Generally, a nation is a human community identified within often fluctuating geographical limits during the history, and whose supposed common feature is the conscience of a membership of the same group.

The concept is rather close to that of Peuple, but often adds the idea of government (wished, autonomous or independent). The concept of nation is thus more political than that of people. Are thus a nation “the whole of the people born or naturalized in a country and alive under the same government”. “Of the whole of the citizens considered as component a social body distinct from the government is also said which governs them”. It is however sometimes used without any political connotation (existing or wished), in total synonymous with Peuple: one thus speaks about Indian nations, for example, or of holy Paul like “apostle of the nations”.

Definition

In the dictionaries

In the New universal dictionary of the synonyms of the French language of Guizot (François) - 1822, page 19, it is indicated “people is a multitude of men, alive in the same country and under the same laws. A nation is a multitude of men, having the same origin, alive in the same State and under the same laws”. Two notions thus differentiate for the author the nation of the people: the State and the origin.

For the the Petit Robert , a nation is “a human group constituting a political community, established on a definite territory (…) and personified by a sovereign authority”.

For the dictionary of the French language, the nation is a “Whole of people living on a common territory, conscious of its unit (historical, cultural, etc) and constituting a political entity”.

Policy

With the modern direction of the term, “Nation” has a significance with dominant policy. A nation is on the one hand a state (as in the expression “United Nations”), and on the other hand people having the political objectf to maintain or create a state. In this second significance, a nation is in practice people of which a part at least of the members has nationalist objectives .

It is noted that groups not profiting from an organization in state are defined however as a Nation, with the objective to constitute a State, or at least an autonomous political structure. The Jewish nationalists , Corsican, Basques, Scottish, Algerian or Québécois thus asserted a State for their population of reference, some ending up obtaining it.

To justify their will to obtain a specific state, the groups being defined as nation often tried to define this one by historical criteria preexistent in the political entity which they wished to create, and justifying it.

There exist two principal steps: an “objective” approach, defended for example by the philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte a nation must have objective characteristics: language, religion, culture, history, differentiating it from the other nations. Another approach, known as “subjective”, insists on the other hand on the will “to live together”, the nation being consequently the result a subjective act of autodéfinition. It is thus the vision of Ernest Renan.

For the approach based on the objective criteria, those are:

  • the Culture, although it always does not define in it only a national community when the Mœurs differ;
  • the Language, cannot always with it only define a nation: the Suisse recognizes four official languages, and, in France, the Alsace and the the Moselle, in spite of their source language Alémanique and Francique, are integrated into France, just as the Eastern Pyrenees whose common language was the Catalan. The the United States politically separated like State independent of the British metropolis in spite of their common language;
  • the Religion, Faith or Culte is insufficient because it is as frequent to see to be opposed nations claiming same religion as to see wars of religion in the same nation. One can also raise the case of the the Alsace-Moselle attached to a certificated mode, whereas France is a laic nation .
  • the Political history , Culture it and social installation also a difficulty insofar as majority of the nation in question organizing itself in political parties and/or large social organizations, cultural who identify it compared to others, composing the same State articulating them between them.

History of the nation

Before the French revolution

Before the French revolution, the term “nation” is primarily used in the current direction of Peuple, without developed political connotation.
One speaks thus about holy Paul like “apostle of the nations”. Nation indicates indeed in the Bible, the Peuple S Infidèle S and Idolâtre S, in opposition to the Chrétiens or with the Juifs.
In the old University of bets, the term was used to classify, according to their origin, the members who composed it. Four nations were distinguished: that of France, that of Picardy, that of Normandy and that of Germany. Current the palate of the Institute was called besides the “Collège of the Four-Nations”.

From the French revolution

With the French revolution, the term takes a dominant political connotation. The Nation then becomes the political expression of French people.

Following the revolution, nationalism will be spread through Europe, then throughout the world, as an ideology aiming at establishing specific states for specific people, which was generally private. The first active nationalisms in first half of the XIXe century were:

  • of nationalism aiming at gathering the same population burst under various capacities, defined then as “nation”, in only one state: Italian nationalism and German nationalism;
  • of nationalisms aiming to the independence of a population subjected to a capacity considered as outside to the nation: nationalism Polish or Belgian.

As from the XXe century, under the influence of the European ideas on the nation, and in reaction to colonialism, the colonized populations of the colonial empires organize themselves in nationalist movements, asserting the statute of nation for their people, and the political structures autonomous or independent.

