NATURE AND
ORIGIN OF THE
STATE
The nature of any object of knowledge consists in the scientific attempt to
locate it in the genus of objects to which it belongs, that is, to find out its
essence. The State is an extremely complex object This phenomenon has
numerous elements that compose it or that are closely linked to it, either
because they are indispensable for the State to be born and for it to function.
Normally, I could not imagine a state without a human group, without a
government, without a territorial base, without a set of rules about its
organization and functioning. Sociological theories, ethical-political theories
and legal theories: Among the sociological doctrines we find that of Jorge
SIMMEL (theory of reciprocal action), that of Marx and Angers (class struggle),
among others. Within the ethical-political theories, he examined Rousseau,
Kant, Hegel, the English idealists, etc. In the group of legal theories on the
State, he examined especially the works of Jellinek and Kelsen. Realist
theories and idealist theories: There are 2 large groups of theories: those that
consider the State as an objective phenomenon whose reality can be
apprehended (realist theories), and on the other hand, those that consider it
something like a mental construction, without reality outside the mind of the
subject who thinks it (idealist theories). Theories of force, contract and
organism: Theories of force conceive of the State as the product of a
"confrontation" of peoples, races, classes, etc. Theories of the contract
conceive it as the result of a pact or an agreement between individuals. These
are called contractualist theories (Rousseau, Locke). Theories of the organism
conceive of the State as something like a living being, a whole, which exists
1
,regardless of whether its formation has been "wanted" or "proposed" by the
individuals or groups that make it up. Monist and pluralist theories: Monist
theories, according to which the different ties to which individuals are linked
form groups or groupings (family, political parties, religious associations, etc.)
that can be graphically represented by "circles", which are all included within
a larger circle, which corresponds to the State. The link between the
individual and the State is the most intense and complex, which is why the
circle that represents him is the largest and the others are inserted within him,
in a concentric way. In pluralist theory, the various circles to which individuals
belong are not necessarily concentric. The state circle does not necessarily
include others. Man belongs to a family, integrates a cultural, religious,
political entity, etc., that is, he is linked to various ties; also to the State. It is
possible that the state link is often more intense and at the same time more
complex. Hence, the circle that represents the State is generally the largest,
but without necessarily enclosing the others. When an individual is presented
with the alternative of obeying a decision of the State in contradiction with a
decision of one of the other circles to which he belongs, it is possible that the
greater power of the State will force him to conform to the former. Objective,
subjective theories and legal theories: Theories that consider the State
objectively, consider it as an external being and completely detached from
the internal element of man's life. There is a classification of the State: The
conception of the State "as a fact" (for example, for DUGUIT the fact of the
differentiation between rulers and ruled). And on the other hand, the thesis of
the State "as a situation", that is, a peculiar way of relating to individuals; then
the theory of "identification of the State" with one of its elements (people, or
power or Government) and lastly, the conception of the State as a "natural
organism" that conceives it as a living being, governed by natural laws and
with an existence independent of that of the individuals who form it. On the
other hand, subjective theories consider the State as a psychic, or moral, or
spiritual organism and, moreover, conceive it as a collective unit or unity of
association.
Within legal theories, we find Jellinek who believes that there are only 3
possible ways of legally conceiving the State: as an object of law, as a legal
relationship, or as a subject of Law. These possibilities correspond to 3
respective doctrinal currents. Jellinek rejects the first, since, if the State were
the object of Law, it would have to be admitted that the rulers constitute the
respective "subject", and this would only be congruent if we admit that the
rulers receive their command from the divinity, or from a legal order superior
to that dictated by the State. If the whole people are taken as a subject, the
incongruity of the members of the people being at the same time subjects
2
,and objects of law would not be overcome either. It also dismisses the thesis
of the State as a "legal relationship" because it does not suppose an
acceptable explanation of who is the producer of the legal norms that create
and regulate such a relationship. The definitive one is affiliated with the thesis
that the State is "a subject of law", affirming: "it is as licit for us scientifically to
conceive of the State as a subject of law, as it is to attribute to man this same
character, only through this doctrine, is it possible for us to understand
juridically the unity of the State, that of its organization and the will that it
engenders".
