Talk:State

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

Contents

[edit] Location location

Should this page not link to the disambiguation page about states? Even the etymolgy of the word implies that the first meaning was not about the US. Would anybody like to comment on this?

[edit] Page one

I've removed this sentence in a revert:

Note that a sovereignty shouldn't be confused with a monarchy.

The predicate that precedes it should be enough to rule such confusion out:

...a political entity possessing sovereignty, i.e. not being subject to any higher political authority.

If i'm mistaken and the edit i reverted is is an advance, let's discover that by a discussion here. --Jerzy 04:31, 2004 Jan 9 (UTC)


I certainly don't see the need for the sentence you took out given that the article talks of "sovereignity" not "a sovereignty". --(talk to)BozMo 13:32, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

However I disagree that in casual language state means the same as country. In the United Kingdom everyone accepts that Wales and Scotland are countries (e.g. on football) but noone says they are states.--BozMo|talk 15:58, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wales and Scotland are more like principalities, little or no power to themself but make up a larger, more powerful whole when added to england.

Also you only disagree with state meaning country because you are used to the bastardised english of using state as the same meaning as county as in US English Cokehabit 09:32, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The who in the what now?

Early in the The domestic point of view section there is a line that read: Its students emphasize the relationship between the state and its people.

Maybe I'm just blind or not familiar with this usage of the English language (not a native speaker) but who are the students in question here? --Biekko 16:56, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Recognition Requirement for a State

Since the Montevideo convention is accepted by some (declarative versus constitutive), in the introduction, shouldn't we recognize that although recognition by other states is important, it is not required under some theories?--BlueSunRed 18:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

If a state is not recognised by other states then does it have (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.? After all it takes two to tango so, if a state is not recongised by at least one other state it does not have the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Philip Baird Shearer 22:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The capacity to enter into relations is the capacity to be recognized; this is why people make constitutive statehood arguments for things like the Tamil Tigers and Abkhazia on the grounds of the Montevideo convention. It may take two to tango, but the treaty only requires that you can dance - not that you can find dance partners. Adam Faanes 23:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
surly to have the capacity to enter into relations with the other states the UDI state will have to have another state willing to enter into an agreement otherwise there is no capacity. Philip Baird Shearer 01:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
The Montevideo Convention continues in Article III "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts."[1] Besides which, if the "capacity to enter into relations" were tantamount to the real existence of relations, "capacity" would have lost any useful meaning in the phrase. Adam Faanes 22:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
The fourth criteria has generally be re-interpreted as "independence" -- in other words, the state is not beholden or controlled by another state. Thus, for example, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is unrecognized by every state except Turkey, partially because it is believed that it is more or less under the control of the Turkish military (and also, it is argued, because it was created because of an illegal act of aggression). The issue of recognition and its relationship with statehood is highly controversial. For further reading, I recommend Lauterpacht (1947) Recognition in International Law, Grant (200) Recognition of States, Dugard (1987) Recognition and the United Nations. For an interesting interpretation of this fourth clause see S v. Banda and Others 6 Feb 1989 'ILR 82' in which the supreme court of Bophuthatswana, a Bantustan "state" universally non-recognized argues, using the declaratory argument, that it is a sovereign state even though no nations will enter into relations with it. FunnyYetTasty 00:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creation of a State

A state is created when three of more people join together for a common political purpose and these people create a "jurisdiction". The restarting of a jurisdiction would also create a state, as long as there is some mechanism to enforce collective agreements. The U.S Founding Fathers contemplated this act in Amendment I. by allowing the people to peaceably assemble and "petition" government to redress a grievance. (a petition at this time would be the Writ of Habeas Corpus protected in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2). This implies...that Amendment I and IX contemplated many efforts of self determination (or self government) by the people. This skill and desire has been lost for many years.

Jim 21:10, May 18, 2005 (UTC)


I realise this is both an old comment and off topic from the article.. but this comment isn't right! that isn't what a state is at all, not according to law, governments, academics, anyone in fact. doing that would arguably makes you a self governing political community, but certainly not a state. a state needs both de jure and de facto statehood.. that would have neither (Mattimeus 00:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)).

[edit] Philosophers since Rousseau

"Philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau pondered issues concerning the ideal and actual roles of the state." Shouldn't we add some theorists on the State since Rousseau? He's certainly not the last word! E.g. Max Weber, who formulated the modern definition of the State - an institution with a monopoly of the legitimate use of force in a particular geographic area. And Franz Oppenheimer, author of "The State." And Albert Jay Nock, author of "Our Enemy the State." And Leopold Kohr, author of "The Breakdown of Nations." These are some of the 20th century classics about the State.

Weber, yes. The others, no. How about Rawls? Nozick? Even that guy who wrote about the market state -- cant' remember his name, Shield of Achilles was the book. Grace Note 23:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, good! Rawls and Nozick certainly spoke to the purpose of State. Nozick also did some work in 'invisible hand processes' that may justify some States. Yes, lets put them in. I'm a little surprised about your rejection of Oppenheimer. What about Murray Rothbard? ("Man, Economy, and State" etc.) Sample an essay of Rothbard's: The Anatomy of the State. That's my favorite "statism in one lesson" essay.
It's a question of stature. Rawls and Nozick are thinkers widely recognised and appreciated, whose names should be instantly recognisable to the reader in the same way as Rousseau's. We are not looking for a list of anyone who has ever had anything to say about the state, however interesting you or I might find what they had to say. Grace Note 06:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Curently the entire land surface of the Earth..."

User:Hogeye edited the article to include the following:

Currently the entire land surface of the Earth is divided among the territories of the roughly two hundred states now existing, with the exception of Somaliland (stateless since 1991 but unrecognized by the UN [1]) and the continent of Antarctica.

I previously corrected "more than two hundred states" to the vaguer but I think more accurate "roughly two hundred states," on the grounds that most if not all sovereign states and the United Nations do not recognize more than two hundred other states. Seven countries have partitioned Antarctica; the United States does not recognize these claims. The fact that these claims have been made by serious countries, however, forces us to qualify "with the exception...of Antarctica."

