Non State Violence Analysis

In the past several decades, non-state violence has been on the rise in Central America and Mexico. John Agnew describes the “breakdown of law and order in Mexico” (Agnew 2009, 4) due to the drug cartels. According to his observations, these criminal organizations control vast swaths of territory. He continues, “it is no exaggeration to say that in many places they are more powerful than the government itself” (Agnew 2009, 4). Not only do they control territory, but they also have legitimacy in the eyes of the public, with songs written describing their exploits. They also often out-gun the Mexican police and use violence when they see fit. Similarly, some scholars believe that the violence of organized crime in Central America has undermined

David Held argues that sovereignty has been critical to state formation and the consolidation of democracy (Held 1995, 36). He claims that there are four key features of the modern state: the rule of law, territorial boundaries, the means of coercion, and legitimacy, both internal and external (Held 1995, 49). These four features of the modern nation-state encompass many of the same conceptions of sovereignty more generally.
The rule of law was an important aspect of sovereignty for Held, and involved an impersonal and “supreme jurisdiction over a territory” (Held 1995, 36). He maintains that this is often the most fragile element of sovereignty in states where power is tied to religion or patronage.
One of the most famous conceptions of sovereignty comes from Carl Schmitt, who underscored the importance of the “supreme jurisdiction” for state authority. Writing during the Weimer republic in Germany in 1935, Schmitt defined the “sovereign is he who decides the exception” (Schmitt 2010, 5). A state of exception is a response to a crisis. This can be brought, for example, by a natural disaster, a public health emergency, or a war. A state of exception involves “the suspension of the entire existing order” and gives unlimited power to the sovereign (Schmitt 2010, 12). The state of exception calls for action that is outside the law. Because it is an exception, the normal laws written and decided

It is pretty good, so I’ll go ahead and continue with the tradition. Weber believed that a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory” (Weber 1946). There is an interesting distinction between Weber’s definition of the state and Schmitt’s concept of the sovereign. Schmitt defined sovereignty “not as the monopoly to coerce or rule, but as the monopoly to decide” (Schmitt 2010, 13). While Schmitt believed that sovereignty entailed not the use of coercion itself, but the right over the decision to use force, most scholars coercion as a key feature of sovereignty. Schmitt’s was unwilling to limit his definition to coercion, but clearly in a time of crisis the undivided decision to use force is paramount to