The Modern State and Its Monopoly on Violence

Anter, Andreas

doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190679545.013.13

Cited by 18 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Тут також необхідно згадати, що науковці розходяться у визначенні поняття, що таке держава. Проте, найбільш поширеним є визначення німецького соціолога і філософа Макса Вебера, який трактує державу як політичну організацію, що обов'язково керується центральним урядом, який зберігає монополію на законне застосування сили [15].…”

Section: Dir Iyu Legal Essence Of the European Unionunclassified

Legal essence of the European Union

Dir

2024

Науковий вісник УжНУ. Серія: Право

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article summarizes the analysis of the concept of “European Union”. A lot of scientific publications are devoted to the European Union, which concern both the law of the European Union and its economic and monetary union. However, over the years of research on the European Union, scientists have not yet formed a consensus on what the Alliance is by nature: an international organization, a political system, an entity, or a state. This issue is especially relevant in the context of Ukraine’s European integration aspirations. Several definitions of the concept of the “European Union” were analysed from the point of view of various scientists. In addition, the main goals and values cherished by the EU within the organization and on the world were investigated. It was also determined that the European Union is inherently a unique structure that is special in the system of geopolitics. It all started with a certain regional dimension, and today we can talk about a distinctive interstate entity on the larger territory of the European region. During its history the union, which were formed for the purpose of obtaining economic benefits has gone from interstate agreements to a common currency and foreign policy and security architecture. The EU has both the features inherent in the state form of governance and the characteristics inherent in international intergovernmental organizations. In addition, it was determined that the historical development of the European Union and, especially, its activities at the present stage, make it possible to analyse its nature and find an appropriate place in the international political system. It was also analysed that there are no analogues to this union in the world, and it was determined that the EU has long been a subject of international law, regardless of what form of integration its founders planned to create from the moment of its foundation or in the future of its development. It was also found that today’s institutions of the European Union in many moments remind us of national authorities, but this is explained by the fact that they have long and effectively ensured the functioning of the state mechanism in states around the world.

show abstract

Section: Dir Iyu Legal Essence Of the European Unionunclassified

Legal essence of the European Union

Dir

2024

Науковий вісник УжНУ. Серія: Право

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…I develop this model with reference to two attendant features: (a) disruption of the state's monopoly on force, as an essential characteristic of the state (Weber, 2009(Weber, , 2019 (see also Anter, 2019;Grimm, 2003;Lottholz & Lemay-Hébert, 2016;Wimmer, 2003) and (b) the identity characteristics of gun culture which undergird, I argue, a competing form of sovereignty and socio-political authority. Weber's descriptive theory of state legitimacy arising from its monopoly on force descends from Hobbes' observation (see Hobbes and Missner, 2016) (the concept conceived in 1676) of the inter-reliance between state legitimacy and force via the social contract (see Whitman, 2003).…”

Section: Gun Culture As Contesting the State Monopoly On Violencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Here, I develop Martial Culture Theory (MCT) to describe a culture in which the exercise of legitimate force is a conduit for political power within a social network. It is theoretically built on the Weberian definition of the state as a “political institution that claims successfully the ‘monopoly of legitimate physical force’” (Anter, 2019, 2; Weber, 2019). A martial culture is pseudo-militaristic and signifies the self-organization of an autonomous individual or collectivity through (a claimed) legitimate use of force (a “militia” in the Second Amendment’s language).…”

Section: Proposing Martial Culture Theory: Citizen–state Relations An...mentioning

confidence: 99%

U.S. Gun Culture as a Martial Culture Within a Weberian Framework: Disrupting the State’s Monopoly on Force

Harmon

2022

Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article proposes a new analytical framework to understand U.S. gun culture and its attendant cultural identifiers. It uses the Weberian concept of the state, in which the state’s monopoly on force is the basis of its legitimacy. Using this theory of the state, my key theoretical contribution is that gun culture is a contestation of the state’s monopoly on force. Relatedly, I argue that the system of cultural identifiers attached to gun culture competes with state power. In this way, gun culture asserts a devolved, local and patrimonial system of social power. I use this synthetic context of U.S. gun culture to understand theoretical issues of citizen–state relations and the role of identification in envisaging local power while offering narcissistic compensations to disenfranchised people. This descriptive theory argues that the state monopoly on force constitutes a central clause of the social contract between state and citizen, and the breach of this monopoly within gun culture challenges the contract itself. Identity and its conceptual markers, then, have a political end as a surrogate for social authority and personal-local power. This political function is hinted at but not adequately theorized in gun culture literature, certainly not using a Weberian, ‘monopoly on force’ framework. I propose that gun culture signals an antagonism within the social contract, in which citizens cede use of force to the state. This antagonism is activated in this case but theoretically latent in citizen–state relations. This article builds on the Hobbesian–Weberian premise to propose a model of Martial Culture Theory (MCT) to describe U.S. gun culture and those political movements that seek to reduce through force the state monopoly on power by diminishing its legitimacy and claiming theirs as a legitimate exercise of force.Through this process occurs a renegotiation of socio-political power distribution with the state. I submit this insight has valuable implications for state theory and citizen–state relations. In addition, it offers the most complete theory of how small government conservatism aligns with identity politics in U.S. gun culture, and how the prevailing mode of identitarian politics can manifest and be harnessed toward contestations of state power in Hobbesian-Weberian thought.

show abstract

“…7 State capacity has been measured in economic research primarily as the ratio of government tax revenues to gross domestic product (Besley & Persson, 2011). The tax to GDP ratio serves as a summary statistic of sorts of the ability of governments to raise revenues to invest in the protection of property rights and the establishment of law and order, what sociologists and political scientists have termed a "monopoly over violence" (Weber, 1946;Anter, 2020). The reach of the state into local areas is also measured by the ability of local governments to collect revenues and administer state policies (Acemoglu et al, 2015).…”

Section: State Capacity: Theory and Measurementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Building State Capacity: What is the Impact of Development Projects?

Maro¹,

Evans²,

Khemani³

et al. 2021

Policy Research Working Papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent.

show abstract

The Modern State and Its Monopoly on Violence

Cited by 18 publications

References 0 publications

Legal essence of the European Union

Legal essence of the European Union

U.S. Gun Culture as a Martial Culture Within a Weberian Framework: Disrupting the State’s Monopoly on Force

Building State Capacity: What is the Impact of Development Projects?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About