Somaliland is itself a state existing in the otherwise lawless country of Somalia. The author might have meant Somalia instead. The existence of the new transnational government complicates the matter, not to mention that most of the country is controlled by de facto states. There are other regions in the world that would qualify according to some rubric for being stateless - the interior of Colombia is lawless, along with the uplands of Uganda where the Lord's Resistance Army hangs out, the disputed Spratly Islands, Transnistria, the Triple Frontier region in South America, and probably a whole lot of other ones that could qualify with varying degrees of clarity. My point is that we probably don't need to be asserting any of them, particularly not in the introduction. It would be difficult to actively assert any selection of them without a serious discussion of what qualifies a state, and therefore statelessness, and why these territories qualify; a claim may well be enough, and since that is beyond the scope of the introduction, I think a vague reference to "disputed territories and the special case of Antarctica" would be better. Adam Faanes 4 July 2005 02:22 (UTC)

Someone wrote> "Somaliland is itself a state existing in the otherwise lawless country of Somalia."
This is mistaken. Somaliland is a stateless society, with competing legal/arbitration entities based on the Xeer (traditional law centuries old). What probably fooled the person above was that the UN does not recognize Somaliland - instead decreeing that the artificial colonial French, English and Dutch former colonies (Somalia, Somaland, and Puntland) are one State. This is simply a bald claim by the UN and those attempting to impose statist rule from afar (e.g. the constitution made by UN bureaucrats in Cairo, the installing of a Puntland warlord as "president" of Somalia even though the local won't recognize him, etc.) Anyway, if you study up a little bit on "Xeer" and "Somaliland" you'll see that only in foreign UN statists' eyes is Somaliland a part of Somalia. Hogeye 3 July 2005 16:49 (UTC)
In order to say that, you have to assert a definition of government, and indeed, you have to force your definition of what a state is on others before we have even entered into the topic - ironically, since that is what you accuse the United Nations of doing. This is not something that deserves to be put in the introduction. Besides which, the "Somaliland" entity has an army, a constitution, and a central bank. Beside that, the entire land area of the country is claimed by another recognized state (the new transnational government) which would, according to the constitutive theory of statehood we mention later in the article, deny Somaliland any chance at statehood. You cannot formally reject that theory in the introduction or else you're denying a fair hearing. Beyond that, the entity of "Somaliland has been titled a state by Le Monde[2], this policy analysis site [3], in its official news outlet[4], the Somaliland Times [5], the Ethiopian Addis Tribune [6], these political analysis of the situation [7] [8] [9], the Somaliland Policy and Reconstruction Insitute [10], the UN [11], Reporters sans frontieres [12], this news service [13], and most glaringly, in its constitution[14]. But all that is irrelevant beyond demonstrating that the issue is controversial, and it is not something that should be asserted in the introductory section of the article.Adam Faanes 4 July 2005 02:22 (UTC)

[edit] Nutrality

The following paragraph seems to have a subtle but biased tone regarding the current situation in iraq:

For Weber, this was an "ideal type", or model, or pure case of the state. Many institutions that have been called "states" do not live up to this definition. For example, a country such as Iraq (as of April 2005) would not be seen as truly having a state since the ability to use violence was shared between the U.S. occupiers and a variety of independent or insurgent militias (plus "terrorist" groups), while order and security were not maintained. The official Iraqi government had very limited military or police power of its own. The official Iraqi government also lacked sovereignty because of the role of U.S. domination. In fact, it might be said that while the Iraqis have a government, it is the U.S. military occupiers (and their allies, the U.K., etc.) that constitute the state. Even that state has so far not succeeded in monopolizing the legitimate use of force in Iraq and so represents a "failed state".

Perhaps i'm reading too much into it, but after reading it several times it still gives a certain 'feel' suggesting illegitimacy towards International presense in iraq. It's very minor issue i agree however i do believe that paragraph could be writen in a more neutral form while still demonstrating the point. I'm refering to wording such as U.S. occupiers, plus "terrorist" groups, and U.S. military occupiers (and their allies, the U.K., etc.). 82.28.25.177 10:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The term "occupier" is very neutral - the United States clearly meets the definition of an occupying power as established by international law. "Terrorist" is not at all a content-neutral term, so the quotation marks are necessary.Lagringa 03:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nation versus Country, and the State

There is a distinction made between "country" and "nation" where country has also been used to mean the body of people, its territory, and a single national government. Granted "nation" is a better description of a "country" to avoid the confusion of describing the less populated areas of a nation also called country. Country is still often used to describe a nation. State is correct when applied to a body of people with its territory under one government. The United States also makes distinctions for "state" to be one of its subdivisions under its Federal government where at the start of the United States each State was an independent entity. Each State of the United States does possess independent government capacities apart from the national government; and, the current United States took 218 years (with State being a Constitutional word of the supreme law of the land) and one civil war to look like it does in the year 2005.

[edit] Removed section

This section seems POV to me, and I have removed it:

For Weber, this was an "ideal type", or model, or pure case of the state. Many institutions that have been called "states" do not live up to this definition. For example, a country such as Iraq (as of November 2005) would not be seen as truly having a state since the ability to use violence was shared between the U.S. occupiers and a variety of independent or insurgent militias (plus so-called "terrorist" groups), while order and security were not maintained. The official Iraqi government had very limited military or police power of its own. The official Iraqi government also lacked sovereignty because of the role of U.S. domination. In fact, it might be said that while the Iraqis have a government, it is the U.S. military occupiers (and their allies, especially the U.K.) that constitute the state. Even that state has so far not succeeded in monopolizing the legitimate use of force in Iraq and so represents a "failed state".

