A Strategic Framework For Managing Self

into the argument of 'why', we can agree that if a state is to build its sense of national identity, it must

No nation is ever merely able to act at its people’s whim; a system of alliances and treaties has formed over the course of history, and breaking any of those agreements can mean anything from a small conflict to a large-scale war. One such

Secession occurs due minorities wanting independence or sovereignty for political-cultural identity reasons. Self-determination, which is the idea that a people that possess some sort of unanimous identity have the right to pursue their own political interests and form their own state, is most commonly considered the primary justification for secession (Clark 739). However, there is an ongoing debate as to when a people can put this notion of self-determination into practice. The ‘extent’ of self-determination that a people has is one of the major factors that determines whether or not a secession can be successful. However, there are many other contributing determinants of success. In particular, this paper will demonstrate that state systems and their power structures are an equally important aspect of secession that can ultimately impact and alter its outcome and success. It will contend that secessionist movements are more likely to achieve a favourable outcome or be considered successful if the parent state is governed as a federation rather than a unitary state.

Brancati begins her analysis by posing the question, what impact does a decentralized government have on ethnic conflict and secessionism? The conventional knowledge on the topic is that political decentralization is believed to “reduce ethnic conflict and secessionism in the world today...by bringing the government closer to the people, increasing opportunities to participate in government, and giving groups control over their political, social, and economic affairs.” She believes in this statement to the extent that

As an American Citizen, it’s common to hear the word “sovereignty” thrown around here and there, especially when it comes to politics. Sovereignty, put simply, is the ability for a state to “govern itself or another state” (google). The beginning and principle to such an idea was the Treaty of Westphalia, which was signed in 1648, ending the Thirty Years war. It’s ability was “to place state sovereignty at the forefront of international relations” (international relations.org). In recent times, there has been plenty of debate about whether the Westphalian system is approaching its term, and whether the model is truly “Westphalian.” While this model has had a large impact in history, it faces challenges in the development of society.

Policymakers have a range of tools to use in conflict resolution and post-conflict reconstruction. While varied in breath and effect, the political, economic, and military tools policy makers use ties to traditional methods of conflict resolution. However, as conflicts have evolved to occupy the larger and more public stages following globalization, so have the tools. Globalization not only increased state-to-state awareness of inequalities in wealth and resources, but also within states; increasing tension along ethnic and tribal lines. (Bercovitch and Jackson, 5) The political, economic, and military tools used in conflict resolution and post-conflict reconstruction present a deeply interconnected method of reshaping a war-torn

One of the traditional functions of state that needs to end is the project that envisions to turn all the inhabitants of the state into one culturally and linguistically homogeneous nation. Denationalization of state is emerging as alternative to resolve the conflicts that born out of the antipathetic nationalism. The state should not be associated with any particular group, but should be the neutral common property of all its citizens (1992: 205). In simple term, since the state itself is changing in form and functions, so must the nationalist doctrine and strategy (Michael Keating 1998).

In times of conflict, it is important to note the four phases of conflict. These four phases being, pre-violence or the buildup period. Second, is armed conflict. Third is a ceasefire and lastly, comes the post agreement. The first two phases of conflict are not hard at all to achieve or attain. Certain nations around the world are almost always engaged in some form of conflict with other ethnic groups or secessionist/ revolutionary forces. “For a certain subset of nations, civil war appears to be a chronic condition.” (Quinn, et.al. 2007) The last phases of conflict, ceasefire and post agreement are certainly much harder to attain and sustain than the first two phases. For this short essay, I have chosen the post agreement phase as being the most difficult to attain and uphold. I will discuss the reasons I believe this phase is the hardest to achieve, why or if it’s even important and also briefly compare it to the preceding phases of conflict.

In our modern world many of the traditional boundaries and barriers between nations have become obsolete. Information, products, services, and culture can be shared around the world at a faster pace than ever before. The ease at which we can communicate challenges the need for rigid and highly structuralized systems. This in turn leads to debate over the necessity of the nation state. However, like most things in this world the answer is not black or white, but rather a shade of grey. Nation states have many benefits to them, but they can also cause tension in our world. It is important to consider both the pros and the cons of a nation state.

This idea of self-preservation is essential to any sovereign state, and all take a similar stance on national security as the United States. One of protection. In order to accomplish this it is necessary for states to be able to implement goals on an international stage, thus requiring a certain amount of power. When it comes to the issue of obtaining power, two major methods become apparent. The control over space and the control over physical place. Both of these options available to states focus on power as “Condign (based on force), Compensatory (the use of various resources) or Conditioned (result of persuasion), and their sources as Personality (individuals) and Property (their material resources)” (Galbraith, 1983).

It is common to hear of the threats to the nation-state system in the contemporary world. Such threats seem to originate from many different quarters, at different level of the global system. This impending sense that the nation-state is somehow in “crisis” led to analyze the question of “the contemporary crisis of the nation-state?”

man upstairs but in the many men and later women downstairs in other words the source of sovereignty was in the peep you see it loud and clear in the very first line of the Declaration of Independence when in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands etc etc one people in other words one nation by this time the word nation had become synonymous with the word people so here you have a state which finds the justification for its sovereign power the monopoly on all the violence that happens within its borders in the consent of the people the nation hence nation state the question becomes how do you define a people what makes people a people we have a number of problematic nation states in the world places couched in what seems like unceasing violence and to understand them we must first understand how people develop a national identity now there are a number of things that groups can share a language race a religion but stronger than all of these is as John Stuart Mill the great liberal thinker said an identity of political antecedents a possession of a national history a community of recollections collective pride and humiliation pleasure and regret connected with the same incidents in the past a historical narrative a national memory this binds people closer together than any other common trait unfortunately and as we know too well the many millions of people who find themselves in a state very often don't have the same

What comes to your mind when you hear of the word nation and state? Is it merely words used interchangeably to describe the political status of a land or continent? The concept seems an ill-defined one with many different implications. Indeed, to the layman’s comprehension, the ideology seems more or less the same; as one would use them interchangeably to refer to the same thing. Both the term ‘state’ and ‘nation’ are terms that are used to specifically discuss international political theories; nonetheless, both terms have different set of meaning in context. To paint a bigger picture, one of the most significant periods in modern history can be highlighted during the course of the period ranging from the eighteenth century leading up to the outbreak of the First World War. It is important for us to understand that

At its core international legal validation concerns issues of the recognition of states. If one were ignorant about the political climate on the global front, the natural answer to the question ‘how did a state become a state?’ would be that ‘the would-be state must satisfy the defined stipulations (in international law) for becoming a state. Following this line of reasoning would inevitably lead one to the very first article of the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States, which since 1933 set out that “The state, as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with other states.”

19. The state emerged as a result of the institutionalized expression of the people’s desire for political association – INSTINCTIVE THEORY