:: wikimiki.org ::

Independence

Independence

:For other uses, see Independence (disambiguation) Independence is fully autonomous self-government of a nation or state by its residents and population, generally exercising sovereignty. The term independence is used in contrast to subjugation, which refers to a region as a "territory" —subject to the political and military control of an external government. The word is sometimes used in a weaker sense to contrast with hegemony, the indirect control of one nation by another, more powerful nation. Independence can be the initial status of an emerging nation (often filling a political void), but is often an emancipation from some dominating power. It can be argued that independence is a negative definition: the state of not being controlled by another power through colonialism or imperialism. Independence may be obtained by decolonization, or by separation or dismemberment. Although the last three can often coincide with it, they are not to be confused with revolution, which typically refers to the violent overthrow of a ruling authority. This sometimes only aims to redistribute power—with or without an element of emancipation, such as in democratization—within a state, which as such may remain unaltered. The Russian October Revolution, for example, was not intended to seek national independence; the United States Revolutionary War, however, was. Autonomy (in slight contrast) refers to a kind of independence which has been granted by an overseeing authority that itself still retains ultimate authority over that territory. A protectorate refers to an autonomous region that depends upon a larger government, for its protection as an autonomous region. The dates of established independence (or, to a lesser degree, the commencement of revolution), are typically celebrated as a national holiday known as an independence day. Sometimes, a state wishing to achieve independence from a dominating power will issue a declaration of independence, the most famous of which is the U.S. Declaration of Independence issued in 1776.

Article note

The dates of independence, as they have been ported into many articles from the CIA World Factbook are defined as follows: :For most countries, [the given date is that] when sovereignty was achieved...For the other countries, the date given may not represent "independence" in the strict sense, but rather some significant nationhood event such as the traditional founding date or the date of unification, federation, confederation, establishment, or fundamental change in the form of government, such as state succession. Category:Freedom ja:独立 th:เอกราช

Independence (disambiguation)

Independence may mean:
- Any independent abstract quality
- Statistical independence
- Bit-sequence independence
- Independence Air, a low-cost airline.
- Independence Grocery Store
- Any of the 5 US Navy ships named USS Independence

Places in the United States of America

- Independence, Alabama
- Independence, California
- Independence, Inyo County, California
- Independence, Calaveras County, California
- Independence, Colorado
- Independence, Teller County, Colorado
- Independence, Pitkin County, Colorado
- Independence, Illinois
- Independence, Indiana
- Independence, Iowa
- Independence, Kansas
- Independence, Kentucky
- Independence, Louisiana
- Independence, Minnesota
- Independence, St. Louis County, Minnesota
- Independence, Hennepin County, Minnesota
- Independence, Mississippi
- Independence, Tate County, Mississippi
- Independence, Scott County, Mississippi
- Independence, Missouri
- Independence, Jackson County, Missouri
- Independence, Clay County, Missouri
- Independence, Montana
- Independence, New York
- Independence, North Dakota
- Independence, Ohio
- Independence, Cuyahoga County, Ohio
- Independence, Defiance County, Ohio
- Independence, Oklahoma
- Independence, Custer County, Oklahoma
- Independence, Le Flore County, Oklahoma
- Independence, Oregon
- Independence, Pennsylvania
- Independence, Snyder County, Pennsylvania
- Independence, Washington County, Pennsylvania
- Independence, Tennessee
- Independence, Hancock County, Tennessee
- Independence, Overton County, Tennessee
- Independence, Tennessee
- Independence, Texas
- Independence, Utah
- Independence, Virginia
- Independence, Washington
- Independence, West Virginia
- Independence, Clay County, West Virginia
- Independence, Jackson County, West Virginia
- Independence, Preston County, West Virginia
- Independence, Wisconsin ja:インディペンデンス

Nation

:For publications of this name, see also Nation (disambiguation). One of the most influential doctrines in history is that all humans are divided into groups called nations. It is an ethical and philosophical doctrine in itself, and is the starting point for the ideology of nationalism. The nationals (the members of the "nation") are distinguished by a common identity, and almost always by a common origin, in the sense of ancestry, parentage or descent. The national identity refers both to the distinguishing features of the group, and to the individual’s sense of belonging to it. A very wide range of criteria is used, with very different application. Small differences in pronunciation may be enough to categorise someone as a member of another nation. On the other hand, two people may be separated by difference in personalities, belief systems, geographical locations, time and even spoken language, yet regard themselves and be seen by others, as members of the same nation. Nationals are considered to share certain traits and norms of behaviour, certain duties toward other members, and certain responsibilities for the actions of the members of the same nation. Nations extend across generations, and include the dead as full members. More vaguely, they are assumed to include future generations. No-one fixes a timespan, but a nation is typically several centuries old. Past events are evaluated in this context, for instance by referring to "our soldiers" in conflicts which took place hundreds of years ago. The term nation is often used synonymously with ethnic group (sometimes "ethnos"), but although ethnicity is now one of the most important aspects of cultural or social identity for the members of most nations, people with the same ethnic origin may live in different nation-states and be treated as members of separate nations for that reason. National identity is often disputed, down to the level of the individual. A state which explicitly identifies as the homeland of a particular nation is a nation-state, and most modern states fall into this category, although there may be violent disputes about their legitimacy. In common usage, terms such as nations, country, land and state often appear as near-synonyms, i.e., for a territory under a single sovereign government, or the inhabitants of such a territory, or the government itself; in other words, a de jure or de facto state. In a more strict sense, however, terms such as nation, ethnos, and peoples denominate a group of human beings, in contrast to country which denominates a territory, whereas state expresses a legitimised administrative and decision-making institution. Confusingly, the terms national and international are used as technical terms applying to states, see country.

Origins

The origins of nations are disputed, and these disputes form a major issue in the theory of nationalism. There are some biological theories of its origin, which see humans as territorial animals and the nation as a territory in this sense. Most theorists reject this as simplistic, and treat nations as a relatively late human social grouping. The most widely quoted theories place their origin in the late 18th and 19th century, although this dating is very disputed. Certainly the identification with a "nation" was promoted by early romantic nationalism at that time, usually in opposition to multi-ethnic (and autocratic) empires. The Avishai Margalit in The Ethics of Memory (2002), discusses the defining role of memory in shaping nations: "A nation," he says acerbically, "has famously been defined as a society that nourishes a common delusion about its ancestry and shares a common hatred for its neighbors. Thus, the bond of caring in a nation hinges on false memory (delusion) and hatred of those who do not belong."

Etymology

The first recorded use of the word "nation" was in 968, when Liutprand, bishop of Cremona, while confronting the Byzantine emperor on behalf of his patron Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor, boldly declared in his report, "The Land": I answered, "which you say belongs to your empire belongs, as the nationality and language of the people proves, to the kingdom of Italy." (emphasis added)[http://mediaeval.ucdavis.edu/20A/Luitprand.html] The term derives from Latin natio and originally described the colleagues in a college or students, above all at the University of Paris, who were all born within a pays, spoke the same language and expected to be ruled by their own familiar law. In 1383 and 1384, while studying theology at Paris, Jean Gerson was twice elected procurator for the French nation (i.e. the French-born Francophone students at the University). The Paris division of students into nations was adopted at the University of Prague, where from its opening in 1349 the studium generale was divided among Bohemian, Bavarian, Saxon and various Polish nations.

