1. MY LECTURES ON “WHAT IS THE STATE?” 2010
NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, ORISSA
B.A. LL.B SEMESTER-I (2010): “SCIENCE OF POLITICS”
MY LECTURES ON “WHAT ISTHE STATE?
By
DR. AFROZ ALAM
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF POLITICS
NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, ORISSA
MOBILE: +919438303041
E-MAIL: afrozalam2@gmail.com
afroz@nluo.ac.in
NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, ORISSA Page 1

2. MY LECTURES ON “WHAT IS THE STATE?” 2010
LECTURE EIGHT
“STATE IS NOT THE SOURCE OF LAW BUT IT IS LAW. THE DUALISM OF LAW AND STATE IS AN ANIMISTIC
SUPERSTITION”
WHAT IS THE STATE?
We have already discussed the meaning and aspects of politics in the previous lectures. In those discussions, we
find that politics is understood sometime as the study of the State and government. Hence, the understanding of
politics will not be complete, if we are not able to understand what this State is all about? What are the essential
elements of the State? Is State a natural or divine or an artificial or evolved institution? How did the State
originate? How much power should a State exercise? Is it possible to live without State? These bewildering
questions have been the concern of politics and political philosophers since antiquity. Let us first explore the
meaning of the State.
MAKING SENSE OF THE STATE
The word State derived from the Latin word status which means “condition” or "status." With the revival of the
Roman law in the 14th century in Europe, this Latin term was used to refer to the legal standing of persons (such as
the various "estates of the realm" - noble, common, and clerical), and in particular the special status of the king.
The word was also associated with Roman ideas about the “status rei publicae” which means the “condition of the
republic.” It has also been claimed that the word "State" originates from the medieval state or regal chair upon
which the head of state (usually a monarch) would sit. Thus the word State used to refer to both the head of state
and the power entity he represented. The term State is also attributed to King Louis XIV of France who said once
“I am the State” and “I am going away, but the State will always remain”.
It is also to be noted here that the State in the form of political powers has existed from time immemorial. The first
form of States could be traced back to the Greek “polis” which means “city-states”. Before city-states there were
tribal States. But city-states cannot be termed as States as these were merely city-communities and loosing the
features of modern State. After the Greek city- states, Roman Empire emerged by merging the city-states and
establishing the State as the highest law-making power. With the downfall of Rome the State actually disappeared
from Western Europe. The Roman Empire was torn into pieces by Teutonic conquerors who laid the foundation of
“feudal-State” in medieval times. Under feudal-State system, political authority was associated with the ownership
of the land. However, the authority under this system was decentralized and the conception of sovereign State was
missing. With the entry of Church in politics during medieval times, the feudal-States changed into Church-States
which were neither sovereign nor powerful. It was because the power was divided amongst feudal lords, the Popes
and the Kings. It was out of the womb of feudal-States and Church-States, the modern notion of territorial-
sovereign States emerged during 16th and 17th century.
The contemporary concept of the State owes its origin to Machiavelli who expressed this idea in his book The
Prince that State is “the power which has authority over men.” This was an important idea because it describes
the nature of the State, but not the end of the State.
MEANING OF THE STATE
Because the term State has changed over time and various writers from Aristotle to present often used the word
“state” in a different ways. Therefore it is difficult to accurately define the concept of State. Let us look at the
various definitions of State which came to us time to time.
NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, ORISSA Page 2

3. MY LECTURES ON “WHAT IS THE STATE?” 2010
We have taken three representatives from the ancient times, namely Aristotle, Thrasymachus and Cicero. Aristotle
defined the State as “a union of families and villages having for its end perfect and self-sufficient life.”
Thrasymachus took the power view and defined the State as “no more than the rule of the stronger.” Cicero
looked at the State as “a numerous society united by a common sense of right and mutual participation in
advantages.” We do not find any concrete definition of the State in medieval times. However, the definitions
offered by Aristotle, Thrasymachus and Cicero are no more relevant so as to understand the contemporary form of
State.
However, in modern times State has become the subject of wide attention by the scholars. Max Weber, a German
sociologist, evolved a definition which is being acknowledged in modern political theory. He defined State as “a
human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given
territory.” Similarly, MacIver and Page have observed that “the State is distinguished from all other
associations by its exclusive investment with the final power of coercion.”
While recognising the fact that “the State is the crowning-point of the modern social edifice”, Harold J. Laski
defined the State as “a territorial society divided into government and subjects claiming, within its allotted
physical area, supremacy over all other institutions.” While emphasizing the element of sovereignty, Watkins
defined the State as “a geographically delimited segment of human society united by common obedience to a
single sovereign.”
In the most recent time there are scholars who came out with the working definition of the State and also accepted
under international law. Garner has took the lead in this regard who defined the State as “a community of
persons, more or less numerous, permanently occupying a definite portion of territory, independent of
external control and possessing an organised government to which the great body of inhabitants render
habitual obedience.” G.K. Roberts further simplified the definition of the State as “a territorial area in which a
population is governed by a set of political authorities, and which successfully claims the compliance of the
citizenry for its laws, and is able to secure such compliance by its monopolistic control of legitimate force.”
If we look at the State from the perspective of International Law, we will find only one document that often quoted
on the matter of the State is the Montevideo Convention, 1933. The first article of Montevideo Convention 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.
States within the United States or India, provinces, and cantons are not considered subjects of international law,
because they lacked the legal authority to engage in foreign relations.
However, the Article 12 of the Constitution of India used the term State in illustrative sense: “the State”
includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the
States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of Government of
India.
In nutshell, a State is a political association with effective internal and external sovereignty over a geographic area
and population which is not dependent on, or subject to any other power or state. If we scan the modern definitions
of the State, we will find that the State is made of four elements: 1) Population; 2) Territory; 3) Government; and
4) Sovereignty.
NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, ORISSA Page 3