دولت ـ ملت‌هاي مدرن و نسبت آن با منازعه

Modern Nation-States and the Conflict

از زماني كه تمامي پديده هاي اجتماعي و تعاملات سياسي بشر در قالب دولت ملت هاي جديد شكل گرفت و هويت‌هاي اجتماعي و فرهنگي نيز در اين چارچوب نوين تعريف گشت، در عين بيشترين تاكيد بر مفهوم صلح و ارزش و اهميت آن، خونين ترين و وسيع‏ترين جنگ هاي تاريخ در اين دوران و به دست دولت ملت هاي مدرن پديد آمده است. اين مقاله در جستجوي اين پرسش اساسي است كه آيا خشونت و منازعه عنصري ذاتي در بنيانِ نهادِ دولت ـ ملت مدرن بوده است؟ در راستاي پاسخ به اين پرسش در قالب يك پژوهش نظري، ابتدا تعاريف كلاسيك از مفهوم دولت ـ ملت مورد بررسي قرار مي گيرد؛ سپس زمينه ها و مباني تاريخي شكل گيري دولت ملت ها تدقيق مي شود و در نهايت ابعاد اساسي خشونت و منازعه نهاد دولت ـ ملت مدرن در انديشه‌ي پنج متفكر بزرگ اين عرصه (بدن، هابز، روسو، هگل و وبر) جستجو خواهد شد. نتايج اين پژوهش نشان مي دهد كه به‌رغم تفكرات و ارزش هاي فراگيري كه در مورد صلح وجود دارند و در دوران مدرن شناخته شده اند؛ دولت ملت به‌عنوان نهاد قدرت سياسي مدرن حاوي نوعي خشونت سازمان يافته است كه در شكل كلاسيك خود آن‌را بازتوليد مي كند. به‌عبارت ديگر خشونت هاي فراگير در تاريخ معاصر بشر به‌گونه اي در اين نهاد مدرن، ريشه دارد. از اين‌رو در جريان تحولات جهاني به‌نظر مي رسد، نهادينه شدن صلح تنها با تحول بنيادين دولت مدرن امكان تحقق خواهد يافت.

Purpose: Since the time that all social phenomena and political interactions of man formed in the framework of new nationstates and social and cultural identities defined in this new framework, notwithstanding much emphasis on the idea of peace and its value and significance, indeed the bloodiest and the most widespread wars of history takes place in this era and by modern nationstates. This paper seeks to answer this fundamental question that, has violence and conflict been an essential element of modern nationstate? Answering this question is important because if violence and conflict in international politics rooted in nature and foundation of modern nationstate then achieving stability and peace is possible only through changing the function of this institution or replacing it with alternative institutions.Design/Methodology/Approach: Method of this research is explanatory. In order to answering this question in the format of a theoretical research, at first classical definitions of concept of nationstate will be discussed then historical context and basis of formation of nationstate will be elucidated and in the end the fundamental dimensions of violence and conflict in modern nationstate will be discussed in the thought of five great thinkers in this field (Bodin, Hobbs, Rousseau, Hegel and Weber). This is a theoretical research that both attempts to survey classical theories in the field of studies on state and conflict and also historical studies on international relations. Also this research is based on a normative and critical approach regarding mainstream theories and those which defend status quo.Findings: This research concludes that despite of pervasive known ideas and values about peace in modern era, nationstate as a modern institution of political power contains a kind of organized violence which in its classical form reproduces it. In other words widespread violence in contemporary history of humanity somehow rooted in this modern institution. Monopoly in use of force, military power and exerting organized violence in the context of conceptualization of sovereignty alongside not recognizing an upper authority in international level and rejection of ethical commitments in modern culture of international relations as a general norm, made out breaking violent conflicts in the face of sharp conflicts and disagreements inevitable. Therefore it seems that in the course of global upheavals, establishing peace is possible only through fundamental change in the functions of modern state.Originality/Value: Hitherto peace studies have always paid particular attention to the category of state and sovereignty. But through combining theoretical and historical approaches this research presents a new attitude to this category. Also explicit results of this research is that maintaining present conditions of modern institution of nationstate made realization of peace impossible therefore conclusions of this research can be a new window in literature of peace studies specially in the context of Iranian peace studies.