Modern understanding

Since the 19th century, it is considered the norm that a nation coincides with a sovereign state, called a nation-state. That norm itself derives from the ideology of nationalism, which asserts that each nation deserves its own state. Before the 19th century, it is difficult to find examples that fit the modern idea of a nation-state. That does not mean that there is agreement on the number of nations, and their equivalence with a nation-state. Very few nations and nation-states have an undisputed territory and borders. There are many self-government movements, such as those in Belgium, the United Kingdom and Spain. There are nations which describe themselves as stateless nations, such as those of the Kurds and Assyrians. Claimed national territory may be partitioned, as in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. There are also examples of national identity without a corresponding state, or claim to a state. England is a nation in the United Kingdom, but unlike the other four component nations (Northern Ireland, Cornwall, Scotland and Wales) there has, until recently, been little sign of aspiration to self-government (see Campaign for an English Parliament). The term "state-nation" is sometimes used, for nations where the common identity derives from shared citizenship of a state. It implies that the state was formed first, and that the sense of national identity developed later, or in parallel. The Netherlands and France are often quoted as examples. However, both countries also have a strong ethnic identity and cultural identity, reflected in widespread attitudes to immigrants. If the nation was defined only by citizenship, then naturalised citizens would be accepted as equal members of the nation, and that is not the case. In most countries citizenship is sharply distinguished from nationality. Nation-states vary in their attitude to naturalisation and citizenship. In the United States, the only legal restriction on naturalised citizens is, that they may not hold the office of President, and the only act required of new citizens is an Oath of Allegiance. Many other countries have language and cultural knowledge tests, but they may be intended primarily as a barrier to immigration. Almost all nations are associated with a specific territory, the national homeland. Some live in a historical diaspora, that is, mainly outside the national homeland. The term diaspora now refers mainly to dispersed economic migrants and their descendants. The Roma, who are considered in some parts of Europe to be a distinct nation, are a diaspora without a clearly identified homeland. Where territory is disputed between nations, the claims may be based on which nation lived there first - the nation is considered to include past members. That is mainly the case in areas of historical European settlement (1500-1950). The term "First Nations" is used by groups which share an aboriginal culture, and seek official recognition or autonomy. The term nation is widely used, by extension or metaphor, to describe any group promoting some common interest or common identity, see Red Sox Nation and Queer Nation.

Related concepts

- Nationality
- Nationalism
- Nation-state
- Home Nations
- Country
- Constituent countries
- State
- State (law)
- Ethnicity
- Ethnic group
- Race
- Society
- Identity
- Identity politics

Links

- [http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv3-41 Dictionary of the History of Ideas[:] Medieval and Renaissance ideas of Nation
- [http://www.tamilnation.org/nation.htm What is a Nation?] - Nadesan Satyendra Category:Ethnicity Category:Political geography ja:国民 simple:Nation

State

:This article discusses states as sovereign political entities; for other meanings, see state (disambiguation). A state is an organized political community occupying a definite territory, having an organized government, and possessing internal and external sovereignty. Recognition of the state's claim to independence by other states, enabling it to enter into international agreements, is often important to the establishment of its statehood, although some theories do not make this a requirement - for instance, the Montevideo Convention. The "state" can also be defined in terms of domestic conditions, specifically, as conceptualized by Max Weber, "a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory." [http://www.mdx.ac.uk/www/study/xweb.htm] The exact meaning of this definition depends on what is understood by "legitimate". For more information see government.

Introduction

The word "state" in contemporary parlance often means the "Westphalian state", in reference to the Peace of Westphalia of 1648. In this sense, the modern state is an entity that enjoys extensive autonomy in its domestic economic and social policy, largely free from interference from other states and powers. A number of modern commentators have claimed that we are experiencing the decline of the Westphalian state as the principal actor of the international system, pointing to economic, cultural, political, and technological changes in the world, such as globalization and the emergence of regional and supernational groupings such as the European Union. The term "state" is also used to describe subnational territorial divisions within a federal system, as in the case of the United States of America. See state (law) and state (non-sovereign). In common speech, the terms country, nation and state are casually used as synonyms, but in a more strict usage they are distinguished:
- country is the geographical area.
- nation designates a people (however, national and international both confusingly refer as well to matters pertaining to what are strictly states, as in "national capital", "international law").
- state refers to the government, and an entity in international law. Currently, the entire land surface of the Earth is divided among the territories of the roughly two hundred states now existing, with the special case of Antarctica, a variety of disputed territories, and a number of areas where state power exists in theory, but not in practice (the most significant of these being Somalia and Iraq).

Etymology

The word "state" originates from the medieval state or throne upon which the head of state (usually a monarch) would sit. By process of metonymy, the word state became used to refer to both the head of state and the power entity he represented (though the former meaning has fallen out of use). A similar association of terms can today be seen in the practice of referring to government buildings as having authority, for example "The White House today released a press statement..."

