ABSTRACT
Despite arguments that the effects of globalization may be undermining the authority of the sovereign state, states remain important actors in contemporary global politics. If scholars of International Relations (IR) are to fully understand the sort of changes states and the states system may be undergoing, the problems states face and, indeed, the problems that this form of political organization may create, it is vital to further our understanding of how this institutional form, which has come to dominate the globe, developed. States have formed in different geographical areas, in different historical periods and under very different conditions. The early development of the modern state occurred in Western Europe, and this was followed by later episodes of state formation in the nineteenth century culminating in a number of new states gaining recognition after World War I, during the period of decolonization following World War II and, more recently, following the end of the Cold War. Thus, while an understanding of the general processes involved in state formation is important we should also be attentive to the particularities of different epochs and, within these epochs, the differences as well as similarities between states. Having said that, most work on state formation with which IR scholars are familiar focuses on early modernstate building in Western Europe and the discipline would benefit from a wider focus. Nonetheless, this chapter begins with Western Europe. It then provides a brief account of the successive phases of state formation, an overview of contending approaches to the study of state formation, and consideration of the possibilities for further research in this area. The development of the modern state was a gradual process in which rulers in core areas
of Western Europe slowly gained centralized control over the means of violence and the means of revenue collection, resulting in the formation of the early ‘core’ states of Spain, England and France. The first of these two interconnected processes began with monarchs wresting secular authority from the Catholic Church and the Holy Roman Empire and disarming the nobility (Elias 1982). In time this consolidation of control of the means of violence would lead to the development of standing national armies, rather than the earlier reliance on mercenaries. As monarchs extended their rule, they were able to better organize the second aspect of control, the routine extraction of funds from their populations. This was something that they needed to do in order to fund the wars in which they were often engaged and it also played an important role in the economic development of states as feudalism gave way to capitalism (Braudel 1972; Tilly 1985; Wallerstein 1974). Thus the classic definition of the modern state is of a centralized political authority that
claims legitimate control over the means of violence within a clearly demarcated physical territory and over a defined population, though exactly how this population has been defined
has differed over time (Anderson 1991; Rae 2002). While the territorial sovereign state has undergone many changes and challenges, the claim that it is the state, and the state alone, that legitimately controls and uses the means of violence – that it is not legitimate for nonstate actors to use violent means without state sanction – remains central to the legitimacy claims made by contemporary states.
