Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Buchtitelbild

2020 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

1. Introduction: Nomad-State Relationships in International Relations

verfasst von : Jamie Levin, Joseph MacKay

Erschienen in: Nomad-State Relationships in International Relations

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

State consolidation has commonly been understood as depending on the coercive power of governments. Nomads are less easily coerced than settled populations and are difficult to track or otherwise administratively document, tax, or conscript. Nomads, therefore, undermine or stand outside of the core features of the modern international order. However, they also present a challenge to the legitimacy of the state. Nomadic societies are not just non-state actors. They are non-state political communities, independent, or potentially so, in their modes of social ordering. Fixed and monopolistic territoriality is important not only to the efficiency of modern states but it is also a defining element of their identity. As such, nomads challenge the legitimacy of modern statehood. Furthermore, their lack of fixity stands at odds with the project of modern nationalism. The movement of a cohesive group across, and their presence within, national borders is contrary to the notion that a particular geographically bounded area (i.e., a state) is the exclusive home to one people who share a common language, culture, and history (i.e., a nation). Among premodern states, migratory peoples were commonly derided as uncivilized, barbarian, or archaic. These biases seem to have persisted even in the context of scant material threats.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Nächstes Kapitel Nomads and States in Comparative Perspective
Fußnoten
1
For a comparison of all three historians, see Stuurman (2013).
 
2
Examples proliferate (c.f., Keohane, 1995; Keohane & Nye, 2001; Kratochwil & Ruggie, 1986; Martin & Simmons, 1998; Milner, 1997; Simmons & Martin, 2001; Smith, 2000), or those groups that pose overt security threats to states, such as terrorists, guerrillas, drug cartels, and the like (c.f., Booth & Dunne, 2002; Duyvesteyn, 2004; Kolodziej, 1992; Laqueur, 1998; Singer, 2001; Tucker, 1998; Walt, 1991).
 
3
Perhaps the largest exception is historical IR focused on non-state “international” systems, especially in premodern East (Kang, 2010; Lee, 2016) and South (Pardesi, 2018; Phillips & Sharman, 2015) Asia. Even here though, the emphasis is on state-like actors and their proxies.
 
4
This space partially parallels what Scott (2009), after van Schendel (2002), has called “Zomia.”
 
5
Work on indigenous peoples in IR is small but growing—see, for example, Crawford (1994, 2017), Keal (2003).
 
6
This review is based primarily on Dyson-Hudson and Dyson-Hudson (1980) and Brockington (2006).
 
7
See, especially, the canonical systematic account in Barfield (1989, 2001). See, differently, Di Cosmo (2002), Beckwith (2009) and Rogers (2012) on the Steppe. For a review aimed at IR, see MacKay (2016, pp. 482–87).
 
8
This is not to overlook historical instances of nomads settling voluntarily or previously nomadic peoples now settled in territorial states (e.g., Fulbe, Mongol). See Azarya (1996) who emphasizes increased wealth and political resources, along with related forces of political stratification as primary factors related to voluntary state formation among African nomadic groups. Interestingly, voluntary nomadic settlement in Africa appears to have been conditional on continued pastoral production. An exception might be relations between nomads and the Soviet Union, where a focus on economic development may have been more pressing than security concerns.
 
9
Even such “illegal” or illegitimate non-state actors as these take advantage of, and depend on, the legitimate structures of states, even as they may be violently set against them. In some cases, these groups oppose existing states to carve out status of their own.
 
10
Scott (2009) goes on to note that these characterizations were not terribly accurate. Often these nomadic identity groups were of quite recent vintage, emerging as populations fled the privations of premodern states.
 
11
For example, in much of the world, for much of history, authority was based on kinship and not seated in any particular territorial domain. Such groups occupied territory, Ruggie (1993?) explains, “but it did not define them.” (p. 149) And, even where territorial claims were relatively fixed, rule need not be “mutually exclusive.” For example, medieval Europe and the European Union are characterized by overlapping rights and responsibilities.
 
12
Nomads are thus somewhat different from ethno-national diasporas, which are detached from their traditional territory but are not defined by being traditionally migratory or pastoral.
 