The State as an "organism" Organicist theories: The basic idea is to conceive
of the State as an organism, that is, the idea of "a being" or "a whole" or a
"universality" that transcends the set of parts that compose it. It can be
understood that the parts that make up the State are the individuals who form
or integrate it; if the State is an "organism", this means that it has real
existence as "a body" as a "being" independently of the individuals who
compose it. In the "organicist" position, the State has the character of a real
"whole", which can be conceived with its own will, with its own ends, with its
own birth, evolution and even its "death"; all of which can occur regardless of
the ends and the life and death of the individuals who compose it. Varieties of
"organicism": Organicist currents can be divided into two groups: 1) they
conceive of the State as a "biological organism"
NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE STATE
The nature of any object of knowledge consists in the scientific attempt to
place it in the genus of objects to which it belongs, that is, to find out its
essence. The State is an extremely complex object This phenomenon has
numerous elements that compose it or that are closely linked to it, either
because they are indispensable for the State to be born and for it to be able
to function. Normally, I could not imagine a state without a human group,
without a government, without a territorial base, without a set of rules about
its organization and functioning. Sociological theories, ethical-political
theories and legal theories: Among the sociological doctrines we find that of
Jorge SIMMEL (theory of reciprocal action), that of Marx and Angers (class
struggle), among others. Within the ethical-political theories, he examined
Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, the English idealists, etc. In the group of legal theories
on the State, he examined especially the works of Jellinek and Kelsen. Realist
theories and idealist theories: There are two large groups of theories: those
that consider the State as an objective phenomenon whose reality can be
apprehended (realist theories), and, on the other hand, those that consider it
something like a mental construction, without reality outside the mind of the
3
, subject who thinks it (idealist theories). Theories of force, contract and
organism: Theories of force conceive of the State as the product of a
"confrontation" of peoples, races, classes, etc. Theories of the contract
conceive it as the result of a pact or an agreement between individuals. These
are called contractualist theories (Rousseau, Locke). Theories of the organism
conceive of the State as something like a living being, a whole, which exists
regardless of whether its formation has been "wanted" or "proposed" by the
individuals or groups that make it up. Monist and pluralist theories: Monistic
theories, according to which the different ties to which individuals are linked
form groups or groupings (family, political parties, religious associations, etc.)
that can be graphically represented by "circles", which are all included within
a larger circle, which corresponds to the State. The link between the
individual and the State is the most intense and complex, which is why the
circle that represents him is the largest and the others are inserted within it, in
a concentric way. In pluralist theory, the various circles to which individuals
belong are not necessarily concentric. The state circle does not necessarily
include others. Man belongs to a family, integrates a cultural, religious,
political entity, etc., that is, he is linked to various ties; also to the State. It is
possible that the state link is often more intense and at the same time more
complex. Hence, the circle that represents the State is generally the largest,
but without necessarily enclosing the others. When an individual is presented
with the alternative of obeying a decision of the State in contradiction with a
decision of one of the other circles to which he belongs, it is possible that the
greater power of the State will force him to conform to the former. Objective,
subjective theories and legal theories: Theories that consider the State
objectively, consider it as an external being and completely detached from
the internal element of man's life. There is a classification of the State: The
conception of the State "as a fact" (for example, for DUGUIT the fact of the
differentiation between rulers and ruled). And on the other hand, the thesis of
the State "as a situation", that is, a peculiar way of relating to individuals; then
the theory of "identification of the State" with one of its elements (people, or
power or Government) and lastly, the conception of the State as a "natural
organism" that conceives it as a living being, governed by natural laws and
with an existence independent of that of the individuals who form it. On the
other hand, subjective theories consider the State as a psychic, or moral, or
spiritual organism and, moreover, conceive it as a collective unit or unity of
association. Within legal theories, we find Jellinek who believes that there are
only 3 possible ways of legally conceiving the State: as an object of law, as a
legal relationship, or as a subject of Law. These possibilities correspond to 3
respective doctrinal currents. Jellinek rejects the first, since, if the State were
the object of Law, it would have to be admitted that the rulers constitute the
4
ORIGIN OF THE
STATE
The nature of any object of knowledge consists in the scientific attempt to
locate it in the genus of objects to which it belongs, that is, to find out its
essence. The State is an extremely complex object This phenomenon has
numerous elements that compose it or that are closely linked to it, either
because they are indispensable for the State to be born and for it to function.