Formation of the state

The birth of the state, in the broadest sense of the word, coincides with the rise of civilization. For most of the existence of the human species, people lived as nomadic hunter-gatherers. That lifestyle began to change with the invention of agriculture around the 9th millennium BC. The practice of agriculture made it necessary for human beings to build permanent settlements and spend most of their lives in close proximity to the land they cultivated. Thus, control over land became an issue for the first time. To express that control, various forms of property rights developed, with people claiming different kinds of rights over various areas of land. Disagreements over the nature and extent of such claims of ownership degenerated into violence and the first "wars". In some parts of the world, notably Mesopotamia and the Nile valley, natural conditions favoured the concentration of land ownership in few hands. Eventually, a small group of people found themselves owning the land on which many other people worked for a living. This control over the land meant control over the people whose livelihoods depended on the land; thus, the first primitive states arose. These states were usually despotic and unstable, with the ruler(s) holding absolute power over their subjects until some other ruler(s) displaced them. Since there were no laws and no infrastructure, and since power was exercised arbitrarily, some political theorists and historians do not consider such early forms of despotic rule to have been states in the proper sense of the word; they are sometimes called proto-states. One of the earliest known sets of laws, the Code of Hammurabi, has been dated to ca. 1700 BC. It was around this time that the concept of law - one of the foundations of the modern state - began to appear. But the rulers of the Ancient Near East had a long tradition of holding absolute power and claiming the status of god-kings (see hydraulic despotism). Thus, laws limiting the power of monarchs did not develop very far in that region. The city-states of Ancient Greece were the first to establish states whose powers were clearly defined in laws (even if the laws themselves could usually be changed quite easily). Also, notably, the idea of democracy was born in ancient Athens (see Athenian democracy). Many institutions of the modern state (especially in Western Europe and areas once dominated by Western-European empires) can trace their origins back to Ancient Rome, which inherited the political traditions of the Greeks and developed them further (particularly the rule of law, albeit in incomplete form). However, the Roman Republic gave way to the Roman Empire - which, in turn, created the concept of universal empire: the idea that the entire world was (or should be) under the authority of one single legitimate state. The fall of the Roman Empire and the Great Migrations changed the character of European politics. The "barbarian" (i.e., non-Roman) kingdoms and chieftains that followed the Roman Empire were ephemeral and transitory and bore little resemblance to the modern state. Even the kingdom of Charlemagne was fleeting; without the tradition of primogeniture, it dissolved into three smaller kingdoms with the Treaty of Verdun in 843. These kingdoms were treated more as land holdings by the royalty that ruled them. Once again, the state became little more than an expression of the ruler's private ownership of a certain area of land. The lack of a real successor to the Roman Empire in Western Europe created a power vacuum. The kingdoms of Western Europe were besieged by invaders on the frontiers - first, the Muslim invasions from the south, then a series of new migrations from the east and finally the Viking invasions from the north. At the same time, the various kingdoms (and smaller political units) were often involved in wars with each other over territory and succession. The solution that evolved out of these affairs was decidedly opposed to the system of independent states and temporary alliances that dominate the modern international system. Religion, which had rarely been a factor in the power calculations of Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire, became the cornerstone of an extremely loose pan-European defensive bloc under the aegis of the Catholic Church. This system produced an extensive framework of institutions - sometimes called "feudalism" - that regulated internal conflict and enabled Western Europe to confront exterior threats, even while no individual secular entity was truly independent in the sense of the modern state. This system asserted itself abroad in the form of the Crusades as the Middle Ages progressed. In 1302, Pope Boniface VIII stated that the political powers of Christendom exercised their prerogatives "at the command and sufferance of the priest." This limited the power of kings, who were obliged to pledge their ultimate allegiance to the Pope. The Holy Roman Empire, one of the strongest medieval authorities, emerged as a competitor to Papal power under Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, who invaded Italy to press his claims to secular authority in the mid-12th century. The weakening of the papacy was a major theme of the Middle Ages; the Western Schism in the later 14th century, a dispute over papal succession, was exploited by secular authorities and contributed to their growing power. The emergence of large, stable land holdings by single dynasties - for instance, France and Castile - enabled them to take a more active and independent role than their traditionally subsidiary role in the earlier middle ages. This shift to more independent, more secular actors would become a major point of controversy in Early Modern Europe. The great dynasties of Europe dramatically consolidated power by the beginning of the 16th century; additionally, the external threats to Europe had considerably lessened. The Reformation was to have a powerful impact on the structure of European politics; the dispute was not only theological, but also threatened the very fabric of the ancient political institutions of feudalism. The bloody conflicts that followed, blending the religious and political, pitted those who asserted the authority of the Pope (and in Germany, the Holy Roman Emperor) against those who asserted the authority of secular authorities and their sovereign ability to make internal policy, particularly when that policy reflected religious affiliation, Roman Catholic or Protestant. These conflicts culminated in the Thirty Years' War of the 17th century. In 1648, the powers of Europe signed the Treaty of Westphalia which ended the religious violence for purely political motives and the Church was stripped of temporal power - even though religion continued to play a political role as the foundation of the divine right of kings. The principle of "cuius regio, eius religio" established at Westphalia and previously in the Peace of Augsburg set a precedent of noninterference in other states' internal affairs that was key in the evolution of the modern state. In Germany, the office of the Holy Roman Emperor, the most prominent symbol of lingering institutions of feudalism, was emasculated as a secular authority in favor of the constituent elements of the Holy Roman Empire. The modern state was born. The state continued to develop as monarchs brought nobles and free towns into line and amassed spectacular resources and prestige. The growing numbers of civil servants eventually became known as the bureaucracy after the elevation of the Republican ideal. Nearly a century and a half after the Peace of Westphalia, the state became fully modern through the French Revolution. Claiming 'national will' as its justification, Napoleon and the Grande Armee of France swept over Europe. In response, conquered and neighboring principalities discarded their old systems and adopted the new model of the nation state. The nation state has remained the dominant political entity all over the world ever since, even though the many ideologies of the 19th and 20th century have created numerous different ways of running the affairs of nation states, as well as numerous different forms of internal and external organization (see political system and economic system).

International point of view

The legal criteria for statehood are not obvious. A document that is often quoted on the matter is the Montevideo Convention from 1933, the first article of which states: :The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. Also, in article 3 it very clearly states that statehood is independent of recognition by other states. This is the declarative theory of statehood. While the Montevideo is a regional American convention and has no legal effect outside the Americas, some have nonetheless seen it as an accurate statement of customary international law. On the other hand, article 3 of the convention is attacked by the advocates of the constitutive theory of statehood, where a state exists only insofar as it is recognized by other states. Which theory is correct is a controversial issue in international law. An example in practice was the collapse of central government in Somalia in the early 1990s: the Montevideo convention would imply that the state of Somalia no longer existed, and the subsequently declared republic of Somaliland (comprising part of the so-called "former" Somalia) may meet the criteria for statehood. However the self-declared republic has not achieved recognition by other states. Article 1 of the convention is also attacked by those who claim that it fails to take into account the complicated situations of military occupation, territorial cession, and governments in exile. Richard W. Hartzell is a leading proponent of this view, and stresses that the four criteria of article 1 need to be expanded to nine. See [http://www.taiwanadvice.com/conventions/montconv.htm The Montevideo Convention and Military Occupation].

The domestic point of view

Looked at from the point of view of an individual nation, the state is a centralized organization of the whole country. Those studying this dimension emphasize the relationship between the state and its people. The English political philosopher Thomas Hobbes argued that in order to avoid a multi-sided civil war, in which life was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short", individuals must necessarily surrender many of their "natural rights" -- including that of attacking each other -- to the "Leviathan", a unified and centralized state. In this tradition, Max Weber and Norbert Elias defined the state as an organization of people that has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a particular geographic area. Also in this tradition, the state differs from the "government": the latter refers to the group of people who make decisions for the state. For Weber, this was an "ideal type", or model, or pure case of the state. Many institutions that have been called "states" do not live up to this definition. For example, in countries such as Afghanistan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the central state has so far not succeeded in monopolizing the legitimate use of force, and must compete with various local warlords. These cases are sometimes called "failed states". One of the most basic characteristics of a modern state is regulation of property rights, investment, trade and the commodity markets (in food, fuel, etc.) typically using its own currency. Although many states (by their own decision) increasingly cede these powers to trade bloc entities, e.g. North American Free Trade Agreement, European Union, it is always controversial to do so, and opens the question of whether these blocs are in fact simply larger states. The study of political economy, which evolved into the modern study of economics, deals with these specific questions in more detail. However, although states are often influenced in their decisions and no longer hold an absolute jurisdiction over their internal affairs, they are nonetheless much stronger in relation to international organizations or to other states than lower (substate) political subdivisions normally are. But the trend at the moment is for the power of superstate levels of governance to increase, and there is no sign of this increase abating. Many (especially those who favour constitutional theories of international law) therefore reject as outdated the idea of sovereignty, and view the state as just the chief political subdivision of the planet.