After the end of the Decolonization, successes of the nationalists of the Tiers-monde encourage the development of the national idea in the western world. Political organizations and cultural promote a new wave of nationalism then, defining the population to which they belong like nation and claim independence. More or less influential, these nationalism (sometimes going back to the XIXe century, like the Nationalisme Basque, but which develops a new strength) touch areas profiting from a certain religious particularism, historical or linguistic. They are nationalisms Corsican, Québécois, Breton, occitan, Basque…

Nation, State and citizenship

With the modern direction of the term, “Nation” has a significance with dominating political. A nation is on the one hand a State (as in the expression “United Nations”), and on the other hand people having the political objective to maintain or create a State (or at least an autonomous political representation).

State and nation

The nation within the meaning of State has a relatively simple legal definition. The State is a legal person of international law which has the attribute of sovereignty: possibility of having an Armed , a Government, a Currency, of signing international treaties,…. These possibilities are not obligations, the French State for example having voluntarily given up a national currency for the benefit of the Euro. The State often has (but not always) a Constitution and a written corpus of legislative text.

The nation heard within the meaning of “people having political objectives” is less simple to define. A nation belongs indeed to the Oral tradition or written, of the feeling of membership, the agreement (or not) of the community on objectives politiques.
In this second meaning, a nation can take its roots in:

  • the common use of a Language: thus the Germans made party until recently of two States but form only one nation)
  • a historical feeling of identity : thus the Burgundian Netherlands then Spanish then Austrian, linked by Catholicism, they formed a desired nation, affirmed by the Belgian Révolution of 1830, distinct from the State (respectively Spanish, clean Austrian then, Belgium) and distinct from its Protestant and Flemish neighbor (the Netherlands). This national feeling, at the unit beginning, gradually evolved to two distinct feelings, Flemish Wallon and , based on the linguistic membership. This growing nationalism (especially of with dimensions Flemish), calls into question the old national feeling of membership, with the profit of new asserted “national” identities.
  • a Myth founder, which can be more or less artificially ressuscity. Thus, when it is a question of proclaiming their independence of the Austro-Hungarian empire, then in full deliquescence, the Czechs and the Slovak ones evoke their common past in the Grande Moravie and form the Czechoslovakia in 1918. Less than one century later, they took again separate ways
  • the religion very strong cement to perhaps articulate the national feeling

Citizenship and nationality

Nationality merges with the citizenship only in French (at least in France) where the use of the term “nationality” within the meaning of legal “national” is unsuitable and goes against the concept of international law (see the Droit section below for other legal aspects).

This linguistic confusion is made possible by the negation of the various nations which train French people. It starts with the French revolution which, in the famous formula of Stanislas of Clermont-Thunder, in 1789, request that one gives all with the Jews like individuals and nothing with the Jews as a Nation.

There exist various philosophical designs of the citizenship. One separates traditionally:

  • a “subjective” definition of the nation, which insists on the feeling of membership. This vision is particularly present in French design. Was this vision particularly formalized by Ernest Renan in its speech in the Sorbonne What a nation? , in 1882: “A nation is thus a great solidarity. It supposes a past; it is however summarized in the present by a tangible fact: the assent, the desire clearly expressed to continue the common life a plebiscite of the every day. Oh! I know, that is metaphysical to it than the divine right, less brutal than the historical alleged right. A nation forever a true interest to annex or retain a country in spite of him. The wish of the nations is, ultimately, the only legitimate critérium, that for which it is always necessary to return from there”. This vision mêne rather logically with the Right of the ground, or a person becomes easily member of a nation in the name of the place or it was born, or it saw and of which it shares the destiny.
  • a definition “objectifies” nation, which insite on a common ascent, a common territory and a common language. This vision is particularly present in German design. The citizenship is thus an objective reality independent of the will of the individuals. One of the oldest authors to have formalized this approach is Johann Gottlieb Fichte, in its Discours with the German nation , in 1807-1808. For Fichte, the Nation is determined in an objective way by the culture, the history and the language. Certain nations knew to preserve during the ages the original language their ancestors, they are the “nations-mêres”. The German people, supposed to have preserved his language since antiquity are thus one of these nations-mêres, in opposition to the nations of Latin languages, since those one forgotten the Latin ancient for the benefit of new derived languages. The German people must unify. Fichte is thus one of the first thinkers pangermanist. This vision mêne rather with a design of the nationality based on the " right of the sang" , or it is difficult to see impossible for an alien to become member of the national body. Recently, the " right of the sol" was introduced in Germany, in particular to allow a better integration of the descendants of immigrants.

