Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T19:05:14.037Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - The Innocuousness of State Lethality in an Age of National Security

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 September 2009

By
Robin Wagner-Pacifici
Edited by
Austin Sarat  and
Jennifer L. Culbert
Austin Sarat
Affiliation:
Amherst College, Massachusetts
Jennifer L. Culbert
Affiliation:
The Johns Hopkins University
Get access

Summary

What is required is thus a sovereignty, a force that is stronger than all the other forces in the world. But if the constitution of this force is, in principle, supposed to represent and protect this world democracy, it in fact betrays and threatens it from the very outset, in an autoimmune fashion, and in a way that is … just as silent as it is unavowable. Silent and unavowable like sovereignty itself.

– Jacques Derrida, Rogues

All states are lethal by definition. Max Weber knew this, and in a 1918 speech to law students in Germany, “Politics as a Vocation,” he detailed this recognition by way of a definition. Assuring his audience that his lecture would disappoint them, he first announced that politics should be understood as the leadership of a political association, “hence today, of a state.” Hewing firmly to a sociological point of view, he eliminated the consideration of ends or goals in his definition of a state, because different states historically have had different ends. What defines a state for Weber is its means, and the means specific to all states is the use of physical force. Weber approvingly quotes Leon Trotsky to introduce this sociological definition of the state: “‘Every state is founded on force,’ said Trotsky at Brest-Litovsk. That is indeed right” (78). Weber then provides two quick definitions of the state. The first defines the state as “a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory” (78).

Type
Chapter
Information
States of Violence
War, Capital Punishment, and Letting Die
 , pp. 25 - 50
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Weber, Max, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, ed. Gerth, H. H. and Mills, C. Wright. New York: Oxford University Press, 1958, 77Google Scholar
Jameson, Fredric, “The Vanishing Mediator: Narrative Structure in Max Weber,” New German Critique, no. 1 (Winter 1974): 52–89, 61Google Scholar
Bartleson, Jens, A Genealogy of Sovereignty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995, 21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philpott, Daniel, “Usurping the Sovereignty of Sovereignty.” World Politics 53 (January 2001): 297–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, Michael Ross and Bunck, Julie Marie, Law, Power, and the Sovereign State: The Evolution and Application of the Concept of Sovereignty. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995, 124Google Scholar
Lutz, Catherine, “Empire Is in the Details,” American Ethnologist 33.4 (2006): 593–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elias, Norbert, The Civilizing Process, vol. 2, Power and Civility, trans. Jephcott, Edmund. New York: Pantheon Books, 1982, 235Google Scholar
Collins, Randall, “Weber and the Sociology of Revolution,” Journal of Classical Sociology 1.2 (2001): 171–194, 174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snider, Don M. and Nagl, John A., “The National Security Strategy: Documenting Strategic Vision,” in U.S. Army War College Guide to Strategy, ed. Cerami, Joseph and Holcomb, James F.Carlisle, PA: Army War College, Institute of Strategic Studies, 2001, 127–142, 127Google Scholar
Greenhouse, Carol, “Lear and Law's Doubles: Identity and Meaning in a Time of Crisis,” Law, Culture, and the Humanities 2.2 (2006): 239–258, 242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dershowitz, Alan M., Preemption: A Knife That Cuts Both Ways. New York: W. W. Norton, 2006Google Scholar
Brooks, Rosa Ehrenreich, “War Everywhere: Rights, National Security Law, and the Law of Armed Conflict in the Age of Terror,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 153.2 (December 2004): 675–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zemenides, Endy, “The Doctrine of Preemption: Precedents and Problems,” Officer 80.3 (2004): 31–33Google Scholar
Wester, Franklin Eric, “Preemption and Just War: Considering the Case of Iraq,” Parameters 34.4 (2004–2005): 20–40Google Scholar
Sapiro, Miriam, “Iraq: The Shifting Sands of Preemptive Self-Defense,” American Journal of International Law 97.3 (2003): 599–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walzer, Michael, Arguing about War. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004Google Scholar
Walzer, Michael, Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. New York: Basic Books, 1992Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques, Rogues: Two Essays on Reason, trans. Brault, Pascale-Anne and Naas, Michael. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2005, 101Google Scholar
Chang, Gordon C. and Mehan, Hugh B., “Discourse in a Religious Mode: The Bush Administration's Discourse in the War on Terrorism and its Challenges,” Pragmatics 16.1 (March 2006): 1–23, 7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartnett, Stephen John and Stengrim, Laura Ann, “War Rhetorics: The National Security Strategy of the United States and President Bush's Globalization-through-Benevolent-Empire,” SAQ 105.1 (Winter 2006): 175–205Google Scholar
Burke, Kenneth, A Grammar of Motives. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969, 91Google Scholar
Rice, Susan E., The New National Security Strategy: Focus on Failed States, Policy Brief 116. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2003Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, Rogue States: The Rule of Force in World Affairs. Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 2000Google Scholar
Litwak, Robert, Rogue States and U.S. Foreign Policy: Containment after the Cold War. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2000Google Scholar
Mann, Michael, Incoherent Empire. London: Verso, 2003Google Scholar
Cetina, Karin Knorr, “Complex Global Microstructures: The New Terrorist Societies,” Theory, Culture, and Society 22.5 (2005): 213–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×