• DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-28053-6_1
• Corpus ID: 216207660

Introduction: Nomad-State Relationships in International Relations

@inproceedings{Levin2020IntroductionNR,
  title={Introduction: Nomad-State Relationships in International Relations},
  author={Jamie Levin and Joseph MacKay},
  year={2020}
}

• J. Levin, Joseph MacKay
• Published 2020
• Sociology

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.