Philosophies of the state

Different political philosophies have distinct opinions concerning the state as a domestic organization. In the modern era, these philosophies emerged with the rise of capitalism, which coincided with the (re)emergence of the state as a separate and centralized sector of society. Philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau pondered issues concerning the ideal and actual roles of the state. Recent philosophers like John Rawls and Robert Nozick were more concerned with distributive justice and the morality of exercising political power. There are four theories about the origin (and indirectly the justification) of the state. They are:
- Supernatural or natural authority - In this view, the state is either ordained by a higher power (such as God for the "Divine right of kings") or arises naturally out of a presumed human need for order and authority.
- Natural rights - According to this theory, human beings have certain rights that are "natural" (the implications of this word may vary), and establish states for the protection of those rights.
- Social contract - This idea holds that the state is established by the people (i.e. through the consent of the governed) in order to provide for various collective needs that cannot be satisfied through individual efforts, such as national defense, public roads, education, "the general welfare", etc.
- Conflict - Perhaps the simplest of the theories, it holds that the state did not arise out of any conscious decision, but merely as the result of violent conflict. Various groups of people fought each other for control over land or other resources, and the winning side imposed its domination on the losing side. These four theories can accommodate the full spectrum of political views. In practice, most people (and most political philosophies) subscribe to a combination of two or more of the above theories - arguing, for example, that different states have different origins. The conflict theory, in particular, is often combined with one of the other three in order to separate the illegitimate states (those created through conflict and subjugation) from the legitimate ones. There are at least five major philosophies of the state today, the last four of which correspond to specific political ideologies: contractarianism, liberalism, Marxism, conservatism, and anarchism. Contractarianism, as the name implies, is based on the social contract theory. It is also the only major philosophy of the state that does not fall within any single political ideology - perhaps because several different ideologies have adopted it as their own. Contractarianism is the foundation of modern democracy, as well as most forms of socialism and some types of liberalism. In contractarian thinking, the state should express the public interest, the interests of the whole society, and reconcile it with the separate interests of individuals. The state provides public goods and other kinds of collective consumption, while preventing individuals from free-riding (taking advantage of collective consumption without paying) by forcing them to pay taxes. Liberalism, in the classical sense, is based mainly on the natural rights theory. In this view, some or even all "rights" exist naturally and are not created by the state. For example, John Locke believed that individual property rights existed prior to the creation of the state, while the state's main job should be to preserve those rights. Historically, liberals have been less concerned with determining what the state should do and far more interested in stipulating what the state shouldn't do. The liberal philosophy of the state holds that the powers of any state are restricted by natural rights that exist independently of the human mind and overrule any social contract. However, there has been considerable debate among liberals as to what these natural rights actually are. Critics argue that they do not exist at all, since they are not evident from any observations of nature. On the other hand, there are also liberals who subscribe to the contractarian theory. In most cases, they fall on the left wing of liberalism, being social liberals ("New Deal" liberals; see American liberalism) and arguing for a welfare state. They stand in opposition to adherents of the natural rights theory, who tend to be libertarians, falling on the right wing of liberalism and arguing for a "minimal" state. The Marxist philosophy of the state is based on the conflict theory - specifically, on the idea of class conflict. In this view, the primary role of the state in practice is to enforce the existing system of unequal property and personal rights, class domination, and exploitation. The state also mediates in all types of social conflicts, and supplies necessary social-infrastructural conditions for society as a whole. Under such systems as feudalism, the lords used their own military force to exploit their vassals. Under capitalism, on the other hand, the use of force is centralized in a specialized organization which protects the capitalists' class monopoly of ownership of the means of production, allowing the exploitation of those without such ownership. In modern Marxian theory, such class domination can coincide with other forms of domination (such as patriarchy and ethnic hierarchies). Further, in Marxist theory, classes and other forms of exploitation should be abolished by establishing a socialist system, to be followed later by a communist one. Communism, the final goal, is a classless, propertyless and stateless society; however, socialism still preserves personal property and a (democratic) state. Thus, Marxism is opposed to the state (which it views as illegitimate, in accordance with the conflict theory), but does not wish to abolish the state immediately. As such, there is some overlap between Marxism and contractarianism: the socialist state that Marxists wish to establish as their short-term goal is to be based on a form of social contract. This state ought subsequently to slowly "wither away" as the representative democracy of socialism gradually transforms into the direct democracy of communism. Once the process is complete, the communist social order has been achieved and the state no longer exists as an entity separate from the people. In conservative thinking, which is based on the theory of (super)natural authority, the existing structure of traditions and hierarchies (of class, patriarchy, ethnic dominance, etc.) is seen as benefiting society overall. Thus, in a way, conservatives accept some ideas from both the Marxist and the liberal schools of thought, but view them in a different light: the state forces people to accept class and other kinds of domination, but this is seen as being for their own good. This perspective posits that, in general, current traditions only exist because they have been demonstrably successful in the past. Further, as with the liberals, the state is seen as always existing and/or "natural". Many conservatives, especially in recent decades, have come out in favor of the liberal theory of natural rights. Finally, in anarchist thinking, the state is nothing but an unnecessary and exploitative segment of society. Totally rejecting the Hobbesian notion that only a state can prevent chaos, anarchists argue that the state's monopoly of violence creates chaos. They believe that if the state and its restrictions on individual freedom were abolished, people could figure out how to work together peacefully and individual creativity would be unleashed. Contrary to the Marxist perspective, the anarchists see the state as an unnecessary evil, rather than a tool to be used in the class struggle.

References

-
-
-

External links

- Franz Oppenheimer; [http://www.opp.uni-wuppertal.de/oppenheimer/st/state0.htm The State. (1914/1922)]
- Franz Oppenheimer; [http://www.opp.uni-wuppertal.de/oppenheimer/fo27a.htm The Idolatry of the State. (1927)] Category:International law Category:International relations Category:Social sciences Category:Political geography ja:国家 simple:State th:รัฐ

Sovereignty

Sovereignty is the exclusive right to exercise supreme authority over a geographic region, group of people or oneself. Sovereignty over a nation is generally vested in a government or other political agency, though there are cases where it is held by an individual. A monarch who rules a sovereign country can also be referred to as the sovereign of that country. The concept of sovereignty also pertains to a government possessing full control over its own affairs within a territorial or geographical area or limit.