Historically, in Europe, few States were organized completely on the " modèle" French, Politique lies, geographically and Institution nellement according to the ideal of State-nations . Accordingly, each nation must correspond in a State, and reciprocally a State is made up only of one nation, the whole in a precisely definite territory. That, for example, induced the shift in meaning of the term Nationalité, now designating in French the national of a State and either only the member of a nation as a cultural, religious or linguistic group. By abuse language, one sometimes spoke about nation to indicate the unit made up of a human group, a territory and a State, whatever in addition brittleness of this one, as one saw with the ex- Yugoslavia.

In the rest of the world, this model, in which the nation and the State coincide, was largely copied, but there remain examples of nations to horse on several States: for example the Kurdish nation , whose geographical surface extends on the territory from the Turkey, of the Iraq and the Syria. It is even a nation without State made up.

This identification between the State and the nation runs up in more on the example of several nations made up or asserted like the Alsaciens, the Basques, the Écossais, the Québécois, the Acadien S, the Bretons, the Flemish, the Wallons and the Catalans, where a possibly significant part of the population is regarded as component of the quite distinct nations, but which do not have independent States. The democratic evolution made that many of these nations, in the democratic countries in any case, obtained a great autonomy, even were made up in federate States. A criterion essential to retain is the will of the population. But how to make sure of the reality of this will? The studies undertaken in Belgium show that there is often amabivalence on the feelings of membership. One can inform oneself of these real ambivalences in Quebec, in Flanders, in Catalonia, in Scotland… by the research undertaken on the Sentiments of membership in Belgium and Wallonia. These nationalisms of dispute can lead only through the democratic debate, which makes at the same time their force and their brittleness because, on an essential subject, engaging for length and even very long run, it is, by definition, difficult in democracy to involve a broad conviction, result often obtained in more traditional nationalisms with the favor of situation of confrontations violent one (wars, revolutions).

The last definition - a nation which is defined by the existence of the political parties and of large social organizations and/or cultural clean (like scientific media, universities, organizations, etc) allows to explain almost the totality of the nations in Europe. It is seen indeed that the Basques, the Écossais, the Québécois, the Flemings and the Catalans vote for example in great majority for political parties which theirs are clean and which are not presented in other geographical areas of the country or they live, while the Swiss ones of all the languages vote for unit parties, i.e. one does not speak (or very little) about a French-speaking Switzerland nation, and, in agreement with this definition, there do not exist clean political parties in the French-speaking Switzerland.

Right

On the basis of the consideration which precedes, according to which “historically, in Europe, few nations on “the” French” model, the treatment of the legal question relating to the nation will follow here the logic of this model was organized completely, and thus also the chronology which saw this model being implemented in France; parallel developments with illustrations other than appropriate to the French right would be necessary.

In consideration of the French “model”, a confusion must initially be isolated: contrary to what is often believed in France, in Droit, the nation is a legal Nobody. The Moral person of public Droit international is l'" State ". In international law the number of nations of which a State can be made up is indifferent, or rather it is about a question purely Politique. One sees it well in the denomination of old the Société of the Nations which the United Nations succeeded: if the legal members of full exercise were and are the adherent States, these International organizations has as an aim the nations; the distinction of concept does not make of doubt for anybody, and UNO has by no means as an objective, neither official, nor semi-official, that the nations constitute each distinct State.

Among the European States, only some adopted during the history the " modèle" French policy of more or less forced superposition of people, nation, State, in any case in a way so pushed in the terms of their fundamental laws said if necessary constitutional laws.

Being France, the denomination of the moral person of public law is “the French State” - expression not to be confused with the juridically confusional use which was made by it at the period known as “Régime of Vichy” (see French State (Mode of Vichy)) -: when it is a question for example of condemning “France” to pour allowances, that it is in international law or internal rights for example with a private individual, it is the expression “the French State” which one finds in the jurisdictional decisions.

The République (for example) is the mode of government: always by taking France in illustration for the above mentioned historical reason, the " French Republic " is the mode of government of " the State français".

As for the " People " , in the organization of the capacities it is (in France) the concept which indicates in the name of what the Justice is returned (" In the name of the people français") ; the jurisdictional capacity is not exerted in the name of the State moral person, but directly in the name of the community in fact of the individuals who of it are amenable.

And as for the nation, it is with the constitutional direction in France the legal notion indicating in the name of what is exerted the Legislative power - from where the current denomination of the National Assembly, in the past House of Commons. Because according to the political prospect with the Frenchwoman, as an implementation with legal claim in particular by the current Constitution of the French Republic, the nation is a whole of citizens holding the political power.