13
On various modes of peasant resistance, see Scott (1977, 1985, 1998, 2009).
 
Literatur
Acharya, A. (2001). Constructing a security community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the problem of regional order. London, UK: Routledge.
Acharya, A., & Buzan, B. (2010). Non-western international relations theory: Perspectives on and beyond Asia. London, UK: Routledge.
Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism (Revised ed.). London, UK: Verso Books.
Anievas, A., & Nişancıoğlu, K. (2015). How the west came to rule: The geopolitical origins of capitalism. London, UK: Pluto Press.CrossRef
Azarya, V. (1996). Nomads and the state in Africa: The political roots of marginality. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing.
Barfield, T. J. (1989). The perilous frontier: Nomadic empires and China 221 B.C. to AD 1757. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Barfield, T. J. (2001). The shadow empires: Imperial state formation along the Chinese-nomad frontier. In S. E. Alcock et al. (Eds.), Empires: Perspectives from archaeology and history. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Beckwith, C. I. (2009). Empires of the silk road: A history of Central Eurasia from the bronze age to the present. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRef
Booth, K., & Dunne, T. (2002). Worlds in collision. In K. Booth and T. Dunne (Orgs.), Worlds in collision: Terror and the future of the global order (pp. 1–26). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Brockington, D. (2006). Nomads. In H. J. Birx (Ed.), Encyclopedia of anthropology (pp. 1746–1748). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Crawford, N. C. (1994). A security regime among democracies: Cooperation among Iroquois nations. International Organization, 48(3), 345–385.CrossRef
Crawford, N. C. (2017). Native Americans and the making of international society. In T. Dunne & C. Reus-Smit (Eds.), The globalization of international society (pp. 102–121). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Di Cosmo, N. (2002). Ancient China and its enemies: The rise of nomadic power in east Asian history. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Duyvesteyn, I. (2004). How new is the new terrorism? Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 27(5), 439–454.CrossRef
Dyson-Hudson, R., & Dyson-Hudson, N. (1980). Nomadic pastoralism. Annual Review of Anthropology, 9, 15–61.CrossRef
Enghoff, M. (1990). Wildlife conservation ecological strategies and pastoral communities: A contribution to the understanding of parks and people in East Africa. Nomadic Peoples, 25–27, 93–107.
Falah, G. (1989). Israeli state policy toward Bedouin sedentarization in the Negev. Journal of Palestine Studies, 18(2), 71–91.CrossRef
Guglielmo, R., & Waters, T. W. (2005). Migrating towards minority status: Shifting European policy towards Roma. Journal of Common Market Studies, 43(4), 763–785.CrossRef
Hall, M. (2018). Steppe state making. In J. Bartelson, M. Hall, & J. Teorell (Eds.), De-centering state making: Comparative and international perspectives. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Havatzelet, Y. (2006). Land disputes between the Negev Bedouin and Israel. Israel Studies, 11(2), 1–22.CrossRef
Herodotus. (2009). The landmark Herodotus: The histories (R. B. Strassler, Ed.; A. L. Purvis, Trans.). New York, NY: Anchor Books.
Kang, D. C. (2010). East Asia before the west: Five centuries of trade and tribute. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Keal, P. (2003). European conquest and the rights of indigenous peoples: The moral backwardness of international society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Keohane, R. (1995). International institutions: Two approaches. In J. Der Derian (Ed.), International theory: Critical investigations (pp. 279–307). New York, NY: New York University Press.CrossRef
Keohane, R., & Nye, J. (2001). Power and interdependence. New York: Longman.
Kolodziej, E. A. (1992). Renaissance in security studies? Caveat lector! International Studies Quarterly, 36(4), 421–438.CrossRef
Krakover, S. (1999). Urban settlement program and land dispute resolution: The state of Israel versus the Negev Bedouin. GeoJournal, 47(4), 551–561.CrossRef
Kratochwil, F., & Ruggie, J. G. (1986). International organization: A state of the art on an art of the state. International Organization, 40(4), 753–775.CrossRef
Kwan, A. S. C. (2016). Hierarchy, status and international society: China and the steppe nomads. European Journal of International Relations, 22(2), 362–383.CrossRef
Kydd, A. H., & Walter, B. F. (2006). The strategies of terrorism. International Security, 31(1), 49–80.CrossRef
Lacqueur, W. (1998). The new face of terrorism. The Washington Quarterly, 21(4), 169–178.
Lattimore, O. (1940). Inner Asian frontiers of China. New York, NY: American Geographical Society.
Lee, J.-Y. (2016). China’s hegemony: Four hundred years of east Asian domination. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.CrossRef
MacKay, J. (2016). The nomadic other: Ontological security and the inner Asian steppe in historical east Asian international politics. Review of International Studies, 42(3), 472–491.CrossRef
MacKay, J., Levin, J., de Carvalho, G., Cavoukian, K., & Cuthbert, R. (2014). Before and after borders: The nomadic challenge to sovereign territoriality. International Politics, 51(1), 101–123.CrossRef
Mackinder, H. J. (1904). The geographical pivot of history. The Geographical Journal, 23(4), 421–437.CrossRef