Sovereignty in certain contexts

In international law, sovereignty is the exercise of power by a state. De jure sovereignty is the legal right to do so; de facto sovereignty is the ability in fact to do so (which becomes of special concern upon the failure of the usual expectation that de jure and de facto sovereignty exist at the place and time of concern, and rest in the same organization). Foreign governments recognize the sovereignty of a state over a territory, or refuse to do so. For instance, in theory, both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China considered themselves sovereign governments over the whole territory of mainland China and Taiwan. Though some foreign governments recognize the Republic of China as the valid state, most now recognize the People's Republic of China. However, de facto, the People's Republic of China exercises sovereign power over mainland China, while the Republic of China exercises sovereign power over Taiwan. Since ambassadors are only exchanged between sovereign high parties, the countries recognizing the People's Republic often entertain de facto but not de jure diplomatic relationships with Taiwan by maintaining 'offices of representation', such as the American Institute in Taiwan, rather than embassies there. Tribal sovereignty refers to the right of tribes or of federally recognized American Indian nations to exercise limited jurisdiction within and sometimes beyond reservation boundaries. Two entities without territorial possessions are recognized as sovereign subjects under international law, namely Holy See (separate entity in international law vis-à-vis Vatican City, which has a very small amount of territory) and Order of Malta. The etymology of the word sovereignty, with origins in the Latin super, conveys the idea of "overness". In some regions of the world, such as Quebec and Indian Kashmir, the word "sovereignty" has become the preferred synonym for national independence. Compare the Maori term rangatiratanga, and the concept of self-determination. The meanging of sovereignty is that the people alone had the authority to make laws limiting an individual's freedom of action

Different views of sovereignties

There exist vastly differing views on the moral bases of sovereignty. These views translate into various bases for legal systems:
- Partisans of the divine right of kings argue that the monarch is sovereign by divine right, and not by the agreement of the people. This, pushed to its conclusion, translates into a system of absolute monarchy.
- Most democracies are based on the concept of popular sovereignty: Ultimately, sovereignty is vested in the people, who freely grant the exercise of it to the government.
- Anarchists and some libertarians deny the sovereignty of states and governments.
- Supporters of democratic globalization consider that nation-states should yield some of their power to world organization controlled by world citizens instead of being organized as now in an intergovernmental basis The key element of sovereignty in the legalistic sense is that of exclusivity of jurisdiction. Specifically, when a decision is made by a sovereign entity, it cannot generally be overruled by a higher authority. Further, it is generally held that another legal element of sovereignty requires not only the legal right to exercise power, but the actual exercise of such power. ("no de jure sovereignty without de facto sovereignty") In other words, neither claiming/being proclaimed Sovereign, nor merely exercising the power of a Sovereign is sufficient, sovereignty requires both elements.

Sovereignty and federalism

In federal systems of government, such as that of the United States, sovereignty also refers to powers a state-government has independently of the federal government. The question whether the individual states, particularly the so-called 'Confederate States' of the American Union remained sovereign became a matter of debate in the USA, especially in its first century:
- According to the theory of John C. Calhoun, the states had entered into an agreement from which they might withdraw if other parties broke the terms of agreement, and they remained sovereign. Calhoun contributed to the theoretical basis for acts of secession, as occurred just before the American Civil War. However, Calhoun propounded this as part of a general theory of "nullification", in which a state had the right to refuse to accept any Federal law that it found to be unconstitutional. These self-same southern states refused to accept that non-slave states had any such nullificatory right and insisted that the Federal government enforce the Fugitive Slave Act over any state's attempt to nullify it-- however the premises of the Act was explicit in the Constitution, which required that all prisoners or slaves who escaped into other states, must be returned to their state of origin.
- According to the theory expounded in the Federalist Party, the individual states did not, after the formation of the constitution, remain completely sovereign: they retained possession of certain attributes of sovereignty, while others were ceded to the Federal government; while many states existed, only one sovereign survived. Even if the origin was a compact or contract, after the "United States" were formed by a "constitutional act" there no longer existed a mere contractual relation: there existed a state to which all were subject, and which all must obey. However, the Federalist party was soundly defeated, and the states soundly retained in Constitutional session, that violence could never be used against any state in enforcement of any of its dictates.
- According to Austin: In the case of a composite state or a supreme federal government, the several united governments of the several united societies together with a government common to these several societies, hold joint sovereignty in each of these several societies and also in the larger society arising from the federal union, the several governments of the several united societies remain jointly sovereign in each and all. However, Jefferson and Madison alike, held that the states were not unlimited in their submission to the federal government; rather, each held that every state was the final arbiter of its own self-government, regardless of the union. Quotes from the 1911 [http://1911encyclopedia.org/S/SO/SOVEREIGNTY.htm Encyclopædia Britannica].

External links

- [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sovereignty/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry]
- [http://kennedy.byu.edu/partners/WFPC/alrfouh.html Protection of national sovereign rights under international law] - by Dr. Faisal Al-Rfouh, associate professor, political science, University of Jordan, President of the Gandhi Center for Strategic Studies (GCSS), NGO
- [http://www.state.gov/s/inr/rls/4250.htm Independent States in the World] US Department of State listing in which Taiwan is not included Category:International law Category:International relations ja:主権

Subjugation

Subjugation is the act of bringing under control and governance as a subject, to conquer. It is to make submissive, when one is subjugated one is a second class citizen. Subjugation is an important term in understanding social theory and theories of oppression.

Governing body

A governing body is a corporate form of management. It includes the following types of institution:
- Sport governing body - a regulating authority for sports
- Governing body comprising school governors, especially in the United Kingdom
- School board in Scotland
- Board of Governors of a public institution, especially in the United States
- Board of directors may be described as a governing body
- University Court - the governing body of each of the ancient universities of Scotland Particular governing bodies include:
- Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses
- Governing Body Commission of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness

Hegemony

Hegemony is the dominance of one group over other groups, with or without the threat of force, to the extent that, for instance, the dominant party can dictate the terms of trade to its advantage; more broadly, cultural perspectives become skewed to favor the dominant group. Hegemony controls the ways that ideas become "naturalized" in a process that informs notions of common sense. Throughout history, cultural and political power in any arena has rarely achieved a perfect balance, but hegemony results in the empowerment of certain cultural beliefs, values, and practices to the submersion and partial exclusion of others. Hegemony affects the perspective of mainstream history, as history is written by the victors for a sympathetic readership. The official history of Christianity, marginalizing its defined "heresies", provides a richly-exampled arena of cultural hegemony. Jás Elsner, in Imperial Rome and Christian Triumph (1998), has written: :"Power is very rarely limited to the pure exercise of brute force.... The Roman state bolstered its authority and legitimacy with the trappings of ceremonial — cloaking the actualities of power beneath a display of wealth, the sanction of tradition, and the spectacle of insuperable resources.... Power is a far more complex and mysterious quality than any apparently simple manifestation of it would appear. It is as much a matter of impression, of theatre, of persuading those over whom authority is wielded to collude in their subjugation. Insofar as power is a matter of presentation, its cultural currency in antiquity (and still today) was the creation, manipulation, and display of images. In the propagation of the imperial office, at any rate, art was power." (quoted at [http://employees.oneonta.edu/farberas/arth/arth212/late_antiquity_imp_image.html])

Theories of hegemony

Theories of hegemony attempt to explain how dominant groups or individuals (known as hegemons) can maintain their power -- the capacity of dominant classes to persuade subordinate ones to accept, adopt and internalize their values and norms. Antonio Gramsci devised one of the best-known accounts of hegemony. His theory defined the State by a mixture of coercion and hegemony, between which he drew distinctions; according to Gramsci, hegemony consists of political power that flows from intellectual and moral leadership, authority or consensus, as distinguished from mere armed force. Recently critical theorists Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe have re-defined the term "hegemony".