But in France even, the direction of the word " nation" will be different in other legislations that constitutional: for example, within the meaning of the legislation relating to the " slandering raciale" , concept of slandering of " nation" strictly do not rest of anything on the direction but presents this term in the Constitution, and even enters in contradiction supplements with this one.

With the Canada, the Chambre of communes voted, on November 27th, 2006, with a crushing majority, in favor of a motion which recognizes that “the Québécois form a nation within linked Canada”, a step especially symbolic system but which constitutes a great step ahead for the consolidation of the feeling of the particular status of the French-speaking province. In English Canada, criticisms fused, much fearing that one does not give new weapons to the independence inhabitants of Quebec.

The nation, at Benedict Anderson

In its book the imaginary national: Reflections on the origin and the rise of nationalism , Benedict Anderson proposes that the State nation is something which is brought up to date to leave of a “durable illusion”, a “imagined community”. The author wonders initially: what returns possible that “of people can cross in rue, without never making knowledge, and being very of even related ones to the others” (37)? Answer: these people include themselves, the ones them others, in the same imagined form. This process of inclusion implies that they bind and the ones are related to the others by forces of coherence emotional. Which are these forces? Above all, they are ranges by the mechanisms of capitalism, of the clock, of printing works and the calendar. The mechanism which formats the State-nation, according to the author, would function about as follows: the clock and the calendar compose of the strategic reports/ratios between the emotional forces conveyed by printing works and capitalism. The clock and the calendar will make possible synchronization of the literary activities and commercial of a multitude of families and heterogeneous individuals. (Source)

The nation according to Lintel-Durocher-Robert

“It results from this that the nation can receive very diverse significances according to those which define it and the circumstances and the medium where this definition is worked out. To show that a group constitutes a nation, one calls upon the existence of one or more following factors: the group has a common history, it has a clean identity which distinguishes it from the close groups, it is concentrated on a territory, it has a common language, religion or traditions, etc

It is not necessary however that a company has all these characteristics to be seen allotting the title of nation. Each case is one of species. Certain sociologists go even until supporting that the only decisive criterion is subjective: there would be nation when the members of a company are convinced that they take part of the same national membership. One should not confuse the nation and the State, because they are two realities distinct, one concerning the sociological field, the other of the policy. It happens that groups have advantage to associate the two terms, either to dominate a weaker group, or to give more prestige to the State. If the nation is not imaginary, it is important to remember that nationalism is an ideology, therefore doctrines formulated by individuals and groups. This is why there are no a nationalism, but nationalisms which evolve/move with time. ” Lintel-Durocher-Robert, History of contemporary volume I , Boreal Quebec Compact, 1989.

Synonyms

The definitions of the terms tribe, Ethnos group and nation are largely recovered. The principal difference being their field of application; these terms being used to refer to people having nonEuropean lifestyles; the tribe term however which can indicate a social formation existing before the formation of a State. It seems that the Connotation S very different from these terms makes that they are seldom interchanged. The term of nation was however used to qualify the various people Amerindian S before the 20th century and nowadays in reference at that time. One can as consider as the term of nation applies has groups numerically more important than those indicated under the terms tribe or Ethnie. Does it have to be close to the Néologisme Méta-ethnos group ?

Quotations

the nation for some, undoubtedly, transitory or permanent association of material interests is especially, for us, a legal entity which was constituted through the centuries thanks to the work and with the solidarity of successive generations, bound by affinities of blood and the spirit, and in which, we do not hesitate to believe it, is allotted, on the providential level, a specific action in the whole of humanity. Only the weight of these sacrifices without number, of this co-operation of efforts, this identity of origin, only this collective inheritance, only this spiritual communion can morally found the duty to serve it and give our life for it. Oliveira Salazar - Discursos E Noted polticas

See too

Internal bonds

External bonds

  • the use of the word nation defined in a dictionary of the time of the French revolution digitized by BNF: '' National and anecdotic Dictionnaire '' (NUMM-48832), pages 130-132;
  • Another definition in a document of BNF: '' Political Dictionnaire: encyclopedia of the language and science policies '' (NUMM-24294), pages 623-626.
  • Dictionary of philosophy Jacqueline Russ - Clothilde Badal-Leguil
  • Internet site of the Nations without State (Eurominority): * What the nation? , of Valéry Rasplus
  • What a nation? , of Ernest Renan

Random links:Ouxpo | Solid mass of Vanoise | Web Junk 20 | Omali Yeshitela | 3rd regiment of light infantry