Is it possible that we are witnessing the death of the nation-state as we know it? Many would argue that such a question is unanswerable: there just isn't enough history between us and today's events to tell. But while experts and lay scholars may disagree about the possibility of the nation-state's disappearance, the fact remains that the 500-year-old working relationship between "the nation" and "the state" is certainly under a great deal of stress today all around the world, largely thanks to events stemming from the First World War.
People have short memories. Not so long ago, the idea that one nation could intervene in another's domestic affairs, regardless of motive, was unthinkable. In fact, a century ago, the greatest slaughter the world had yet seen only began for Canadians when Germany invaded Belgium, for that was the line that Britain had drawn on behalf of the Empire. It was a clear act of aggression, a truly combative move that was worthy of the declaration of war. The First World War was a gruesome and sad conflict, but it is arguable that by the terms of its resolution, the Treaty of Versailles, the concept of the nation-state began to slowly die.
President Woodrow Wilson and his fellow victors wanted this war to be the end of all wars. But redrawing the world map after such upheaval, and while the Russian Revolution still raged, proved impossible. To the victors went the spoils regardless of consequence. And so while many European countries that were created then still endure today, the former possessions and colonies of the time have often fallen to dictatorship and ethnic cleansing because of foreign interests as well as a lack of trust between its constitutive peoples. This has given rise to more "countries" than at any other time in world history, but their status as "nation-states" is questionable at best; clearly, the process of drawing borders around people first and asking questions later was an act of hubris that has cost many lives.
Nation-states are not accidents; for one to come into being requires a conscious choice by the people therein to set aside sectarian, ethnic, and linguistic differences in order to obtain a measure of control over their geographic area. Thus, many peoples become one nation, while the control they exercise over themselves and their lands manifest as one state. For a nation-state to endure, there are three interlocking requirements: its sovereignty must be recognized and protected, its laws must be based on legislation not religion, and the citizens must be guaranteed both a public and private sphere.
With the definition above, I believe it is fair to say that all three of these requirements have been offended within the last hundred years at all corners of the globe, giving rise to the question "is the nation state dying, or in fact, already dead?" As Russia lumbers into Ukraine, as ISIS founds a caliphate by the blood of unbelievers, and as Western powers pry open the private lives of their own citizens, the worst possible answer would appear to be staring us in the face.
But there is still hope, of course. And as the greatest benefactors of the nation-state, we in the West have an even more acute responsibility than most to make sure that the agreement between nation and state both within and without is honored anew. Unhindered surveillance, religious extremism, and nationalist aggression cannot be tolerated, as these always result in tyranny, often for generations.
So tell your government to back off, pray for religious moderation, and be prepared to fight on behalf of our allies who are threatened. For the hope of every person is a chance at "self-determination," and we have a duty to not let that hope be held in vain.
