Territorial Integrity and the State

Before asking whether or not a state has a priority to protect its territory or any other part of society, we must first define what the state actually is. Given the amount we have discussed the state's priorities, we haven't really defined the post-Westphalian state in all its glory. The nature of America itself as a state and the anti-nationalist backlash against ethnocentrism has drastically changed the early modern perception of the nation-state as a body of people of a similar race or religion into something entirely different. The state has turned into something where people share similar values and language more than anything else. Even in America, where the differences between parties are vast, there is a general unity under democratic principles, and a clear majority of people speak the same language (contrasted with, say, Belgium, where the divide is more ambiguous).

We often view the state in this philosophical sense, almost implying that if our territorial sovereignty were fully compromised these ideals would somehow live on. Yes, everyone in society will live on thinking of how special things were before we were invaded, so in that sense, they will. But from a purely pragmatic standpoint, these rights will not be institutionalized, and whatever hope that existed for a democratic future goes away with them. It is far easier to gain rights back from a totalitarian state that was previously a democracy than it is a foreign power that dismantles all pre-existing institutions, as nearly always happens after an invasion. Territorial sovereignty is the state priority if and only if democratic institutions exist that allow for sacrificed rights to be regained.

Using the US as a historical precedent, strong institutional basis will provide for the restoration of rights. Though often our state has fallen into a near-undemocratic state, such as during the War of 1812 (Alien and Sedition Acts), Civil War (Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus), and World War I & II's respective restrictions on immigrant rights, the nature of democracy and the flexibility of its political system return the system to the ante bellum status quo. These restrictions are by no means "just", and nine times out of ten they are unneccesary. But if the state is forced to restrict rights just one of those times to guarantee the survival of the state, it is justified. Therefore, times in which this actually occurs are few and far between. But categorically putting a concept above practical reality dooms the state to an inevitable demise, and along with it the values it holds to be true die. As a result, my actual "thesis" would be that so long as a state has strong democratic institutions, it can best protect its borders. This is clearly vital to the survival of the state, as even when it is in the state's best interest to restrict rights, there is always a form of recompensation following the restriction. In order for rights to exist, strong institutions must exist as well. At this point, border sovereignty becomes the key issue. However, if there are no democratic rights in the first place, the establishment of democratic institutions ought to be a nation's first priority.