Hegemonies in history

The word "hegemon" originated in ancient Greece, and derives from the word hegeisthai (meaning "to lead"). An early example of hegemony during ancient Greek history occurred when Sparta became the hegemon of the Peloponnesian League in the 6th century BC. Later, in 337 BC, Philip II of Macedon became the personal Hegemon of the League of Corinth, a position he passed on to his son Alexander the Great. In ancient China during the Western Zhou dynasty the Zhou kings appointed hegemons (known as "Ba"). This was due to the increasing chaos that resulted from the weakening of Zhou authority. The hegemons - initially from the powerful state of Jin - were men with sufficient strength to impose Zhou rule. In return they got prestige and legitimacy they would not otherwise enjoy. The office of hegemon had vanished by the time the last Zhou king was deposed in 256 BCE. The term hegemon is also used to describe Japan's three unifiers in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. Oda Nobunaga, Toyotomi Hideyoshi and Tokugawa Ieyasu each had different titles (and held many different posts during their lifetimes), but each had in common that they exercised hegemony over all or much of Japan (and in Hideyoshi's case much of Korea at one point). For ease of reference they are collectively referred to as the three hegemons or the three unifiers. To the extent that hegemony appears as a cultural phenomenon, cultural institutions maintain it. The Medici maintained their hegemony in Tuscany through control of Florence's major guild, the Arte della Lana. Modern hegemonies also maintain themselves through cultural institutions, often with allegedly "voluntary" membership: the law abiding citizens or, arguably, the Teamsters in states without "right to work" laws — one might adduce countless modern associations. In more recent times, analysts have used the term hegemony in a more abstract sense to describe the "proletarian dictatorships" of the 20th century, resulting in regional domination by local powers, or domination of the world by a global power. China's position of dominance in East Asia for most of its history offers an example of the regional hegemony. The Cold War (1945 - 1990), with its main avenues of coercion — the Warsaw Pact led by the USSR and NATO led by the United States — often appears as a battle for hegemony. The details of the parties' respective ideologies have no relevance to whether they are hegemons: both sides featured superpowers (supported by their clients) battling to dominate the arms race and become the supreme world superpower. The details of the ideologies do come into play to the extent they determine how persuasive or efficient each hegemon is. Since the end of the Cold War, analysts have used the term "hegemony" to describe the United States' role as the sole superpower (the hyperpower) in the modern world. However, some scholars of international relations (such as John Mearsheimer) argue that the United States does not have global hegemony, since it lacks the resources to impose dominance over the entire globe.

Geography of hegemonies

Geopolitics influences hegemonies. Ancient hegemonies developed in fertile river valleys (an example of hydraulic despotism): Egypt, China and the succession of states in Mesopotamia. In China during the Warring States Era the state of Qin artificially created waterways (such as the Chengkuo Canal) in order to give itself an advanatge over its neighbouring rival states. Hegemonic successor states in Eurasia tended to cluster around the Middle East for a period, utilising either the sea (Greece) or the fringe lands (Persia, Arabia). The focus of European hegemony moved west to Rome, then northwards to the Franks and the Holy Roman Empire. The Atlantic seaboard had its heyday (Spain, France, Britain) before the fringes of the European cultural area took over in the twentieth century (United States, Soviet Union). Some regions exhibit continually fluctuating areas of regional hegemony: India, for example, or the Balkans. Other regions show relative stability: northern China offers a case in point. Long-lived hegemonies (China, Pax Sinica; Rome, Pax Romana) offer a contrast to shorter dominations: the Mongol Empire or Japan's Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. to be written: the idea of "hegemony" in Marxist theory.

Resistance and Survival

Conrad Phillip Kottak, in Window on Humanity (2004), explains hegemony in terms of ideologies that offer explanations about why the existing order is in everyone's interest. Many things are promised, but are said to take time and patience in order for them to happen. One good way to keep the people away from oppression would be by telling people that they will eventually gain power in the near future. In most cultures it is seen that the young respect their parents; therefore they let their elders decide what they want to do because of the great respect they have towards them. Another great example would be Solitude: separating soldiers and making them talk by torture. pronounced he-JEH-min-ee

External links

- Open Directory Project: [http://www.dmoz.org/Society/Issues/Global/Hegemonism/ Hegemonism]
- [http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/contributions/gramsci.html Stuart Hainsworth, "Gramsci's hegemony theory and the ideological role of the mass media"] Category:Politics Category:Marxist theory

Colonialism

Colonialism is the extension of a nation's sovereignty over territory and people outside its own boundaries, often to facilitate economic domination over their resources, labor, and markets. The term also refers to a set of beliefs used to legitimize or promote this system, especially the belief that the mores of the colonizer are superior to those of the colonized. Advocates of colonialism argue that colonial rule benefits the colonized by developing the economic and political infrastructure necessary for modernization and democracy. They point to such former colonies as the United States of America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong and Singapore as examples of post-colonial success. These nations do not, however, represent the normal course of colonialism in that they are either settler societies, or tradepost cities. Dependency theorists such as Andre Gunder Frank, on the other hand, argue that colonialism actually leads to the net transfer of wealth from the colonized to the colonizer, and inhibits successful economic development. Critics of colonialism such as Frantz Fanon and Aime Cesaire argue that colonialism does political, psychological, and moral damage to the colonized as well. More critically, Indian writer and political activist Arundhati Roy said that debating the pros and cons of colonialism/imperialism "is a bit like debating the pros and cons of rape". Critics of the alleged abuses of economic and political advantages accruing to developed nations via globalised capitalism have referred to them as neocolonialism, and see them as a continuation of the domination and exploitation of ex-colonial countries, merely utilizing different means.

References

External links

- [http://lsb.scu.edu/~dklein/papers/PdfPapers/Liberalanti-imperialism.pdf Liberal opposition to colonialism, imperialism and empire (pdf)] - by professor Daniel Klein
- ja:植民地主義 zh-min-nan:Si̍t-bîn chú-gī

Imperialism

Imperialism is a policy of extending control or authority over foreign entities as a meansto use it in any reference to thems In the early 21st Centurhas turned its military, political, and Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, and Israel have been directly or otherwise substantially influenced is does not includeish Empire]] holdings of the time — n] and Pakistan.) As there are few other countries with such a capability, it has been said by some that U.S. military actions are partly or mostly acts of militarist imperialas groundless criticism against the U.S. whenever it takes a military action. Two unat the U.S. currently has a much larger and more sophisticated " adequately resembles past incarnations — Roman, British, German or otherwise.

