marxist, but in a way, which serves theorising in this study better.

A state is a human community that claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. A state is not given but a social construction that reproduces itself continuously. In order to do this, it has to maintain its legitimacy in its relations with the society it is embedded in and, on the other hand, be able to maintain an adequate degree of external sovereignty.

As this definition shows the Weberian definition is important also here. The legitimate use of violence within a certain territory and its successful defence are essential elements of statehood. What is added to Weber's definition is the constructed nature of the state from where it logically follows that continuous self-reproduction is a requisite for the existence of the state. This reproduction takes place in two different dimensions: external and internal. The external dimension refers to the maintenance of an adequate degree of external sovereignty, which is more or less what neorealism understands as the national interest. The internal dimension, i.e. the state-society relation, emphasises the role of society and separates this definition most clearly, for example, from the neorealist view.

This definition shows that defence of external sovereignty cannot be the only national interest of the state, because the state cannot be defined only in relation to its external relations, i.e. in relation to other states. A state's existence depends also on the society in which it is embedded. The state governs society by a structure of political authority through which it tries to maintain its legitimacy. From this it follows that there has to be at least one additional national interest: the maintenance of the legitimacy in the

eyes of society. The structure through which the governance occurs can vary over time and place, which also gives various appearances for the state-society relation. The content of this relation is very different, for example, in democratic and authoritarian states. But regardless of the actual political system it can be argued that in all states the basis of the authority of the state lies in its right to use violence. The state has various means to make its citizens conform with its decisions and authority, but in the end it can always also resort to the use of violence.