Manz, B. F. (1999). The rise and rule of Tamerlane. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Martin, L. L., & Simmons, B. (1998). Theories and empirical studies of international institutions. International Organization, 52(4), 729–757.CrossRef
Milner, H. (1997). Interests, institutions, and information: Domestic politics and international relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Mitzen, J. (2013). Power in concert: The nineteenth-century origins of global governance. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRef
Morgan, D. (2007). The Mongols (2nd ed.). London, UK: Blackwell.
Ndagala, D. K. (1990). Pastoralists and the state in Tanzania. Nomadic Peoples, 25–27, 52–63.
Neumann, I. B. (2011). The steppe and early European state formation. Uluslararasi Iliskiler/International Relations, 8(30), 3–12.
Neumann, I. B., & Wigen, E. (2013). The importance of the Eurasian steppe to the study of international relations. Journal of International Relations and Development, 16, 311–330.CrossRef
Neumann, I. B., & Wigen, E. (2018). The steppe tradition in international relations: Russians, Turks and European state building 4000 BCE–2017 CE. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Nexon, D. H. (2009). The struggle for power in early modern Europe: Religious conflict, dynastic empires, and international change. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRef
Ochieng, C. (2007). Development through positive deviance and its implications for economic policy making and public administration in Africa: The case of Kenyan agricultural development, 1930–2005. World Development, 35(3), 454–479.CrossRef
Pape, R. A. (2003). The strategic logic of suicide terrorism. American Political Science Review, 97(3), 343–361.CrossRef
Phillips, A., & Sharman, J. (2015). International order in diversity: War, trade and rule in the Indian Ocean. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
van der Pijl, K. (1995). Nomads, empires, states: Modes of foreign relations and political economy. London, UK: Pluto Press.
Reus-Smit, C. (1999). The moral purpose of the state: Culture, social identity, and institutional rationality in international relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rogers, J. D. (2012). Inner Asian states and empires: Theories and synthesis. Journal of Archaeological Research, 20(3), 205–256.CrossRef
Rowe, W. T. (2012). China’s last empire: The great Qing. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Ruggie, J. G. (1993). Territoriality and beyond: Problematizing modernity in international relations. International Organization, 47(1), 139–174.CrossRef
van Schendel, W. (2002). Geographies of knowing, geographies of ignorance: Jumping scale in Southeast Asia. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 20, 647–668.CrossRef
Scott, J. C. (1977). The moral economy of the peasant: Rebellion and subsistence in Southeast Asia. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Scott, J. C. (1985). Weapons of the weak: Everyday forms of peasant resistance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Scott, J. C. (2009). The art of not being governed: An anarchist history of upland Southeast Asia. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Shahar, S. (2007). Religious minorities, vagabonds and gypsies in early modern Europe. In R. Stauber & R. Vago (Eds.), The Roma—A minority in Europe: Historical, political and social perspectives (pp. 1–18). Budapest: Central European University Press.
Sima, Q. (1993). The world beyond China. In P. Buckley (Ed.), Chinese civilization: A sourcebook (2nd ed., pp. 54–56). New York, NY: Free Press.
Simhandl, K. (2006). ‘Western Gypsies and Travellers’–‘Eastern Roma’: The creation of political objects by the institutions of the European Union. Nations and Nationalism, 12(1): 97–115.
Simmons, B., & Martin, L. L. (2001). International organizations and institutions. In W. Carlsnaes et al. (Eds.), Handbook of international relations (pp. 192–211). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Singer, P. W. (2001). Corporate warriors: The rise of the privatized military industry and its ramifications for international security. International Security, 26(3), 186–220.CrossRef
Smith, S. (2000). The discipline of international relations: Still an American social science? British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 2(3), 374–402.CrossRef
Spruyt, H. (1996). The sovereign state and its competitors: An analysis of systems change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Stuurman, S. (2013). Common humanity and cultural difference on the sedentary—Nomadic frontier: Herodotus, Sima Qian, and Ibn Khaldun. In S. Moyne & A. Sartori (Eds.), Global intellectual history. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Tucker, D. (1998). Responding to terrorism. The Washington Quarterly, 21(1): 103–117.
Waley-Cohen, J. (2004). The new Qing history. Radical History Review, 88(1), 193–206.CrossRef
Walt, S. (1991). The renaissance of security studies. International Studies Quarterly, 35(2): 211–239.
Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Wong, W. H., & Brown, P. A. (2013). E-bandits in global activism: WikiLeaks, anonymous, and the politics of no one. Perspectives on Politics, 11(4), 1015–1033.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Introduction: Nomad-State Relationships in International Relations
verfasst von
Jamie Levin
Joseph MacKay
Copyright-Jahr
2020
Buch
Nomad-State Relationships in International Relations

Print ISBN: 978-3-030-28052-9

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-28053-6

Copyright-Jahr: 2020

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28053-6_1

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise