Publication | Closed Access
Degrees of statehood
214
Citations
0
References
1998
Year
NationalismSovereign StatehoodState LawConstitutional LawFailed State StudiesLawAdministrative LawSocial StratificationSocial SciencesGeopolitical ConflictState FailureInternational PoliticsState StructureSub-saharan AfricaGeopoliticsInternational RuleAfrican ConflictInternational RelationsInternational StatehoodInternational Relation TheoryInternational LawAfrican PoliticsWorld PoliticsState CrimePolitical GeographyGlobal PoliticsAfrican Foreign PolicymakingGovernment AdministrationPolitical ScienceInternational Institutions
The paper examines how statehood relates to the international system, noting that entities traditionally seen as states sometimes lack basic state functions while non‑state actors can acquire state‑like attributes, especially in sub‑Saharan Africa. It argues that statehood should be viewed as a relative concept, with entities meeting criteria to varying degrees rather than a strict binary distinction. The study warns against assuming universal state characteristics for peripheral actors and suggests this has broader implications for the conceptual foundations of international relations.
This paper explores the relationship between statehood and the international system, with particular reference to the states of sub-Saharan Africa. It suggests, as the title implies, that statehood should be regarded as a relative concept; and that rather than distinguish sharply between entities that are, and are not, states, we should regard different entities as meeting the criteria for international statehood to a greater or lesser degree. Entities which we have been accustomed to regard as states, at least for the purposes of studying them in international relations, sometimes fail to exercise even the minimal responsibilities associated with state power, while those who control them do not behave in the way that is normally ascribed to the ‘rulers’ of states. Entities that are not accorded the status of states, such as guerrilla insurgencies or even voluntary organizations, may take on attributes that have customarily been associated with sovereign statehood. This conclusion carries at least a salutary warning against too readily ascribing the supposedly universal characteristics of states to peripheral areas of the modern global system, in which the categories in which we are accustomed to regard international politics have become blurred. More broadly, given the peculiar and privileged position of states in the conventional analysis of international relations, it may carry significant implications for the idea of international relations itself.