Normally, I could not imagine a state without a human group, without a
government, without a territorial base, without a set of rules about its
organization and functioning. Sociological theories, ethical-political theories
and legal theories: Among the sociological doctrines we find that of Jorge
SIMMEL (theory of reciprocal action), that of Marx and Angers (class struggle),
among others. Within the ethical-political theories, he examined Rousseau,
Kant, Hegel, the English idealists, etc. In the group of legal theories on the
State, he examined especially the works of Jellinek and Kelsen. Realist
theories and idealist theories: There are 2 large groups of theories: those that
consider the State as an objective phenomenon whose reality can be
apprehended (realist theories), and on the other hand, those that consider it
something like a mental construction, without reality outside the mind of the
subject who thinks it (idealist theories). Theories of force, contract and
organism: Theories of force conceive of the State as the product of a
"confrontation" of peoples, races, classes, etc. Theories of the contract
conceive it as the result of a pact or an agreement between individuals. These
are called contractualist theories (Rousseau, Locke). Theories of the organism
conceive of the State as something like a living being, a whole, which exists
1
,regardless of whether its formation has been "wanted" or "proposed" by the
individuals or groups that make it up. Monist and pluralist theories: Monist
theories, according to which the different ties to which individuals are linked
form groups or groupings (family, political parties, religious associations, etc.)
that can be graphically represented by "circles", which are all included within
a larger circle, which corresponds to the State. The link between the
individual and the State is the most intense and complex, which is why the
circle that represents him is the largest and the others are inserted within him,
in a concentric way. In pluralist theory, the various circles to which individuals
belong are not necessarily concentric. The state circle does not necessarily
include others. Man belongs to a family, integrates a cultural, religious,
political entity, etc., that is, he is linked to various ties; also to the State. It is
possible that the state link is often more intense and at the same time more
complex. Hence, the circle that represents the State is generally the largest,
but without necessarily enclosing the others. When an individual is presented
with the alternative of obeying a decision of the State in contradiction with a
decision of one of the other circles to which he belongs, it is possible that the
greater power of the State will force him to conform to the former. Objective,
subjective theories and legal theories: Theories that consider the State
objectively, consider it as an external being and completely detached from
the internal element of man's life. There is a classification of the State: The
conception of the State "as a fact" (for example, for DUGUIT the fact of the
differentiation between rulers and ruled). And on the other hand, the thesis of
the State "as a situation", that is, a peculiar way of relating to individuals; then
the theory of "identification of the State" with one of its elements (people, or
power or Government) and lastly, the conception of the State as a "natural
organism" that conceives it as a living being, governed by natural laws and
with an existence independent of that of the individuals who form it. On the
other hand, subjective theories consider the State as a psychic, or moral, or
spiritual organism and, moreover, conceive it as a collective unit or unity of
association.
Within legal theories, we find Jellinek who believes that there are only 3
possible ways of legally conceiving the State: as an object of law, as a legal
relationship, or as a subject of Law. These possibilities correspond to 3
respective doctrinal currents. Jellinek rejects the first, since, if the State were
the object of Law, it would have to be admitted that the rulers constitute the
respective "subject", and this would only be congruent if we admit that the
rulers receive their command from the divinity, or from a legal order superior
to that dictated by the State. If the whole people are taken as a subject, the
incongruity of the members of the people being at the same time subjects
2
,and objects of law would not be overcome either. It also dismisses the thesis
of the State as a "legal relationship" because it does not suppose an
acceptable explanation of who is the producer of the legal norms that create
and regulate such a relationship. The definitive one is affiliated with the thesis
that the State is "a subject of law", affirming: "it is as licit for us scientifically to
conceive of the State as a subject of law, as it is to attribute to man this same
character, only through this doctrine, is it possible for us to understand
juridically the unity of the State, that of its organization and the will that it
engenders".
