Thomas Hobbes: The Modern State

The modern state
Christopher Pierson focuses on a normative illustration of the modern state – how it should be. The following discussion tries to summarize the essence of three features.

(Monopoly) control of the means of violence
Thomas Hobbes came up with his idea of the ‘Common Power’ – the Great Leviathan – owning all the means of violence and ruling over the people. Engels talks about power as ‘arisen out of society but placing itself above it’, meaning that the people give all their power to a higher institution and accepting its rule over them. Weber, in his attempt to define the state, mentions ‘monopoly…of physical force’ claimed by a human community. (Pierson, 2011, p. 7)
They all developed an idea of what we today see as a characteristic

As such entities they ‘occupy an increasingly clearly defined physical space’ and ‘claim sole legitimate authority’. He states, that this feature of statehood is widely recognized by writers such as Hobbes, Engels, Weber, Mann and Giddens. (Pierson, 2011, p. 9)
As he further illustrates, clearly defined borders are a rather new development that distinguishes the modern state from e.g. pre-modern empires. The latter, while being mostly extensive, had often vague physical limits(frontiers) and ‘rule was concentrated to the center of the empire’, meaning that outlaying territory was more independent in terms of governance and administration. In contrast the modern state is eager to protect its ‘territorial integrity’- keeping its complete territory under its jurisdiction - if necessary with war. (Pierson, 2011, p. 10)

States … lay claim not just to jurisdiction over a particular tract of land, but also … to the coastal waters that surround it …, to the airspace above it and, most importantly, to the people who inhabit it.
(Pierson, 2011, p.

The latter is not only limited to the question of borders but contains in general all relations between governments and inter-governmental institutions like the UN. The discipline of international relations is dealing with this more recently developing external aspect of sovereignty. (Pierson, 2011, pp. 134-135)
To come back to the internal aspects: Hinsley describes sovereignty as a unique, ‘final and absolute authority’, but in addition Pierson notes, that the sovereign may not do whatever it wants. He supports his argument with Hobbes’ view, who also sees ‘limitations upon the lawful authority of the Sovereign’ and Hobbes further sees the protection of the subject as a requirement for the sovereign’s qualification. (Pierson, 2011, pp. 11-12;