Holistic Approach to the Study of International Relations
Of the many concepts in the social sciences that are used rather interchangeably and at times synonymously, even by experts, that of ‘nation’ and ‘nation state’ appears prominent. Thus, in international relations discourse, it may not be out of place for one to hear of references to the American nation, the Nigerian nation or the German nation for instance. In the same vein references could also be made to the American nation-state, the Nigerian nation-state or the German nation –state,
Such interchangeable usages tend to suggest that both concepts mean the same thing. This could be misleading. For a proper understanding of the concept of nation-state which is the basic unit of international relations, it will be worthwhile to attain a precise appreciation of what we exactly mean by the ‘nation’. Though not amenable to a concise definition due to the different senses in which the word has been used in modern times on the basis of different theories and interpretations, 1 but in its relationship with the nation-state, one of the most satisfactory definitions of the concept of nation remains that offered by Ernest Barker some six decades ago. According to him:
A nation is a body of men inhabiting a definite
territory….(and possessing ) a common stock
of thoughts and feelings acquired and transmitted
during the course of a common history …2
Continuing, Ernest Barker further submits that the common stock of thoughts and feelings include, though more in the past than in the present, a common religious belief, a common language, and also what he refers to as “a common will”. The common will, according to him, propels the nation to form a separate state for the expression and realization of that will. There are, however, other commentators who are of the opinion that a nation is not formed merely by “speaking the same tongue, or belonging to the same cultural groups, but having accomplished great things in common in the past and retaining the wishes to do same in the future.3
While not discountenancing the latter intervention, we are persuaded that Ernest Barker appears to have captured the major ingredients of the concept of nation, at least with regard to its relationship with both the nation –state and international relations. But the concept of “common will” as employed by Barker tends to suggest that a nation is permanently and inexorably led to a secessionist predilections, since it is only by so doing that it can form a state, and so give vent to the so-called common will. But this may not be entirely borne out by the facts of contemporary international life; the US remains a classic example of subsuming of different cultural groups’ “common wills” under what can be referred to as a general will.
The concept of common will also introduces us to the fact that a nation is always found within a nation-state, even though a nation may transform into a nation-state through various processes ranging from secession to implosion of empires or other hegemonic political entities such as the communist system. Besides, a multi-national state will also be vulnerable to disintegration given the concept of common will.
In other words, the “common will” may well be considered a euphemism for ethnic nationalism or other forms of micro-nationalistic revisionism and / or irredentism.
In apparent support of Ernest Barker’s concept of “common will” as an essential attribute of the nation. Hans Morgenthau suggests that “the nation needs a state,” as “one nation- one state,” according to him, remains the political postulate of nationalism,4 while the nation-state is its ideal. It is probably in furtherance of this that recent commentators have continued to maintain that the idea that every nation should have its own state, accompanied by the corollary that one ethnic or cultural group should not collectively rule over another, has remained one of the most powerful political forces of the past two hundred years.5 in the same vein, John Casper Bluntshli, a Swiss international lawyer, writing in the 1870s insists that “the world should be split into as many states as humanity is divided into nations, each nation, a state, and each state, a national being”6
We have tried to present these various views not as an advocacy but just to be able to attain a proper appreciation of the differences between a nation and the nation-state. It is thus obvious that a nation in this context, and within the realm of international relations, refers to an ethnic or cultural group. It is different from the nation-state in the critical sense that until it attains the ultimate objective of the so-called common will, that is transformation into a nation-state, it cannot participate in international relations. In other words, only the nation-state or the state can participate in international relations as a political unit. What then is the state or the nation-state? It must be pointed out immediately that the state and nation-state mean exactly the same thing and so they can, and are most often, used interchangeably without any adverse effect whatsoever. In a strict technical sense however, the state is preferred to nation-state in usage.
Related Posts: HISTORY AND INTERNATIONAL RELATION (H.I.R), SOCIAL STUDIES
Be the first to comment