Name dualism

One thing to note in some allegthe "melting" between the name -- and in many times, the sense of n and the other territories controlle including the titular nation itself. Some examples are:
- [[Ottoman Empire]] / [[de:Imperialismus ko:제국주의 ja:帝国主義 nn:[[sv:Imperialism]] [[th:ลัทธิจักรวรรดินิยม

Decolonization

Decolonization is the process by which a colony gains its independence from a colonial power, a process opposite to colonization. Decolonization could be achieved by attaining independence, integrating with the administering power or another state, or establishing a "free association" status. The UN has stated that in the process of decolonization there is no alternative to the principle of self-determination. Decolonization may involve peaceful negotiation and/or violent revolt by the native population. Decolonization in the strict sense is distinct from the break-up of traditional empires, and in modern academic discourse the period of decolonization generally refers to two major waves of independence from European colonial rule: From the late 18th century up through 19th century decolonization in the Americas occurred, beginning with American colonists' revolt against British rule in the present-day United States, and continuing through the collapse of the Spanish and Portuguese empires in Latin America. In the 20th and 21st centuries "decolonization" usually refers to the achievement of independence by the various European colonies and protectorates in Asia and Africa following World War II. A particularly active period of decolonization occurred between 1945 to 1960, beginning with the independence of Pakistan and India from Britain in 1947.

Methods and stages

Decolonization is a political process, frequently involving violence. In extreme circumstances, there is a War of Independence sometimes following on a revolution. More often, there is a dynamic cycle where negotiations fail, minor disturbances ensue resulting in suppression by the police and military forces, escalating into more violent revolts that lead to further negotiations until independence is granted. In rare cases, the actions of the native population are characterized by non-violence, India being an example of this, and the violence comes as active suppression from the occupying forces or as political opposition from forces representing minority local communities who feel threatened by the prospect of independence. For example, there was a war of independence in French Indochina, while in some countries in French West Africa (excluding the Maghreb countries) decolonization resulted from a combination of insurrection and negotiation. The process is only complete when the de facto government of the newly independent country is recognized as the de jure sovereign state by the community of nations. Independence is difficult to achieve without encouragement and practical support from one or more external parties. The motives for giving such aid are varied: nations of the same ethnic and/or religious stock may sympathize with oppressed groups, or a strong nation may attempt to destabilize a colony as a tactical move to weaken a rival or enemy colonizing power or to create space for its own sphere of influence (e.g. the American Monroe doctrine for the entire Western hemisphere). As world opinion became more pro-emancipation following World War I, there was an institutionalized collective effort to advance the cause of emancipation through the League of Nations. Under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, a number of mandates were created. The expressed intention was to prepare these countries for self-government, but the reality was merely a redistribution of control over the former colonies of the defeated powers, mainly Germany and the Ottoman Empire. This reassignment work continued through the United Nations, with a similar system of trust territories created to adjust control over both former colonies and mandated territories administered by the nations defeated in World War II, including Japan. In referenda, some colonized populations have chosen to retain their colonial status, e.g. Puerto Rico, Gibraltar, and the Falklands. Equally, some colonial powers have promoted decolonization in order to shed the financial, military and other burdens that tend to grow in those colonies where the regimes have become more benign. Empires have expanded and contracted throughout history but, in several respects, the modern phenomenon of decolonization has produced different outcomes. Now, when states surrender both the de facto rule of their colonies and their de jure claims to such rule, the ex-colonies are generally not absorbed by other powers. Further, the former colonial powers have in most cases not only continued existing, but have also maintained their status as Powers, retaining strong economic and cultural ties with their former colonies. Through these ties, former colonial powers have ironically maintained a significant proportion of the previous benefits of their empires, but with smaller costs — thus, despite frequent resistance to demands for decolonization, the outcomes have satisfied the colonizers' self-interests. Decolonization is rarely achieved through a single historical act, but rather progresses through one or more stages of emancipation, each of which can be offered or fought for: these can include the introduction of elected representatives (advisory or voting; minority or majority or even exclusive), degrees of autonomy or self-rule. Thus, the final phase of decolonization may in fact concern little more than handing over responsibility for foreign relations and security, and soliciting de jure recognition for the new sovereignty. But, even following the recognition of statehood, a degree of continuity can be maintained through bilateral treaties between now equal governments involving practicalities such as military training, mutual protection pacts or even a garrison and/or military bases.

Decolonization in broad sense

Stretching the notion further, internal decolonization can occur within a sovereign state. Thus, the expansive United States created territories, destined to colonize conquered lands bordering the existing states, and once their development proved successful (often involving new geographical splits) allowed them to petition statehood within the federation, granting not external independence but internal equality as 'sovereign' constutuent members of the federal Union. Even in a state which legally doesn't colonize any of its 'integral' parts, real inequality often causes the politically dominant component - often the largest and/or most populous part (such as Russia within the formally federal USSR as earlier in the czar's empire), or the historical conqueror (such as Austria, the homelands of the ruling Habsburg dynasty, within an empire of mainly Slavonic 'minorities' from Silesia to the shifting Ottoman border)- to be perceived, at least subjectively, as a colonizer in all but name; hence the dismemberment of such a 'prison of peoples' is perceived as decolonization de facto. To complicate matters even further, this may coincide with another element. Thus, the three Baltic republics -Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania- argue that they, in contrary with other constituant SSRs, could not be granted independence at the dismemberment of the Soviet Union because they never joined, but were militarily annexed by Stalin, and thus had been illegally colonized, including massive deportations of their nationals and uninvited immigration of ethnic Russians and other soviet nationalities. Even in other post-Soviet states which had formally acceded, most ethnic Russians were so much identified with the Soviet 'colonization' that they were made to feel so unwelcome that they migrated back to Russia.