I'd like to see some more citation and an NPOV re-write if this goes back into the article. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 08:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, looks line an anon thought so as well above. Anyone have any thoughts on sources for the above assertions? Ëvilphoenix Burn! 08:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I think it should be left out entirely; we can find better examples that won't attract controversy needlessly in this article, if we need to. The qualifications we'd have to attach to "Iraq [is or is not] a failed state" would have to be huge if we were to make it NPOV and would kind of defeat the purpose I think. Adam Faanes 08:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I have restored a (short) discussion of failed states while making no reference to Iraq. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 04:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Better, but it would also help if you could cite a source for the sentence "These cases are sometimes called failed states". Who calls them that? Ëvilphoenix Burn! 04:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Improvement drive

A related topic, History of the world is currently a nomination on WP:IDRIVE. Support the article with your vote to improve its quality. --Fenice 14:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

I do not buy the etymology proposed in the article:

"The word "state" originates from the medieval state or throne upon which the head of state (usually a monarch) would sit."

The way I see it the the origin of state is The States, i.e. the feudal parliament representing the estates of the realm. (See also States-General.) The word estates is again derived from estate meaning land or land ownership. Estate has its orign on Latin aestas, aestatis, Latin for summer. (See Wiktionary.)

(The way summer came to mean land is most likely that Romans owned summer houses, but that is outside the scope of this discussion.) Petri Krohn 02:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Oxford dictionary claims estate to be derived form the latin status and st{amac}-re (to stand) which gave rise to the whole staat, etat, estate, state thing.
--Dawnfrenzy 03:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The historian Quentin Skinner, in his article "The State," in the book "Political Innovation and Conceptual Change," has traced it to the Latin status (condition, situation), both in the phrase status rei publicae ("the condition of the republic") and in the idea of the "state of the king" (the "statu hominum" or status of the king). Xmarquez 02:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The orign may be Latin: statùs, but the explanation given above is totally wrong. State is a cognate of French: État and German: Stände, both refer to the Estates of the realm. The German article de:Ständeordnung claims that Stände originates from Latin: statùs. -- Petri Krohn 05:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if Petri Krohn is referring to the explanation in Skinner or to the explanation in the page or earlier in this discussion. Are you saying that French: État is unrelated to Latin: statùs or that it is not related to the tradition of political thought that draws on the Latin terminology of the "status" of the king or of the realm (see Skinner reference above)? I don't see why in a section on the etymology of the word "state" the Latin origins would not be mentioned, especially as these are important in the Roman law tradition that Skinner identifies. At any rate the notion that the word "state" derives from the "regal chair" needs a reference Xmarquez 21:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  1. We have a conflict in the sources; Wiktionary:estate states that estate is derived from Latin: aestas for summer. Other sources state that estate - etat - state - staat - stande is derived from Latin: statùs. Can both of these be right?
  2. I do not believe that English: Setate or French: État refer to the status of the king (or his seat). They refer to The States, an assembly of the Estates of the realm. The state is thus not the King but the People. -- Petri Krohn 16:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Petri Krohn, I'm not sure why state could not refer both to the king and to the people. The modern term "state" amalgamates both king (L'etat c'est moi) and people (the estates of the realm), and the "estates" of the realm are nothing other than the different legal "statuses" recognized in feudal law (clerical, noble, common). I do not think the Latin "aestas" has anything to do with the etymology of "state" or even "estate," however: see the various etymologies here, all of which derive estate from middle English/Old French estat, or condition, ultimately from the latin status. See especially the citation from the Online Dictionary of Etymology, by Douglas Harper. We could rewrite the section to reflect the dispute, though: some claim it's derived from X, others from Y. Xmarquez 06:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poll: Ireland article titles

A poll is currently underway to determine the rendition of the island, nation-state, and disambiguation articles/titles for Ireland in Wp. Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Astharoth1 rewrite

Frankly, I believe this page is on the whole disatrous. 1. I tried to strip the definition to the bear minimum. 2. For instance, sovereignty is important for the first succint definition, but not the Montevideo convention. 3. A "definite" territory is not necessary for a state. There are over a thousand borders disputes. (i.e. the even the United states has disputes over the continental shelf in the gulf of Mexico). 5. A government is not necessary for the definition nor for the existence of a state. There is constant confusion between the government of the state. Finally, I believe that the user "cut and pasted" the definition of "State" from the Montevideo convention without analizing its theoretical implications and legalistic (normative) points of view. The said convention is marginal to the contemporary study of the state. Astharoth1 07:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

(I moved the above comment to end of page in line with convention -- Petri Krohn 13:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC))
I think the re-write has been done well and more accurately reflects the state. I would perhaps add a more modern 'globalized' network theory of the state to the theories section, however. Robdurbar 17:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, I would argue that this section largely ignores more recent crtical theories of the state in favour of older, realist views Robdurbar 17:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. It still neeeds polishing and have an entire section of postmodern theories of the state.Astharoth1 20:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm afraid any addition from me will probably have a natural geography bias, whilst this is probably more the realm of a political scientist Robdurbar 23:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big edit

I've just made an edit that I couldn't summarise in the edit summary, so here is what I did:

  • Turned the ad hoc disambiguation link at the top into {{Otheruses}}. IMO saying in the dablink what the article is about is pointless - if the article doesn't say this itself in the first paragraph, there's something wrong with it.
  • Similarly, "For further information" turned into {{Further}}.
  • The "synonyms" section referred to other meanings of "state", which are homonyms, not synonyms, so I changed the heading accordingly.
  • Removed the flags from this section - what's the point in them? Country names aren't marked out with their flags anywhere else in this article, let alone the rest of Wikipedia (apart from a couple of templates).
  • In the "international level" section, turned "see also" into {{Seealso}}.
  • In same section, removed weird garbage characters.
  • Other miscellaneous style edits.

Hairy Dude 21:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Definitions of states

Perhaps a few examples of "entities which are states" and "entities which are not states" could be included: the borderline between Andorra and Moresnet, Vatican City State and Mount Athos etc. Were entities such as the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Ottoman Empire and Russian Empire states in the sense we would use now?

Questions - slightly tongue in cheek - several states have been declared bankrupt in the past. What legal (international or local) proceedures would have to be followed if it was decided to follow the normal course of action for a bankrupt organisation?

Rulers used to sell their territories to each other or the inhabitants thereof: could a similar process happen now, and what proceedures would have to be followed?

Jackiespeel 15:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erroneous conception of Marxist socialism

Before corrections:

Further, in Marxist theory, classes and other forms of exploitation should be abolished by establishing a socialist system, to be followed later by a communist one. Communism, the final goal, is a classless, propertyless and stateless society; however, socialism still preserves personal property and a (democratic) state. Thus, Marxism is opposed to the state (which it views as illegitimate, in accordance with the conflict theory), but does not wish to abolish the state immediately. As such, there is some overlap between Marxism and contractarianism: the socialist state that Marxists wish to establish as their short-term goal is to be based on a form of social contract. This state ought subsequently to slowly "wither away" as the representative democracy of socialism gradually transforms into the direct democracy of communism. Once the process is complete, the communist social order has been achieved and the state no longer exists as an entity separate from the people.

I added the obvious link to Stateless communism; although it's only a stub at the moment, I intend to expand it (with YOUR help, I hope!). This is not really an error, though.

Errors:

  • that socialism preserves private property
    • actually, beyond one's own small personal possessions (like your shoes), you can't own a huge tract of land or factory or business and hire laborers at a profit
      • More specifically, private property in Marxist socialism refers to elements involved in production e.g. the means of production, your car is not "private property" in this sense.
  • that socialism preserves a democratic state
    • actually, its a dictatorship in which the government suppresses all opposition
      • ACTUALLY, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is meant as a transitory element after the seizure of state power by the working class. In Marxist socialist theory, dictatorship does not have the same connotations as a fascist dictatorship and is more in line with the ancient Roman notion. The goal of the dictatorship of the proletariat is to seize state power and democratize decisions more so than in current capitalist democracies which aren't legitimate democracies.
  • that all states are illegitimate
    • I clarified that Marxists see the socialist state as the lone exception (albeit tempororay)
  • that socialism is a representative democracy
    • certainly not true in USSR, China or other major Communist states - these are all one-party states

---the status of these countries as "socialist" or "communist" is debatable. Even if they are accepted as such they are specifically Marxist-Leninist, Maoist, etc. Socialism doesn't necessarily entail any such theoretical association.

  • that stateless communism will be direct democracy.
    • Never heard of this before: how can there be "democracy" with no "state"? I thought it was more of a benign anarchic paradise

---democracy does not require a proper state as it is simply decision by consensus.

Please discuss any or all of the above, rather than simply reverting.

And please do not make major changes and an unannounced archive at the same time, with no comments. You've been around long enough to know better. --Uncle Ed 14:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

Filled with so many idiosyncratic off-topic tangents, the old article was unsalvageable. I replaced the old article with a more concise and tightly focused rewrite based on text long languishing in my user sandbox User:172/State. Various sections of the new article still need expansion. I will be expanding them shortly. I will be watching this article closely to address any comments and concerns. 172 | Talk 14:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Archiving and page blanking

It looks to me like your "archiving" is an attempt to

  1. cut off discussion
  2. make it difficult for contributors besides you to determine whether your massive rewrite has any bearing on previous discussions.
  3. "own the talk page"

Any of these 3 reasons would be grounds to postpone an archive. Please wait until and unless there is consensus before doing an archive. --Uncle Ed 14:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Writing Ed Poor in an edit summary is not a reason of any kind for reverting. It's not even a bad reason, it's just a person's name. Please refrain from any further reverts until there is a consensus for archiving.

[edit] Recovery from edit conflict

172 wrote this - sorry I had to move it because he didn't use the "+" function and wasn't editing a section:

Ed Poor, the dispute might as well be personal. You are attacking my motives, and you don't even have a specific objection to anything in the content of my rewrite. Stop acting to prevent the improvment in the quality of articles. 172 | Talk 15:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I had to cut and paste this here. I will leave the page for a few minutes while you put it where it really should go, if I have erred. --Uncle Ed 15:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I started this rewrite months ago in User:172/State. I'd show you the complement from another user that I received on my talk page. But for some reason I can't seem to access my talk page, or any user talk page, at the moment. By the way, tell me why I should not report you, asking that you be blocked for violating the 3RR and incivility on this page? 172 | Talk 15:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I should rather ask you that question. Your accusation that I am "attacking your motives" seems incivil to me. --Uncle Ed 15:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Ed Poor, frankly I think what you are doing has an efect that borders on vandalism. And I'm not talking about your motives; I'm talking about the consequences of your actions. My rewrite is a dramatic improvment. You have no specific objection to any of the content. Yet, you keep reverting back to the terribly written old version based on nothing more than ad hominems. And, yes, you are attacking my motives and being uncivil; you already accused me of attempting to "cut off discussion," "make it difficult for contributors... to determine whether [my] massive rewrite has any bearing on previous discussions" and "own the talk page." 172 | Talk 15:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Collaboration and page ownership

I agree with the literal (though perhaps unintended?) meaning of 172's edit summary:

Restoring this atrociously written article based on ad hominem innuendo borders on vandalism.

172, your actions border on vandalism. If you revert the article to your preferred version more than 3 times in a 24 hour period, that action will violate the 3RR rule. I request that you refrain from doing this.

I do not see how asking you to refrain from violating rules you know well, could possibly constitute a personal attack. We all have to follow the rules. Why are you taking this personally? I have nothing against you and am in fact eager to collobarate.

By the way, thank you for not blanking this page again. It will help all of us to work together if we can see the discussion - especially the last several hundred words.

None of us can judge whether our own work is well written or atrociously written. We must rely on the judgment of our peers. That is why article changes are usually made slowly, bit by bit. Or radical changes are made after discussion and consensus. Or at least are explained afterwards.

Continually reverting to one's own preferred version or refusing to discuss changes goes against the wiki spirit. Please catch the spirit!

I wrote the above before reading your last remark; there was another edit conflict, I'm not trying to "talk past you". Give me a moment to respond, please. --Uncle Ed 15:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that you can't seem to follow an ongoing discussion? Just about every talk page post I see you make includes a new heading. That makes it especially frustrating to deal with you. And by the way, since you were the first to revert, you'd be the first to violate the 3RR (which you already violated on the talk page by undoing the long-overdue archive of the talk page). And by the way, do you have any specific objection to my write? Ordinarily, users get complemented for rewriting and vastly improving articles. Yet, you seem to have an axe to grind against me. 172 | Talk 15:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I will try to be better at following the ongoing discussion. Now that we've agreed not to archive the talk page, I can refer to previous sections of the discussion.
Also, as much as possible, I will reply in 'thread mode' rather than starting new headings. You made the same suggestion at talk:Totalitarianism, I recall, and it is a good one!
I like good rewrites, and as I said above I reverted "without prejudice". Your rewrite was just too much, too fast. And combined with initial blanking of the talk page, it seemed to cut off discussion and prevent analysis and reflection.
I have no axe to grind with you, but I find your sudden large rewrites hard to follow. If instead of reverting all non-172 edits to your preferred version, you would discuss a few of them, I would not want to undo your reverts.
To address your motives (now that you have brought them up, since before now I have not said anything about them) ... What we perhpas have in common is a desire to improve the articles. Am I write in assuming you have this motive? And are you okay with my discussing with you the topic of your motives - or would you prefer to stick to the subject of the articles themselves?
I have nothing against you, and if you will tell me how you wish to proceed I will do the best I can to accommodate you. --Uncle Ed 15:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment on the content, not the contributor. There's nothing of substance in your comment above with respect to the substance of the article. If you actually have specific concerns about article content, I will address them. And by the way, I did not agree to stop archiving the talk page. You undid the archive by force by being willing to break the 3RR here. 172 | Talk 22:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Franz Oppenheimer

http://www.franz-oppenheimer.de/state0.htm One cannot understand the whole by studying only the parts, and if the whole is forgotten or explained away as unimportant. we condemn ourselves to ignorance. Dawson

[edit] Origins on the State

Unlike Locke and others, Oppenheimer rejected the idea of the "social contract" and contributed to the "conquest theory" of the State:

"The State, completely in its genesis, essentially and almost completely during the first stages of its existence, is a social institution, forced by a victorious group of men on a defeated group, with the sole purpose of regulating the dominion of the victorious group over the vanquished, and securing itself against revolt from within and attacks from abroad. Teleologically, this dominion had no other purpose than the economic exploitation of the vanquished by the victors."

"No primitive state known to history originated in any other manner. [1] Wherever a reliable tradition reports otherwise, either it concerns the amalgamation of two fully developed primitive states into one body of more complete organisation; or else it is an adaptation to men of the fable of the sheep which made a bear their king in order to be protected against the wolf. But even in this latter case, the form and content of the State became precisely the same as in those states where nothing intervened, and which became immediately 'wolf states'." (p. 15)

[edit] Ordering NPOV

Why is Marx mentioned first and not last in these cases:

The state is therefore considered the most central concept in the study of politics, and its definition is the subject of intense scholarly debate. Political sociologists in the tradition of both Karl Marx and Max Weber usually favor a broad definition that draws attention to the role of coercive apparatus.
  • 6 Contemporary theories of the state
    • 6.1 Marxism
    • 6.2 Pluralism
    • 6.3 Institutionalism

It seems to me that this article gives the sort of prominence to Marx that one would expect to see in an article of this type written 20 years ago in a left wing magazine. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Your post puzzles me. (Did you read the content of the section?) You suggest it is somehow better to be mentioned first instead of last. Actually, it's the other way around. In literature reviews in academic works, the auhtor works his/her way down to the more relevant, recent work from the older perspectives. The same is done here. The section on contemporary Marxian work on the state is first because the leading Marxist theorists of the state (Miliband, Poulantzas, and Louis Althusser) reached their peak of influence in Western political sociology in the 1960s and 1970s. The work of Robert Dahl, the leading theorist associated with pluralism, is somewhat more current; thus, it makes sense to describe pluralism after describing Marxism. The section on the "new institutionalism," strongly associated with the work of Theda Skocpol, must be placed after both the sections on Marxism and pluralism because "new institutionalist" work on the state is (a) more recent and, moreover (b) a critical response to both Marxism and pluralism. In this sense, it makes little sense to describe the critical response to Marxian and pluralist thinking on the state before we have described the Marxian and pluralist understanding of the state. Again, your post is quite puzzling, because the structure of the section implicitly suggests that Marxian thought on the state has passed its heyday-- far from giving it more prominence. 172 | Talk 21:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Government or The State

A distinction needs to be made between "government" and "The State". The former is simply the question "Who (a person) may coerce whom to do x?" The latter is the invention of Machiavelli, and is a machine, not a person. The former has been always with us; the latter starts in the 17th Century, and becomes independent of its operator with the French Revolution. July 2006 - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.71.118.255 (talk • contribs) .

Not just that - there's also the distinction between country (something that can enter international agreements) and state (something that can sovereingly make and enforce laws, even if it has delegated some sovereignty to a larger entity). Zocky | picture popups 21:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Philosophies of the state"

I removed a section copied from the old version of the article restored by FETuriousness entitled "Philosophies of the state." I did so with strong reservations, given that the content is generally well-written, and serves to supplement the underdeveloped section of the article on "the state and modern political thought."

The "philosophies of the state" section, I think, cannot be salvaged. In both structure and content the section is based on the thesis of the original author, whoever he/she was, that there are specifically "four theories about the origin (and indirectly the justification) of the state." Yet categorizing the history of political thought is tremendously difficult and contested. The original author's thesis "four theories can accommodate the full spectrum of political views" (contractarianism, liberalism, Marxism, conservatism, and anarchism) on the state is reasonable, but too constraining.

