STATE. Political scientists of the present day distinguish sharply between the idea con noted by the term "state" and that indicated by the word "government? By "state" is meant the body-politic abstractly considered,— the en tity that possesses and exercises the sovereign political will. By "government" is meant the mechanism of political rule, the ensemble of the agencies through which the tasks of the state are performed. The present article will be devoted to a discussion of the nature of the state. A treatment of GOVERNMENT will be found under that title.
As distinguished from a society, by which is meant simply an aggregate of human beings living together and united by mutual economic and social interests, a state is a body of in dividuals that has assumed an organized form, that has a definite membership, and has created for itself specific organs for expressing and enforcing its corporate will. Thus, in order that there may be a state, three elements must be present : (1) An aggregate of human beings, individually termed citizens or subjects, form ing a single group and as such termed a °people"; (2) a political apparatus, termed a government. and administered by a corps of officials collectively termed a magistracy; and (3) a body of rules or maxims, written or unwritten, which are generally recognized to be such as may rightfully he enforced by those entrusted with the exercise of the powers of the state. Whether or not to these three es sential elements there should be added a fourth. namely, a definite area of land, there is a difference of opinion. The eminent Ger man publicist Bluntschli, who may be taken as a representative of one view, defines a state as "the politically organized national per son of a definite country." On the other hand, Holland declares that "a state is a numer ous assemblage of human beings generally oc cupying a certain territory, among whom the will of the majority, or of an ascertainable class of persons, is, by the strength of such a majority or class, made to prevail against any number who oppose it." The definition of Bluntschli is undoubtedly applicable to all mod ern civilized states, but certainly is not descrip tive of very many bodies-politic of the past. Indeed, political sovereignty, by which is meant the supreme power of the state, was for many years, according to the ideas of the peoples of western Europe, not territorial at all, but based upon a personal allegiance of the subjects to their rulers.
A people, a government and a body of laws are what may be termed the essential material elements of which a state is composed. In ad dition to these there is one characteristic that it must possess in order properly to deserve its title and to be distinguished from the others and lower types of political life. This unique and distinguishing characteristic is sovereignty. By sovereignty is meant the highest, or supreme power. It thus means that its possessor is it self the ultimate source of all the laws that are enforced over the territory which it claims as its own, and over citizens or other persons subject to its authority. It means, in short, formal legal omnipotence. The word formal is used, for of course the power of control that any state may actually exercise is limited by the intolerance of its subjects of oppression. But, formally, a state, because legally subject to the control of no other law-making power, has the power to issue such legally binding commands as it sees fit. Directly or indirectly,
it is the source of all the rules that regulate not only the conduct of its subjects and others for the time being' subject to its authority, but those that determine the form of its own government and the respective powers of its several organs and officials. The exercise of all political powers, either by individuals or associations of individuals, are, therefore, vali dated only by its sanction. The state is thus legally supreme, not only as the ultimate source of all law, hut is itself the determinator of the matters that it will regulate, and the manner in which it will regulate them. Thus, as the Austrian publicist, Jellinek, has put it: "Obli gation through its own will is the legal char acteristic of the state." It is the state, it is to be observed, that is the possessor of sovereignty — its "subject," as continental writers express it — not the gov ernment. To the government is entrusted only the execution of the sovereign will of the state. The powers of each governmental organ and of each public official are obtained from the state and are limited and defined by its laws. Thus at any given time a citizen, though potentially subject in every matter of life, liberty and property to the will of his state, possesses a sphere of freedom, defined by exist ing laws, upon which those exercising political authority may not trespass. To quote the words of Professor Burgess: "The individual is defended in this sphere against the government by the power (the state) that makes and main tains and can destroy the government; and by that same power through the government, against encroachments from any other quarter. Against that power itself, however, he has no defense." Sovereignty is an attribute of a political body that has to be demonstrated as a matter of fact, and not as a matter of law. In other words, there is no proper distinction between de facto and de jure states, these terms being applicable only to governments. (See GOVERN MENT). If a given community of human beings, yielding a general obedience to an es tablished government, asserts and fairly demon strates that it is able to maintain a freedom from the control of any other political power, it becomes by that very fact a state, and is en titled to recognition by other states as such. It is, however, the actual fact of independence from foreign control and maintenance of domestic order that demonstrates the existence of the sovereignty of the state in question, and not its recognition as a state by the other powers. Thus, for example, the American colonies ceased to be dependencies and became states not by reason of their recognition as such by England and European nations, but because of their actual ability to maintain that freedom from Great Britain's control which they formally asserted in 1776. The sovereignty of a state thus bears a double aspect. Considered internally, that is, from the viewpoint of municipal law, it appears as legal omnipotence. Looked at from the viewpoint of its relations to other states it appears simply as independ ence. In the one case, it means the affirmative legal power of enforcing its will upon all those subject to its authority. In the other case, it signifies simply freedom from foreign control. From the domestic standpoint, it signifies supremacy. From the international standpoint, it means equality.