Monopoly on violence
From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia
| Revision as of 15:42, 18 June 2015 Jahsonic (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 15:43, 18 June 2015 Jahsonic (Talk | contribs) Next diff → |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Template}} | {{Template}} | ||
| - | "'''It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets'''" is a dictum by [[Voltaire]] found in ''[[Questions sur l'Encyclopédie]]'' (1770-1774). Its original French reads "il est défendu de tuer; tout meurtrier est puni, à moins qu’il n’ait tué en grande compagnie, et au son des trompettes." | ||
| - | By this Voltaire means that is allowed for people to kill during [[war]]. | + | The '''[[monopoly]] of the ''legitimate'' use of physical force''', also known as the '''monopoly on violence''' ({{lang-de|Gewaltmonopol des Staates}}), is the defining conception of [[state (polity)|the state]] as first expounded by sociologist [[Max Weber]] in his essay ''[[Politics as a Vocation]]'' (1919). Weber claims that the state is any "human community that successfully claims the ''monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force'' within a given territory"; thus, "the modern state is a compulsory association which organizes domination." In other words, Weber describes the state as any organization that succeeds in holding the exclusive right to use, threaten, or authorize physical force against residents of its territory. Such a monopoly, according to Weber, must occur via a process of [[Legitimation#Power and influence|legitimation]]. |
| - | ==Dutch translation== | + | According to [[Raymond Aron]], [[international relations]] are characterized by the absence of widely acknowledged legitimacy in the use of force between states. |
| - | Het is verboden om te doden. Iedere moordenaar wordt gestraft, tenzij hij doodt in groot gezelschap en onder luid trompetgeschal. | + | |
| + | ==Max Weber's theory== | ||
| + | [[Max Weber]] wrote in ''[[Politics as a Vocation]]'' that a necessary condition of statehood is the retention of such a monopoly. His expanded definition was that something is "a 'state' if and insofar as its administrative staff successfully upholds a claim on the 'monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force' ({{lang-de|das Monopol legitimen physischen Zwanges}}) in the enforcement of its order." Weber's concept has been formalized to show that the exclusive policing power of the state benefits social welfare, provided the state acts benevolently in the interest of its citizens. | ||
| + | |||
| + | According to Weber, the state is the source of legitimate physical force. The public [[police]] and [[military]] are its main instruments, but [[private security]] can also be used with state authorization. Martha Lizabeth Phelps takes his idea a step further. Phelps claims that the use of private actors by the state remains legitimate if and only if military contractors are perceived | ||
| + | as being controlled by the state. Weber applied several caveats to his discussion of the state's monopoly of force: | ||
| + | * He intended the statement as a contemporary observation, noting that the connection between the state and the use of physical force has not always been so close. He uses the examples of [[feudalism]], where [[feud|private warfare]] was permitted under certain conditions, and of [[Church courts|religious courts]], which had sole jurisdiction over some types of offenses, especially heresy and sex crimes (thus the nickname "bawdy courts"). Regardless, the state exists wherever a single authority can legitimately authorize violence. | ||
| + | * By the same token, the "monopoly" does not mean that only the government may use physical force, but that the state is the only source of legitimacy for all physical coercion or adjudication of coercion. For example, the law might permit individuals to use force in [[Self-defense|defense of self]] or property, but this right derives from the state's authority. | ||
| ==See also== | ==See also== | ||
| - | *[[Forbidden]] | + | * [[Police brutality]] |
| - | *[[Thou shalt not kill]] | + | * [[Non-state actor]] |
| - | *[[Monopoly on violence]] | + | * [[Insurgency]] |
| - | *[[Punishment]] | + | * [[Counter-insurgency]] |
| - | *[[Kill]] | + | * [[Private army]] |
| - | *[[Murder]] | + | |
| - | *[[Trumpet]] | + | |
| {{GFDL}} | {{GFDL}} | ||
Revision as of 15:43, 18 June 2015
|
Related e |
|
Featured: |
The monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force, also known as the monopoly on violence (Template:Lang-de), is the defining conception of the state as first expounded by sociologist Max Weber in his essay Politics as a Vocation (1919). Weber claims that the state is any "human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory"; thus, "the modern state is a compulsory association which organizes domination." In other words, Weber describes the state as any organization that succeeds in holding the exclusive right to use, threaten, or authorize physical force against residents of its territory. Such a monopoly, according to Weber, must occur via a process of legitimation.
According to Raymond Aron, international relations are characterized by the absence of widely acknowledged legitimacy in the use of force between states.
Max Weber's theory
Max Weber wrote in Politics as a Vocation that a necessary condition of statehood is the retention of such a monopoly. His expanded definition was that something is "a 'state' if and insofar as its administrative staff successfully upholds a claim on the 'monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force' (Template:Lang-de) in the enforcement of its order." Weber's concept has been formalized to show that the exclusive policing power of the state benefits social welfare, provided the state acts benevolently in the interest of its citizens.
According to Weber, the state is the source of legitimate physical force. The public police and military are its main instruments, but private security can also be used with state authorization. Martha Lizabeth Phelps takes his idea a step further. Phelps claims that the use of private actors by the state remains legitimate if and only if military contractors are perceived as being controlled by the state. Weber applied several caveats to his discussion of the state's monopoly of force:
- He intended the statement as a contemporary observation, noting that the connection between the state and the use of physical force has not always been so close. He uses the examples of feudalism, where private warfare was permitted under certain conditions, and of religious courts, which had sole jurisdiction over some types of offenses, especially heresy and sex crimes (thus the nickname "bawdy courts"). Regardless, the state exists wherever a single authority can legitimately authorize violence.
- By the same token, the "monopoly" does not mean that only the government may use physical force, but that the state is the only source of legitimacy for all physical coercion or adjudication of coercion. For example, the law might permit individuals to use force in defense of self or property, but this right derives from the state's authority.
See also