Since classical antiquity, different political theorists have been drawing up different taxonomies for understanding different types of states and different ways of understanding the state. The article should focus itself on reporting different the different theories of the state, without becoming, like the "philosophies" section restored by FETuriousness, a work of state theory itself. In this sense, the article is best organized (a) chronologically, or (b) by the political and cultural context, rather than according to taxonomies developed by Wikipedia editors. 172 | Talk 21:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The disputed section is here: /Philosphies of the state. There does seem to be some OR-ish concern there. But I think some rewording might be able to address it, shy of broad deletion. For example, we need not claim that the four theories presented are exhaustive, but just that they are notable. I think probably something shorter with links to corresponding articles would suffice though. LotLE×talk 21:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
If you can figure out how to reword, that'd be great. The section isn't badly written and the OR isn't unreasonable, as far as I can tell. I was trying to do so myslef, but I was having trouble. 172 | Talk 22:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] State Failure, Weak and Strong States, Institutionalization

I'd like to encourage someone to take on these terms, given all the discussion these days about the risks that state failure or weak states present to the rest of the world. Thanks, anyone who has time to do this.--Mack2 20:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That'd be may area of expertise. I'll get around to expanding the coverage, hopefully. 172 | Talk 20:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I just discovered there's a decent stub of an article on Failed state, but it addresses only the issue of control over the use of force (a definitional criterion of a state) and not the causes and consequences, nor the broader issue of state institutionalization and legitimation (ability to rule without the use of force), performance, and so on.--Mack2 14:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] States of the Untited States of America and its territories

This article should really include how the status of the states of the USA, changed exsessivly during and after the civil war. Read this:

Awareness of the fact that there are two distinct classes of

citizenship in America is growing, but unfortunately most of the

information out there is factually incorrect to varying degrees regarding

the *basis* of citizenship.

Most people who are learning about citizenship know that there was

a particular status of Citizenship created and established in the

1775-1789 period, and that a second status of citizen was created by the

federal government later, and that this is the "citizen" referred to in

the fourteenth amendment, ratified (at least allegedly) in 1868. The

problem is that most people still don't understand, in a legal and

technical sense, howor why this is so. To understand this basis we have

to go back to the period when our dual constitutional system was formed.

There were originally, as we all know, thirteen states which by 1790

all united under the federal constitution proposed to them in 1787.

Through the Civil War an additional twenty-two states (the act of

congress admitting West Virginia was passed December 31st, 1862, although

it didn't go into effect until June of 1863) were admitted, for a total

of 35. While the war was still raging and everyone was distracted, the

federal government created, in the same physical space as the existing

35 states, 35 "federal States." These "States" had the same names and

the same physical boundaries as the real 35, so, apparently, the general

public didn't notice the changeover. However, you can't really have two

states in the same place. When the law says that something is true which

isn'ttrue (such as two states being in the same physical place), it's

called a legal fiction. So there was now the union of the 35 states, and

the new union of the 35 legal fiction "States" (it's far more complicated

than this; this is just a very brief overview). For the sake of

convenience, they will be referred to here as "states(1)" and the

"States(2)." Over the years, from 1864 through 1959, the federal

government added another fifteen States(2) into this second union, so

that it now totals 50.

The reason why there are two classes of citizens is because there

are two classes of states. There are, in contemplation of law, Citizens

of the 35 states(1) respectively, and citizens of the 50 States(2)

respectively.

This fact was discovered working backwards. Realizing that modern

law doesn't refer to the same "states" that we had back in 1789, from

there it was just a matter of tracing the existence of the States(2) back

to their origin. Here are just a few of the differences between the

states(1) from before the war, and the States(2) from after the war:


1. Up until the Civil War, the term "United States," when used in a

geographically, was always used in the plural. Since the war, it

has always been used in the singular.


2. Up through 1862, whenever congress wanted to extend a federal law

to the district of Columbia and the territories, as well as the

states(1), they'd write "the United States and their territories."

Since the term "United States" was only the collective name of the

states(1), the territories needed to be separately mentioned.


3. Beginning in 1864, a new form of expression has been used in the

laws, which now say that the terms "state" and "United States"

include the district of Columbia and the territories. Those places

were always within federal jurisdiction, which is also called the

"United States." This helped reveal the conclusion that the

"states" that have been referred to since no later than 1864 are

also within federal jurisdiction.


4. Prior to the war, the courts always ruled that the states(1) and

federal jurisdiction ("United States") were foreign nations to one

another. Since the war, the courts have always ruled that the

"states" aren not foreign to federal jurisdiction. This would be

true, of course, if the "states" referred to were in fact within

federal jurisdiction.


5. Prior to the war, the courts ruled that the states(1) were

  • nations*, subject to the law of nations and therefore members of

the family of nations. Since the war, the courts have ruled that

the States(2) are subdivisions of federal jurisdiction, that they

have no attributes of nationality, and that their power comes from

the federal constitution. What else could these States(2) be other

than federal entities?


6. Since the states(1) and federal jurisdiction were separate nations,

the courts of the former couldn not be compelled to execute the laws

of the latter. If they chose to do so, it was a matter of comity

- the courtesy among nations. Since the war, the courts have ruled

that the States(2) must execute all federal laws (except penal

laws).


7. Prior to the war, the courts always ruled that the allegiance which

the people had to the federal government was derived from their

state(1) Citizenship. After the war, the fourteenth amendment was

adopted (at least allegedly), and the courts have ruled that it

declares that people owe complete, direct, and immediate allegiance

to the federal government first, and their "state" citizenship is

secondary. The basis of this amendment is that the "states"

referred to are within federal jurisdiction - the 50 States(2).


8. The power to draft is based on citizenship. Prior to the war the

federal government never had, and never claimed, the power to draft

into the regular army, but only to out the state(1) militias.

Beginning with the war, the federal government has drafted people

into its armies, and done so on the basis that they were its

citizens.


9. Since the federal government was a foreign power with respect to the

states(1), and could only come within their borders to execute the

few governmental powers granted to it, it never had or claimed the

power to take land by eminent domain. If the federal government

wanted land, the state(1) had to take it under its eminent domain

power, and then transfer ownership to it. Since the war, the

federal government has exercised eminent domain over land itself,

and on the basis that the States(2) are within its territory.