The State as an "organism" Organicist theories: The basic idea is to conceive
of the State as an organism, that is, the idea of "a being" or "a whole" or a
"universality" that transcends the set of parts that compose it. It can be
understood that the parts that make up the State are the individuals who form
or integrate it; if the State is an "organism", this means that it has real
existence as "a body" as a "being" independently of the individuals who
compose it. In the "organicist" position, the State has the character of a real
"whole", which can be conceived with its own will, with its own ends, with its
own birth, evolution and even its "death"; all of which can occur regardless of
the ends and the life and death of the individuals who compose it. Varieties of
"organicism": Organicist currents can be divided into two groups: 1) they
conceive of the State as a "biological organism"
NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE STATE
The nature of any object of knowledge consists in the scientific attempt to
place it in the genus of objects to which it belongs, that is, to find out its
essence. The State is an extremely complex object This phenomenon has
numerous elements that compose it or that are closely linked to it, either
because they are indispensable for the State to be born and for it to be able
to function. Normally, I could not imagine a state without a human group,
without a government, without a territorial base, without a set of rules about
its organization and functioning. Sociological theories, ethical-political
theories and legal theories: Among the sociological doctrines we find that of
Jorge SIMMEL (theory of reciprocal action), that of Marx and Angers (class
struggle), among others. Within the ethical-political theories, he examined
Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, the English idealists, etc. In the group of legal theories
on the State, he examined especially the works of Jellinek and Kelsen. Realist
theories and idealist theories: There are two large groups of theories: those
that consider the State as an objective phenomenon whose reality can be
apprehended (realist theories), and, on the other hand, those that consider it
something like a mental construction, without reality outside the mind of the
3
, subject who thinks it (idealist theories). Theories of force, contract and
organism: Theories of force conceive of the State as the product of a
"confrontation" of peoples, races, classes, etc. Theories of the contract
conceive it as the result of a pact or an agreement between individuals. These
are called contractualist theories (Rousseau, Locke). Theories of the organism
conceive of the State as something like a living being, a whole, which exists
regardless of whether its formation has been "wanted" or "proposed" by the
individuals or groups that make it up. Monist and pluralist theories: Monistic
theories, according to which the different ties to which individuals are linked
form groups or groupings (family, political parties, religious associations, etc.)
that can be graphically represented by "circles", which are all included within
a larger circle, which corresponds to the State. The link between the
individual and the State is the most intense and complex, which is why the
circle that represents him is the largest and the others are inserted within it, in
a concentric way. In pluralist theory, the various circles to which individuals
belong are not necessarily concentric. The state circle does not necessarily
include others. Man belongs to a family, integrates a cultural, religious,
political entity, etc., that is, he is linked to various ties; also to the State. It is
possible that the state link is often more intense and at the same time more
complex. Hence, the circle that represents the State is generally the largest,
but without necessarily enclosing the others. When an individual is presented
with the alternative of obeying a decision of the State in contradiction with a
decision of one of the other circles to which he belongs, it is possible that the
greater power of the State will force him to conform to the former. Objective,
subjective theories and legal theories: Theories that consider the State
objectively, consider it as an external being and completely detached from
the internal element of man's life. There is a classification of the State: The
conception of the State "as a fact" (for example, for DUGUIT the fact of the
differentiation between rulers and ruled). And on the other hand, the thesis of
the State "as a situation", that is, a peculiar way of relating to individuals; then
the theory of "identification of the State" with one of its elements (people, or
power or Government) and lastly, the conception of the State as a "natural
organism" that conceives it as a living being, governed by natural laws and
with an existence independent of that of the individuals who form it. On the
other hand, subjective theories consider the State as a psychic, or moral, or
spiritual organism and, moreover, conceive it as a collective unit or unity of
association. Within legal theories, we find Jellinek who believes that there are
only 3 possible ways of legally conceiving the State: as an object of law, as a
legal relationship, or as a subject of Law. These possibilities correspond to 3
respective doctrinal currents. Jellinek rejects the first, since, if the State were
the object of Law, it would have to be admitted that the rulers constitute the
4