History of decolonization

In this chronological overview, not every date is undisputably the decisive moment. Often, the final phase, independence, is mentioned here, though there may be years of autonomy before, e.g. as an Associated State under the British crown. For such details, see each national history. Furthermore, note that some cases have been included that were not strictly colonized but rather protectorate, co-dominium, lease ... Changes subsequent to decolonization are usually not included; nor is the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

18th and 19th centuries

Between the World Wars and during the second

Western European colonial powers

The end of the Great War marked the zenith of European colonization. It also marked the acceleration of the trends that would end it. The extraordinary material demands of the conflict had spread economic change across the world (notably inflation), and the associated social pressures of "war imperialism" created both peasant unrest and a burgeoning middle class. Economic growth created stakeholders with their own demands, while racial issues meant these people clearly stood apart from the colonial middle-class and had to form their own group. The start of mass nationalism, as a concept and practice, would fatally undermine the ideologies of imperialism. There were, naturally, other factors, from agrarian change (and disaster – French Indochina), changes or developments in religion (Buddhism in Burma, Islam in the Dutch East Indies, marginally people like John Chilembwe in Nyasaland), and the impact of the depression of the 1930s. The Great Depression, despite the concentration of its impact on the industrialized world, was exceptionally damaging in the rural colonies. Agricultural prices fell much harder and faster than those of industrial goods, from around 1925 until the return of War the colonies suffered. The colonial powers concentrated on domestic issues, protectionism and tariffs, disregarding the damage done to international trade flows. The colonies, almost all primary "cash crop" producers, lost the majority of their export income and were forced away from the "open" complementary colonial economies to "closed" systems. While some areas returned to subsistence farming (British Malaya) others diversified (India, West Africa), and some began to industrialise. These economies would not fit the colonial strait-jacket when efforts were made to renew the links. Further, the European-owned and -run plantations proved highly vulnerable to extended deflation than native capitalists, reducing the dominance of "white" farmers in colonial economies and making the European governments and investors of the 1930s co-opt indigenous elites — despite the implications for the future. The efforts at colonial reform also hastened their end — notably the move from non-interventionist collaborative systems towards directed, disruptive, direct management to drive economic change. The creation of genuine bureaucratic government boosted the formation of indigenous bourgeoisie. This was especially true in the British Empire, which seemed less capable (or less ruthless) in controlling political nationalism. Driven by pragmatic demands of budgets and manpower the British made deals with the nationalist elites. They dealt with the white Dominions, retained strategic resources at the cost of reducing direct control in Egypt, and made numerous reforms in the Raj, culminating in the Government of India Act (1935). Africa was a very different case from Asia between the wars. Tropical Africa was not fully drawn into the colonial system before the end of the 19th century, excluding only the complexities of the Union of South Africa (busily introducing racial segregation from 1924 and thus catalysing the anti-colonial political growth of half the continent) and the Empire of Ethiopia. Colonial controls ranged between extremes. Economic growth was often curtailed. There were no indigenous nationalist groups with widespread popular support before 1939.

The Soviet Union

In accordance to Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, the Soviet Union was able to annex Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Galitsia and parts of Finland, incorporating them into the national territory of the Soviet Union by either making them new constituent Soviet republics or adding the territory to existing ones. Many russians migrated to some of these regions, so that by 1990, natives made up only about 50% of the population of the Baltic States. Following World War II, Germany lost its territories east of Oder and Neisse rivers to Poland, which gained Pomerania, Silesia and West Prussia, Czechoslovakia, which regained Sudetenland and Soviet Union, which took East Prussia. Local Germans were expulsed, while the population of the respective countries colonized the areas.

The Americas

At end of the Spanish-American War at the end of the 19th century, the United States of America held several colonial territories seized from Spain, among them the Philippines and Puerto Rico. Although the U.S. had initially embarked upon a policy of colonization of these territories (and had fought to suppress local insurgencies there, such as in the Philippine Insurgency), by the 1930s the U.S. policy for the Philippines had changed toward the direction of eventual self-government. Following the invasion and occupation of the Philippines by Japan during World War II, the Philippines gained independence peacefully from the United States. However, other U.S. colonies, such as Puerto Rico, did not gain full independence, despite active independence movements and occasional insurgencies. Puerto Rico remains in commonwealth with the United States, with all the international affairs of Puerto Rico handled by the United States government.

Japan

As the only Asian nation to become a colonial power during the modern era, Japan had gained several substantial colonial concessions (such as Taiwan and Korea, among others) in east Asia. Pursuing a colonial policy comparable to those of European powers, Japan settled significant populations of ethnic Japanese in its colonies while simultaneously suppressing indigenous ethnic populations by enforcing the learning and use of the Japanese language in schools and public interaction, and attempting to eradicate the use of Korean and Chinese among the indigenous peoples, for example. World War II gave Japan occasion to conquer vast swaths of Asia, sweeping into China and seizing the European colonies of Vietnam, Hong Kong, the Philippines, Burma and Indonesia (among others), albeit only for the duration of the war. Following its surrender to the Allies in 1945, on the other hand, Japan was deprived of all its colonies; Japan further claims that the southern Kuril Islands are a small portion of its own national territory, colonized by the Soviet Union.

From World War II to the present

UN Resolution 1514

A milestone of major importance was Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV), on 14 December 1960. Eighty-nine countries voted in favour, none voted against, and nine abstained: Australia, Belgium, Dominican Republic, France, Portugal, Spain, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, and United States. These nine included all the major colonial powers. In 2000, on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of Resolution 1514, UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 55/146 that declared 2001–2010 the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism.

Post-colonial organizations

Due to a common history and culture, former colonial powers created institutions which more loosely associated their former colonies. Membership is voluntary, and in some cases can be revoked if a member state loses some objective criteria (usually a requirement for democratic governance). The organizations serve cultural, economic, and political purposes between the associated countries, although no such organization has become politically prominent as an entity in its own right.

Differing perspectives

There is quite a bit of controversy over decolonization. The end goal tends to be universally regarded as good, but there has been much debate over the best way to grant full independence.

Decolonization and political instability

Some say the post–World War II decolonization movement was too rushed, especially in Africa, and resulted in the creation of unstable regimes in the newly independent countries. Others argue that this instability is largely the result of problems from the colonial period, including arbitrary nation-state borders, lack of training of local populations and disproportional economy.

Economic effects

John Kenneth Galbraith argues that the post-WWII decolonization was brought about for economic reasons. In A Journey Through Economic Time, he writes, "The engine of economic well-being was now within and between the advanced industrial countries. Domestic economic growth — as now measured and much discussed — came to be seen as far more important than the erstwhile colonial trade... The economic effect in the United States from the granting of independence to the Philippines was unnoticeable. The departure of India and Pakistan made small economic difference in Britain. Dutch economists calculated that the economic effect from the loss of the great Dutch empire in Indonesia was compensated for by a couple of years or so of domestic post-war economic growth. The end of the colonial era is celebrated in

Independence

See also

Article note

Independence (disambiguation)

Places in the United States of America

Nation

Origins

Etymology

Modern understanding

Related concepts

See also

Links

State

Introduction

Etymology

Formation of the state

International point of view

The domestic point of view

Philosophies of the state

See also

References

External links

Sovereignty

Sovereignty in certain contexts

Different views of sovereignties

Sovereignty and federalism

See also

External links

Subjugation

Governing body

Hegemony

Theories of hegemony

Hegemonies in history

Geography of hegemonies

Resistance and Survival

See also

External links

Colonialism

See also

References

External links

Imperialism

Name dualism

Decolonization

Methods and stages

Decolonization in broad sense

History of decolonization

18th and 19th centuries

Between the World Wars and during the second

Western European colonial powers

The Soviet Union

The Americas

Japan

From World War II to the present

UN Resolution 1514

Post-colonial organizations

Differing perspectives

Decolonization and political instability

Economic effects