10. Bouvier's Law Dictionary, which was published before the war, said

that a "state," within the meaning of the federal constitution, was

"one of the commonwealths which form the United States of America."

Every edition of Black's Law Dictionary (which was first published

in 1891) says that a "state" is, "One of the component commonwealths

  • OR* states of the United States of America." It is identifying two

classes of states: 1. Component commonwealths, and 2. States of the

United States of America. The former is the old terminology from

before the war. Since that expression identifies all of them (and

not just the four states[1] that use the term 'commonwealth' in

their official title), the "states of the United States of America"

referred to must be identifying different "states" altogether.


The research for the origins of the States(2) ultimately led to the

year 1863. I found that congress, through sections 4 and 5 of the

Enrollment Act of March 3rd, 1863 (12 Stat. 731, et seq.) created

military districts under a form of martial law, and I later, through a

local congressman, received information from the Congressional Research

Service showing, beyond all reasonable doubt, that section these sections

were never repealed. Section 4 creates the districts, and section 5

assigns a provost-marshal to each of them. The 1990 edition of Black's

Law Dictionary gives the following in its definition of 'Provost-

Marshal': "In military law, the officer acting as the head of the

military police of any post, camp, city of other place in military

occupation, or district under the reign of martial law."

Interestingly, this act is also the first one, at least that I'm aware

of, that uses the term "United States" in the singular, and it is also

the first one to refer to the district of Columbia and the territories

as being within the "United States."

This was only the beginning. Since the Civil War many other laws

and governmental-type agencies have come along to further separate us

from our rights, such as the Federal Reserve (private control of the

money supply), FDA (no health freedom), Emergency War Powers (more

military jurisdiction imposed upon citizens and constitutional provisions

suspended), income tax (control of property and business), NSA/CIA/DIA

(speaks for itself), just to name a few. I realize that those who

believe in the power structure, who believe in Clinton/Dole/Powell etc.

won't like what I'm saying, but I feel compelled to rely on facts, not

faith in the system. For those of us who do want freedom, I see,

potentially, a great opportunity in positioning ourselves in the

states(1).

In the meantime, I've already begun, on a very limited basis,

to start applying this information. Here are five cases:


1. In late 1994, a client who is a licensed acupuncturist came tome and

told me that he needed to get an acupuncturist license. I told him

that those laws, being passed since the Civil War, were passed by

the California State(2), and being within the California state(1)

and a citizen thereof, he wasn't subject to the license laws. He

told me that he needed it anyway, because it would hurt his business

not to have it. So I had him fill out the application, NOT GIVE A

SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER (SSN), and send a letter with the application

explaining how he's in the California state(1), not the California

State(2), and therefore not subject to its acupuncturist laws, but

that because the State(2) was going around saying that *everyone*

had to have a license, he had to get one or his business would be

destroyed. However, he said, he couldn't be compelled to do things

that were impossible for him, such as give an SSN, since being in

a state(1) and therefore not within federal jurisdiction, he didn't

have one and had no means to get one. They gave him the license.

When it came time to get his 1996 license (this would be late '95),

he received a letter from the acupuncturist board stating that

State(2) laws "prohibit[s] the processing of an initial or renewal

license if the applicant fails to disclose his/her social security

number..." and "If you fail to disclose your social security

number... your application for initial or renewal license will not

be processed AND you will be reported to the Franchise Tax Board,

which will assess a $100 penalty against you." The letter was dated

September 21st, 1995. Earlier this month (January, 1996), I asked

him about his '96 license. He said that he applied for it in

November, he didn't give an SSN, he used the same letter he used the

previous year (with some slight changes I made), and he got it.


2. In early 1995, the business license people came after him for not

having one. He responded by saying that since he was in the

state(1), and not the State(2), he wasn't subject to the business

license laws. He wrote to them several times before they

acknowledged him. Finally they wrote back saying that the business

he was conducting was that of a "licensed acupuncturist." He

responded by saying that he was compelled to get the acupuncturist

license, he included a copy of the letter he'd sent them, and that

he was operating in the state(1), not the State(2). He's never

heard from them since.


3. Also in early 1995, I had a client in Texas who convinced his

workplace to except an IRS form W-8: Certificate of Foreign Status.

He checked that he was an "exempt foreign person" (since he wasn't

within the 50 States[2], DC, etc.). His company stopped all

withholding and he hasn't had a single problem. In fact, he even

filed a 1040NR to try to get back the previous year's taxes.

Initially the IRS re-did his paperwork and said that he actually

owed them money. He wrote back explaining how, as a Citizen of the

Texas state(1) he's an "exempt foreign person" not working within

the Texas State(2) or any of the other 50 States(2). They made no

further attempt to collect the tax, and even assigned him a

nonresident alien taxpayer identification number (NRA TIN).

However, at this point he's still fighting it out for the refund.


4. In the fall of 1995 I had a client who had expired registration and

an expired driver's license (DL). He wanted the California

Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to acknowledge that he wasn't

subject to its code. I had an idea. I had him write a letter to

the DMV claiming, "There is no law requiring me to get a driver's

license." This isn't really true; I just wanted to see if they'd

respond. They did, saying that the Vehicle Code requires everyone

driving in this state to get a DL. He wrote back saying that the

DL law was in the State(2), not the state(1), and that since he was

in the state(1), and not the State(2), he wasn't liable for getting

a DL. They never responded. What's important here is that when he

gave them an argument that was wrong ("There is no DL law."), they

were quick to tell him how wrong he was. But when he gave them the

real argument, they didn't respond at all. If the state(1)/State(2)

argument is wrong, it seems to me they would have responded, just

like they did to the first letter. In the meantime, he's written

them again, and hopefully they will respond this time. But I'm not

holding my breath.


5. In late 1995 I had another client, and he was willing to get a DL,

but he wanted to do it without divulging an SSN. The DMV here is

very tough on this issue. I know of people who've been trying for

years to get a DL without an SSN - with no luck. I know of one

group that spent $800 buying every DMV form, and on top of that

called DMV and other officials in Sacramento (the capitol of

California), to see if there was any way to get a DL without an SSN.

