At the end of the lecture, Professor Jackson posed several questions but the one stood out to me was, "do states guard other areas in which public authority might arise with the same vigor that they do in the control of violence?" After giving it some thought, I would argue that they do. Reason being: every area of public authority comes back to the monopoly of physical violence. By defending an area of public authority, they are, at the same time, guarding their public authority over the legitimate use of violence.
Take for example, the right to tax. A surface level evaluation of this public authority one might see it as an area states might not protect at the same level as the use of physical force. But consider why anyone pays their taxes - it's because states have the monopoly of physical force to ensure taxes are paid and violators are punished. Same goes for the "right to regulate trade". States can use force to ensure compliance with trade laws and punish those who violate the law. Refugee control is another example of a public authority that is tied to that of the use of physical force.
I am by no means set on this answer, but I'm having difficulty thinking of an area of public authority that does not tie back to, or is not guaranteed by, the use of physical force. Could be the new tie to the realist perspective and that I'm seeing security as the fundamental concern of every state. Would be curious to see other's thoughts on this question.
*While thinking about this question and discussing with a co-worker, I may have stumbled upon a potential anomaly to the claim that sovereign states will jealously defend their authority over the legitimate control of physical force: Japan in the 1940's. Following the end of WWII, Japan did not seek to build an army, or develop nuclear weapons. They were happy to acquiesce a certain amount of control and occupation to the United States. In this instance, did Japan not guard the use of physical force as one would expect a sovereign state to do? Or were they so soundly beaten that they were almost not a sovereign territorial state at the end of WWII and this decision was imposed upon them and they did not have a choice in the matter?
I, too, was intrigued by the question you address in this blog post. I disagree a bit with the assumption that states do guard all areas of public authority with the same vigor as they do for violence because these areas come back to the monopoly of violence. I would argue, rather, that the control of violence is guarded with much more vigor than other areas, as a high capacity for violence allows the state to control other areas of authority as they so desire/need. As you mentioned, states can utilize violence and punishment in the right to tax, but I would argue that that does not mean states guard the right to tax the same as they do their control of violence. Instead, violence is an instrument by which other modes of authority (such as taxation) can be employed, guarded, or enforced. Perhaps from this perspective, the control of violence is the highest indicator of sovereignty. Without violence, any other public authority cannot be as strongly enforced or protected, thereby ensuring state sovereignty.
ReplyDeleteI would also have to disagree with the argument that states guard areas of public authority with the same vigor as they do with the control of violence. I also do not agree that the control of violence is guarded with more vigor. Instead, I argue that this can vary from state to state. Not all states are going to see the control of violence as being their number one priority, especially in democracies. In states that rely on their public authority to protect their citizens, provide order, and provide goods, it is imperative to guard public authority more rigorously than control of violence. In states with continual political unrest or where there are powerful anti-government groups, the state would guard the control of violence with more rigor than the guarding of public authority.
ReplyDeleteI did not consider how this could vary from state to state... That is a good point. Luxembourg probably doesn't guard that authority with the same vigor as the U.S. However, in order to guard the public authority, doesn't one need to have control and authority violence? Or would you say that there is another way to guard a the public authority other than through the use of violence?
DeleteI agree 100% with this line of thinking. Generally speaking, I think violence (or the threat of violence) really underlies and defines most actions taken by states and gives them the ability to maintain order within their own borders. Where states do not possess a monopoly on the use of violence, there is generally chaos and discord. Therefore, I think states are more inclined to guard the use of violence as this is their most potent and substantial way to try and claim legitimacy.
ReplyDelete