Anter- Modern State and Its Monopoly on Violence

Question 1

What is the Weberian state?

Answer 1

A political, modern state featuring:

• Monopoly on legitimate physical force (as a last resort)
• An administration
• Bureaucracy is the nucleus of the state
• Dominations which show the state is legitimate
• Legitimacy means the legality of its orders

It is complex and abstract- not just one thing.

Question 2

Who has this monopoly?

Answer 2

Using examples from European history, Weber shows that all political communities are based on force: every community has resorted to physical force to protect its interests.

The monopolization of force by the state was the result of a long-term and violent process in which the local central force gradually expropriated holders of powers

Question 3

When was this monopoly enforced?

Answer 3

• Today, historians say it is the early modern age, but it can be dated a few centuries later. For example, state authority and jurisdiction in the East Elbian territories of Prussia were
  exercised by the landlords until the late nineteenth century.
• Can’t be exact as it was a lengthy process

Question 4

What other areas did monopolisation occur?

Answer 4

• Admin, legislation and judicial decision-making
• The emergence of the modern state was
  a comprehensive process of centralization of powers

Question 5

What threatens the state’s monopoly on Violence?

Answer 5

• Terrorism
• Private security companies as the legitimacy of the modern state rests on the supposition that all citizens obtain security and protection without distinction

Question 6

What is Stefan Breuer’s “modified distribution of force”

Answer 6

• Islamic immigration to Europe has created parallel societies that live alongside the majority society
• Since they are mostly shaped by cultures of violence, new violent potential emerges in European societies.
• Therefore, states must confront the potential for violence and parallel justice if they don’t want to jeopardize their stability and legitimacy.

Question 7

What is a monopoly on Violence?

Answer 7

• impossible to be absolute
• should be understood teleologically, for it is a claim that has to be constantly asserted and enforced.
• This enforcement depends on the state’s institutionalization of the means of force by the state and on the basis of legitimacy that ensures the compliance of such a claim.
• In this sense, the state can always only aim at
  prohibiting non-state violence
• Hence, linked to the rule of law as a monopoly of violence does not mean it won’t appear
• Double bind: the promise of putting an end to non-domesticated and uncontrolled violence is only realized at the cost of being itself potentially violent.
• Heinrich Popitz concludes that violence is a “necessary condition” of preserving order.

Question 8

Has international relations ended the state?

Answer 8

The international community is still essentially a community of states. The states are still the bearers of the international order, and they are the actual creators and guarantors of international law

Question 9

Who lives under this state?

Answer 9

• Only 16 per cent of the world population lives under the
  conditions of modern statehood. In contrast, nearly three-quarters live in areas of low statehood, and 10 per cent
  live in completely state-free and disordered territories.
• Europe

Question 10

Key argument

Answer 10

Anter argues against the idea that the state no longer exists, asserting that it remains dynamic and vital. He emphasizes the importance of the state’s monopoly on violence, a concept popularized by Weber, which is crucial for maintaining order and legitimacy. However, this monopoly is inherently incomplete, as non-state violence persists and can challenge state authority, especially in contexts of social fragmentation, such as the emergence of parallel societies influenced by immigration. Anter also discusses the implications of privatization of security, which could undermine the state’s legitimacy by creating inequalities in access to protection. Ultimately, it contends that while the state faces challenges, particularly in the international sphere, it remains a fundamental entity in governance and law.

Question 11

Weber points to the monopoly of violence as the defining aspect of the state. What does he mean by that? Give one example of that and one example of the lack of the monopoly of violence.

Answer 11

• Monopoly of violence is the states power over legitimate forms of violence and it being to sole agent of it ie army and police
• Violence is not just physicial it also regards civil liberties ie taxing and censorship links to social contract
• Terrorism is an example of the lack of monopoly

Question 12

What does Anter mean by: “The legitimacy of the modern state, to be precise, rests primarily on the belief in the legality of its orders”?

Answer 12

-rules legitimise physical force
-social contract they state gives back protection- eleminate rivals for example gangs
- legitimate when the person you are putting the rules on accepts it
-happens within a confine of a specific territory

Question 13

How does Weber’s theory compare to earlier theorists of the state?

Answer 13

• He populised the monopoly of violence but his predecessor
• In methodological respect, Weber’s theory marks a turning point in the history of political and legal science, which was dominated by doyens like Georg Jellinek at that time, while angry young men like Hans Kelsen were already challenging the prevailing opinion.
• differs from marxist where state used by the ruiling power
  -weber brings the aspect of legitimacy not just about domination of violences its the fact that this monopoly is legitimate and witht this brings the infastructre the courts the law ect which helps form a state
• you dont have to use violence but people belive you can and will use it