A former employee (and I use that term loosely - it has legal

implications!) of theirs who worked on the project told me that they

made no progress and eventually gave up. In fact, six people sued

the DMV to get Dl's without SSN's on the basis that they were

religious protestors to the use of the SSN. The judge ruled in

their favor. The DMV then APPEALED. They wouldn't have done that

unless (A) they really think they're legally right in saying that

a person *must* give an SSN in order to get a DL and/or (B) they

really want the SSN! I knew someone who attempted to get a DL

without an SSN. He simply filled out the form, didn't put an SSN

on it, and included a letter to the DMV telling them that he didn't

have one. His application was rejected. I told my client that he

had little if any chance of getting a DL without an SSN, but I was

willing to try it as an experiment. He agreed. So he took the

application and filled it out, and did not give an SSN (the

application said that if he didn't give one, he'd automatically be

denied). He included a letter explaining how he was in state(1),

that the law requiring persons to have DL's was in State(2), and

that he was only obtaining one because armed agents of the State(2)

aren't honoring the jurisdictional distinguishment between the

California state(1) and the California State(2). On December 26 he

gave me a nice Christmas gift by calling me up and telling me that

he got it! When the other person simply claimed he "didn't have

one" with no explanation, they rejected his application. But here,

where my client argued state(1)/State(2) (and nothing else), the DMV

gave him the license without so much as a peep, much less appealing

a judgment like they did with the religious protestors. This would

seem to suggest that my client's argument is what made the

difference between him and the others, and his argument could only

make a difference if there was at least some merit to it.


These are just a few examples. I've had other experiences as well,

and will continue to finish researching this issue and putting it into

effect. Please keep in mind, however, that this is just a very brief

overview of this subject. I've collected several thousand pages of

material showing how a second class of "state" was created and how we're

under a form of martial law. I could further document all kinds of

things that are being suppressed, but I long ago realized that people

won't allow their belief systems to be challenged too much, too fast.

If you're interested in further information, I have two books

available on this subject. The first is 'The Sovereignty Manual.' It's

introductory in nature and can be obtained from me for $5.00. The other

is my main work to this point, and is called 'The Complete Book On

Sovereign Citizenship.' It's 535 pages approx., and has hundreds of

cites illustrating the state(1)(2) principle. It can be obtained from

by sending a check or money order for $59.95 + $4.00 shipping to: Ken

Adler, c/o P.O. Box 950561, Mission Hills, California, 91395. Or call

me voice at (818) 762-5412. I also have a computer BBS on this topic,

which you can call at (818) 762-1288.

I encourage distribution of this article, and only ask that it be

kept in its entirety. Thanks! By: Scott Eric Rosenstiel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.12.170.218 (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Secession

Part of a state may secede (e.g. East Timor, Montenegro), forming a new state. This presents an inacurate historical account why East Timor is not a part of Indonesia. East Timor did not secede, but rather succeeded (with some help from non-Timorese) in getting Indonesia to end their illegal occupation. Besides Indonesia itself, the only other state to recognize Indonesia's claim to the territory and authority over the people that lived there was Australia. So besides people's own observations, there also was no legal status of East Timor being a part of Indonesia and therefore no secession. Rather it fits with the first line (However, a state or area which is only "occupied" by another state does not lose its statehood.) So I am moving East Timor to this line. LobotzRobtz 14:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition and usage

"State" is perhaps the worst word in the English language because it can refer to either a country (the independent state of wherever) or a government (power is excercised through the state), and the difference between these two things is one of the biggest issues in political philosophy and science. VolatileChemical 13:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That is why I changed the first sentence to read: "A state is a society with effective dominion over a geographic territory, and usually including the set of institutions that claim the authority to make the rules..." If one examines historical usage, one finds that while the term usually includes the instruments of government, it often does not, referring only to the society + territory, which may or may not have a government, or in the state of having formed the society but not yet the government. I submit my definition as more precise and historically accurate. We see this distinction in the U.S. Constitution, which refers to states for which a "republican form of government" is guaranteed. That clearly indicates that the "state" can be something without a government (although it may always need some kind of government). --Jon Roland 05:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

Why do I keep getting blocked? someone is editing under "sweet nikki" and it rikasheys onto my computer, all i have to say is, SWEET NIKKI, GET OUT OF MY LIFE!!!!



hoping sweetnikki will listen, Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.255.5 (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] international law and statehood

I have changed the paragraph relating to statehood and international law, because it confuses international law and municipal law. For national courts, like US courts the recognition of state X by the US government does have an impact on the proceedings.

In an international court, statehood is defined by the 'Montevideo Convention on on the Rights and Duties of States 1933'. According to the convention is a territorial administration is a state if it has (1) a permanent population, (2) a defined territory, (3) a government in control of the territory, (4) capacity to enter into relations with other states (international relations can exist without recognition like in the case of Israel and Arab states). Opinion 1 of the Badinter Commission on the question of the status of Croatia (and others) declared 'the existence or disappearance of the State is a question of fact; ... the effects of recognition of other States are purely declaratory'. The only exception to the de facto statehood is when a state is seized by illegal means e.g. the invasion of Cyprus by Turkey. In this case the previous government remains the state although they have lost de facto control. This, however, does not depend on the recognition of states but on the legality of the acts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.99.211 (talk) 11:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] de jure and de facto statehood

I reverted to a previous version because states are often recognized de jure as such even if the governments that represent them have attained power by means deemed illegal within the country; otherwise many dictators would never be recognized as proper representatives of their states, when in fact they are. Moreover, the point of the section was to point to states (such as Somalia) that are represented by governments which do not actually control their territories, but are still understood to be the proper representatives of a territory Xmarquez 20:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] A new definition of State

Hello, I'm a fresh one in Wikipedia, but I wanna make a question: Why there isn't a best definiton of National State & Federated State?It's only a sugestion.TKS . {Bryard (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)}